By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following recent Russian attacks on Ukraine, EU High Representative Josep Borrell asserts that Vladimir Putin shows no willingness to negotiate peace, instead opting for escalation to achieve his long-standing goals of conquering and subjugating Ukraine. Borrell highlights that Putin’s initial expectation of a swift victory has been disproven by the ongoing conflict, now spanning over 4,000 days since the initial 2014 aggression. He criticizes the EU’s initially insufficient response and warns against further inaction, emphasizing that a lack of response only encourages further Russian escalation. Despite this, the EU has fulfilled its pledge of delivering one million artillery shells to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Putin’s unwillingness to negotiate after what amounts to 4,000 days of conflict against Ukraine is a stark reality, highlighting a deeply entrenched strategy of escalation rather than diplomacy. This protracted conflict, which began with the initial invasion in 2014, demonstrates a pattern of aggression that suggests a commitment to achieving his objectives through force, regardless of the cost. His initial expectation of a swift victory in Kyiv, within mere weeks, has clearly been shattered, yet this has only seemingly fueled a determination to continue the fight, focusing on seizing and subduing Ukraine.
This extended timeframe, spanning well over a decade of aggression, underscores the depth of Putin’s commitment to his expansionist goals. The failure of his early plan has not led to a reassessment of his strategy but instead, to a prolonged and brutal war. The ongoing conflict in Donbas, itself a testament to this enduring strategy, showcases the entrenched nature of the conflict and the lack of any apparent desire for peaceful resolution.
The international community, notably the EU, bears some responsibility for this prolonged conflict. A more decisive and forceful response earlier in the conflict might have deterred Putin’s initial escalation, but the delayed and insufficient actions have, in effect, emboldened him and allowed for the war to continue and escalate. Each missed opportunity to impose significant consequences for Russian aggression has only served to create an environment in which further escalation is more likely.
The current situation finds Putin in a precarious position. He is heavily reliant on foreign military support, demonstrating a weakness rather than strength. Despite the assistance from countries like North Korea and Iran, his military capabilities remain demonstrably compromised. Repeated attempts to display military prowess have consistently backfired. His position is further weakened by the absence of significant offensive capabilities. His reliance on external support, especially considering his precarious relationships with neighbors like China and India, suggests a dependence that undermines his negotiating leverage.
The very idea of negotiation appears utterly foreign to Putin’s current mindset. He continues to aggressively pursue his goals, even to the point of jeopardizing the stability of his own regime. The influx of foreign troops, particularly from North Korea, signifies not a show of strength, but rather a desperate attempt to shore up a failing military campaign. The potential consequences of failure for Putin are immense. This, rather than the possibility of peace, should be the focal point of the international community’s efforts to understand his behavior.
Even if Putin were to hypothetically declare the cessation of hostilities, the depth of mistrust and the pervasive atmosphere of conflict significantly hinder any prospect of genuine peace. The absence of any tangible willingness to compromise makes any negotiation exceptionally challenging. The ongoing conflict has created a situation where, even with a negotiated agreement, significant damage to Ukraine is almost certain. Any such compromise would only serve to legitimize Russian aggression, setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.
The implications of a West conceding to Putin’s demands are far-reaching and potentially catastrophic. Such a defeat would not merely represent a loss for Ukraine but would undermine the international order, potentially triggering wider conflicts. The impact on neighboring countries and the overall geopolitical landscape would be profound and potentially destabilizing. The idea that Russia might achieve this victory through sheer numbers of troops further emphasizes the need for a strong and decisive response from the international community.
Ultimately, the persistent aggression and lack of any demonstrable interest in negotiation on Putin’s part paint a grim picture. The only path towards a sustainable resolution might require a fundamental shift in the balance of power, one where a more decisive and forceful response compels a change in Putin’s strategy. Ignoring this reality only allows the conflict to fester and prolongs the suffering in Ukraine and the wider region. A failure to address the underlying issues decisively risks a dramatically negative escalation of the conflict with devastating consequences for the entire world.