Peace Through Strength And That's It

Let’s remember how the West reacted after the first attack on Ukraine in 2014. Minsk Agreements were made that forced Ukraine to negotiate, abandon parts of its territory and legitimize the occupation without any security guarantees or additional measures that would increase readiness in case of future attacks.

Putin broke the agreements immediately and continued violations until the full-scale attack in 2022. The OSCE mission that was supposed to monitor the ceasefire was thrown out of Russia, and could only document what was happening on the Ukrainian side. So in effect, as is usually the case – the victims were required to be more accountable than the aggressor.

This meant that every bullet Ukraine fired back was carefully monitored and documented by international organizations, while Russia was free to build up its capabilities and kill constantly without any repercussions. Additionally, if implemented fully, the Minsk Agreements would have paralysed the Ukrainian state by giving a veto to the eastern regions.

Immediately after the Minsk agreements were signed, the discussion on normalization of relations with Russia began. The sanctions that were imposed after the 2014 attack were very limited in their scope but there were attempts to remove even those. International conglomerates started to pop up in occupied Crimea.

Russia was shooting and killing almost every single day during this “negotiated peace” until 2022. I had the chance to visit Ukraine in 2017 right at the contact line. We were supposed to meet the troops at a checkpoint to discuss Ukrainian defence operations, but the location had to be changed because a soldier was killed at that spot by sniper fire. The Minsk Agreements are the perfect example of the injustice of a settlement where the victim is penalised and left at the mercy of the aggressor. 

Another point in time worth remembering is the famous red lines which President Obama drew in Syria, warning against the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population. We know very well how that story went. The red lines were crossed immediately and no US answer came. That was a major blow to US credibility and surely added to the calculations a dictator like Putin would be making. 

That brings us to now. Putin's goals have not changed – total control (military or political) of Ukraine and its future, control asserted in the wider region, dismantling of the rules-based world order and strengthening of an axis of chaos that better suits his needs.

By the autumn of 2022 Putin's calculations might have been amended when his army was in retreat, but he got back on track with his successful nuclear blackmail, limiting western support of Ukraine to minimal survival, preventing victory. Currently his position is very favorable, he can see the clear weakness of the West, the exhaustion of Ukraine, assistance to Russia from its closest allies - Iran, China, and North Korea. All this allows him to continue advancing the front line and to stick to his declared goals. 

Minskish agreements would obviously suit him best – Ukraine out of any security arrangement, left to fend off the attacks alone with no major military support on its way. Russia would use this time to rebuild and technologically improve its military with Chinese industrial support. It would immediately break any ceasefires and show the weakness of the West’s imposed truces. Russia would of course blame Ukraine for breaking the ceasefire and activate agents in the West to start sowing doubt and spreading polarising narratives.

There would be a push to limit sanctions, and since the EU sanctions are renewed every six months, it would only take one Hungarian veto and the EU would be unable to renew them. Normalization would be back on the table. The international observers from the toothless OSCE would be back on Ukrainian-held territory, again closely monitoring what Ukraine is doing. Russia would never agree to be monitored, and it is known that they have even obtained information from the OSCE mission about where Ukrainian forces are placed, how well equipped they are, and so on. 

In December 2021 Lavrov laid out Russia’s requests to the West. Among them was the request to shrink NATO back to its 1997 borders. It is entirely plausible that this would be on the table if negotiations were to take place with Ukraine in its current weakened state. This means that Ukraine’s fight is for the rest of Europe too. This is not just a political catchphrase, it is a reality. And it is not too difficult to imagine, for example, that the Baltic states would be asked to stay silent if the West would give in to Russia's request to remove troops from those three countries. It is telling that the NATO - Russia Founding Act has not been repealed, the largest allies refusing to do that.

And the argument would be very simple – it's a “small price” to pay for "peace for our time". And that would constitute another major win for Putin. Two-tier NATO, with its most vulnerable allies being the least protected. In effect, Putin would be given a say on how NATO territory should be defended. 

In the short-term politics of the West, there will be those suggesting that this Munich-type agreement is the deal of the century. Maybe someone will be awarded a Nobel peace prize for it. 

But Ukrainian goals in this war also remain unchanged. It is a very simple goal – to have a safe country where one can safely raise children, do business or just simply go to work. A country to which refugees could return and in which foreign investors would feel safe investing. And no Minsk agreement can guarantee Ukraine that. 

So it is our duty and obligation to call things by their real names. 

First of all – This is no peace agreement because there will be no real peace between Russia and Ukraine. Russia will continue building up, continuing to attack its neighbours. And most dangerously there is a huge chance that many in the West will become complacent again. Fake peace will allow them to drop any pretences of preparing for a future standoff with Russia. This is a betrayal of Ukraine, it is a betrayal of the Eastern flank and others close to Russia, and most of all it is a betrayal of long term European security. 

Second – Ukraine can win. This has been shown by their beating Russians away from Kyiv, taking back Kharkiv and Kherson. If the West would have shrugged off the nuclear blackmail and supported Ukraine at the necessary level, Ukraine would be in a very different position right now. And Russia would actually be willing to negotiate because of losses on the battlefield and the impenetrability of Ukrainian territory. 

Third – Our assistance and military stance affect Putin's calculations. A major increase in assistance to Ukraine, a promise of 100 billion Euros every year until 2030 would be reflected in Putin’s calculations. Remember the Star Wars programme in the eighties? Our stance forced the Soviet Union to overspend, hastening their bankruptcy. If at least part of the assistance is spent in Ukraine, that would allow Ukraine to rebuild its economy and military more quickly. 

Fourth – Russia's economy is heavily strained. Reducing pressure now will prove to Putin that the West doesn't have staying power. More, not less, pressure is now needed. 

Fifth – The Eastern Flank must be reinforced more, not less. The German brigade in Lithuania has to become a part of a “new normal” NATO framework that must be fully expanded into other Eastern Flank countries. Russia’s shadow war must also be fought and won, with clearly enforced red lines and with NATO having the capability to offer a response of its own choice and at its own chosen time.

Sixth - Front line countries fighting off Russia’s malign influence must be assisted. Russia is overextended, the Syrian example clearly showed us. We must act now.

Those saying that my suggestions do not reflect reality are simply agreeing to Putin's version of reality, a reality that was constructed by force and intimidation. In 1938 Hitler also offered his version of reality to Europe and, indeed, there were those who were ready to accept it, to live under the nazi boot. But, thankfully, there were those who defied, fought, and in the end won. This allowed us to say never again will this happen in Europe or anywhere else. But alas, it is happening, and the "realists" don't have a workable solution.

And so, dear reader, we have to be the ones rejecting Putins' reality, pushing back against it, never allowing complacency to set in.

For us, never again means never again. 

If there were people trying to formulate a new Russia strategy, and they asked us about our vision for Ukraine and what our stand towards Russia should be… we would have this answer:

Peace through strength and that’s it.