The struggle for spheres of influence, the redistribution of political space and the forcible establishment of “truth” – this is what dominates international negotiations. These rules have become even more entrenched with the coming to power of President Trump. And Ukraine, as a country resisting one of the most aggressive armies of the 21st century, has found itself not only in the center of an armed conflict, but also in the very core of a geopolitical clash. The question of peace today is not about hopes, but about ultimatums. And the further it goes, the more it looks like political poker, where everything is at stake.
Positions of the parties
The Ukrainian position is clear: no direct negotiations until there is an unconditional ceasefire. A conditional “Minsk-3” is possible only when Russia stops its aggression – without prior compromises, without cunning wrappers. Otherwise, it is not peace, but another trap. Ukrainian fatigue and exhaustion are compensated by the clarity of the goal: freedom and the right to exist.
Russian position: The Kremlin, on the contrary, is playing according to the patterns of “Istanbul-2” – the surrender of Ukraine, recognition of occupations, denazification, demilitarization – and only then the possibility of dialogue. But this is not diplomacy, it is blackmail. Putin’s conditions are not peace, but a prerequisite for the next stage of the war.
US position: Now Washington is clearly stating that Russia must accept the Ukrainian conditions or receive another wave of sanctions. If not, the door to negotiations is closed. But that’s for now. The US is gradually withdraw and will hand over the issue of peace to China and Turkey (which is backed by Great Britain). This is exactly the scenario outlined by politicians from Europe – Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski and German Chancellor Merz. And this is alarming.
China’s position: The latest signals from Beijing further confirm the hypothesis that Xi Jinping is betting on Moscow. At the May 9 parade in Moscow, the Chinese leader announced the concept of “global security”, which in fact legitimizes the approach to “taking into account the legitimate security interests of all countries” – including Russia, of course. This is a red light for those who hoped that Beijing would maintain at least conditional neutrality.
Europe’s position: The allies support Ukraine, and it is already clear that the weapons stocks and funds in the Ukrainian budget for the war will definitely be enough until the end of 2025. Then there is the question of political will and the extension of aid to 2026. Baltic politicians have repeatedly stated that they need time to rearm. Ukraine is like a shield behind which the West is preparing. Do Ukrainians like this? Obviously not. But the truth is that we have no choice. Either we survive or Russia will destroy us. That’s why we and Europe are definitely in the same boat.
A temporary ceasefire is not peace
Is a short-term truce possible? Theoretically, yes. Maybe even a week or a month of silence. But in the absence of a real breakthrough, it will only be a “pre-holiday break.” Peace is something deeper, more fundamental. And there is currently no reason to believe that the parties have come close to this.
Moreover, as Russian military insiders write, the online summons service inside Russia will soon be launched again. This is an eloquent signal. The Kremlin is not going to stop, on the contrary, it is preparing for new waves of mobilization.
And what next?
Russia has invested too much in its military machine to simply stop. If the fighting in Ukraine is truly “frozen,” Moscow will look for a new front. Putin will not allow a million of his “SVO heroes” to return home – he will either “wipe” them out on the front to the last one, or transfer them to a new hot spot. And if you look at the map – the most likely option seems to be provocations towards the Baltics, Poland and Finland. Well, obviously the target will be the Suwałki Corridor. The option with the Middle East is also possible, but Europe is the priority target.
Conclusion
We are not approaching peace, but a new period of global confrontation, in which Ukraine plays the role not only of a victim, but also of a barrier between the dictatorship and the rest of the free world.
Our struggle is no longer just a war for territory, it is a war for principle: is it possible to change borders and rules by force in the 21st century? And no matter how much we would like to hear words about “de-escalation” and “peaceful settlement”, it seems that it is still very early. This is a zero-sum equation: either Ukraine will remain or…
Volodymyr Savchenko, CEO of “The Ukrainian Review”
