By John Q. Hosedrinker 
CIA Director John Ratcliffe affirmed Ukraine’s unwavering commitment to fight for acceptable peace terms, even resorting to unconventional methods if necessary. This resolute stance underscores the ongoing efforts by President Trump to mediate a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine, despite Russia’s rejection of a broader ceasefire proposal. A partial ceasefire, focusing on energy infrastructure and the Black Sea, was agreed upon, though its implementation remains contingent upon the lifting of Western sanctions, according to Russia. This agreement, brokered by the U.S., represents a step towards de-escalation amidst ongoing conflict.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s unwavering resolve to resist any unjust peace deal is a testament to the nation’s spirit. The idea that they would fight “with their bare hands” if necessary highlights the depth of their commitment to self-determination and their refusal to accept a dictated outcome. This determination is rooted in their experiences, their understanding of the stakes, and their assessment of their capabilities.
The current situation underscores the profound implications of forcing a peace agreement that ignores Ukraine’s sovereignty and legitimate security concerns. Such an outcome would likely not be lasting, igniting further conflict and instability. A coerced peace risks leaving the seeds of future conflict, undermining regional stability, and ultimately costing more lives than a continued fight.
It is noteworthy that this unwavering stance enjoys significant backing from parts of Europe. This implies that the cessation of US aid is unlikely to leave Ukraine totally isolated and unarmed. This European support acts as a safety net, allowing Ukraine to sustain its defense efforts even if direct American military assistance were to decline. This external backing bolsters Ukraine’s capacity to resist pressure to accept unfavorable terms.
The Ukrainian people’s tenacity cannot be underestimated. Their history demonstrates a capacity for sustained resistance in the face of overwhelming odds. Their past experiences with Russian aggression have reinforced their resolve, underscoring their deep-seated reluctance to surrender to another unjust settlement. The current conflict is not merely a territorial dispute but a fight for national identity and survival.
Furthermore, the ongoing conflict has forced the Ukrainians to develop innovative tactics and strategies. Faced with a manpower disparity, they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt, employing new technologies and unconventional methods to effectively counter the larger Russian forces. This adaptability, fuelled by necessity, has allowed them to continue inflicting losses on their adversary and maintaining a viable defense.
The implications of a forceful Russian imposition of a peace agreement on Ukraine are far-reaching. It would be a catastrophic event not only for Ukraine but for the broader international order. It could invite further aggression and embolden authoritarian regimes. This underscores why the international community should remain committed to supporting Ukraine and preventing a forced settlement.
Conversely, the resilience of the Ukrainian people, coupled with their ingenuity and the continuing support from their allies, represents a significant barrier to any attempt to impose an unjust peace. This resistance, whether through conventional or unconventional means, has the potential to significantly delay or even prevent the successful imposition of such a deal, demonstrating that the will of a determined nation can be a formidable force.
The statement regarding Ukraine’s resistance, even in a scenario of severely limited aid, is not merely hyperbole. The assessment that they could maintain their current level of fighting for months without significant external assistance indicates a deep-seated commitment, a well-developed infrastructure of defense, and a sophisticated understanding of asymmetric warfare.
The potential for a Russian collapse, however unlikely in the near term, is a compelling argument to reconsider the long-term strategic implications of supporting Ukraine’s fight. A protracted conflict carries significant costs for all sides, whereas the potential for a more rapid resolution, even if it comes at the expense of additional short-term sacrifices, could ultimately lead to less suffering. This underlines the importance of exploring all avenues for achieving a just and lasting peace that respects Ukrainian sovereignty.
However, the question of who truly wants peace needs careful consideration. The assertion that only Putin and Trump might want the war to end as it stands suggests a larger strategic context in which vested interests could be actively working against a genuine, lasting peace. This makes the support of Ukraine’s resistance to unjust peace even more crucial, safeguarding against the imposition of a deal that does not meet the needs and desires of the Ukrainian people. It is essential to recognize that a peace enforced against the will of a nation will not bring lasting stability.