By Matt Underwood It’s unequivocally not up to Russia to dictate the terms of any peacekeeping deployment in Ukraine. This is a fundamental principle of sovereignty, and any suggestion otherwise ignores the brutal reality of Russia’s unprovoked invasion. A peace that is imposed by the aggressor, rather than negotiated and agreed upon by the victim, is not peace at all. It’s simply a surrender, a capitulation to violence and aggression.
The idea of Russia defining the parameters of peacekeeping forces is fundamentally flawed. Ukraine, as the nation under attack, has the primary right to determine what security measures it deems necessary for its own protection and future stability. Any other approach legitimizes the aggression and undermines the very concept of international law. Peace cannot be achieved through coercion or the imposition of conditions by a belligerent nation.
Furthermore, a peace deal that allows Russia to retain territory seized through illegal means would only incentivize further aggression. It would send a dangerous message: that invading and occupying a neighboring country offers a path to territorial expansion and strategic advantage. Such a precedent would destabilize the entire international order. Justice, not just a cessation of hostilities, is essential for a lasting peace. This necessarily involves accountability for war crimes and the return of all occupied territories, including those held since 2014. Financial reparations are also paramount; Russia must bear the full cost of the devastation it has inflicted.
The suggestion of peacekeepers should be driven by the needs of Ukraine, not the desires of Russia. Ukraine’s security concerns, and not merely ending the fighting, should be the focus of any such initiative. A peace agreement must address the core issues: the full withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territories, the release of all prisoners of war, the return of abducted Ukrainian children, and the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes.
Any international intervention must be conducted with the full consent and collaboration of Ukraine. Imposing a solution ignores the reality on the ground, and overlooks the potential for further conflicts fueled by resentment and unresolved grievances. The international community must stand firm and uphold the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rule of law. A lasting peace can only be built on a foundation of justice and respect for the rights of all involved, with a primary focus on the needs of the victim, Ukraine.
The concerns of Ukraine’s allies and the international community are valid and must be addressed. There’s a rightful worry that any premature peace deal could pave the way for another conflict, given Russia’s history of aggression and disregard for international norms. It is crucial that any resolution includes robust mechanisms for ensuring compliance and preventing future conflicts. This necessitates not just a peace agreement, but a strong commitment to the principles of international law and a robust system for holding aggressors accountable.
Ignoring this fundamental principle only emboldens aggressors and risks setting a precedent that will weaken international security for years to come. The focus should not just be on ending the current fighting; it must also include addressing the root causes of the conflict and preventing future violence. A real and lasting peace will only be achievable when Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully respected and its security concerns are adequately addressed. Anything less will only create the conditions for future conflicts and suffering.