By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb characterized Putin’s actions in Ukraine as a typical tactic of an aggressor feigning peace while refusing commitment to a ceasefire. He highlighted the need for strong deterrence through substantial Ukrainian military aid, EU and NATO membership, and intensified sanctions against Russia. While a proposed €40 billion EU military aid package failed to gain immediate approval, Stubb urged EU leaders to secure its passage and maintain unwavering support for Ukraine. He viewed a recent Trump-Putin conversation as a positive step, but ultimately believed Putin’s true intentions were now evident.
Read the original article here
Finland’s president’s assertion that Putin’s bombing of Ukraine after a ceasefire call revealed his “true face” highlights a critical point: the blatant disregard for agreements and the continued aggression against Ukraine underscore a pattern of behavior that has been evident for years. This isn’t a sudden revelation of a hidden personality; it’s a confirmation of what many have long suspected.
The actions taken by Putin directly contradict any notion of good faith negotiations. A ceasefire call offers a pathway towards peace, a chance to de-escalate conflict and prevent further bloodshed. The immediate resumption of bombing after such a call demonstrates a profound lack of commitment to peaceful resolution. It suggests a deliberate strategy of using negotiations as a tool of manipulation, rather than a sincere effort to find common ground.
This isn’t the first instance of such behavior. Putin’s history is replete with examples of broken agreements and disregard for international norms. The pattern of aggression and violence is consistent, revealing a consistent disregard for the lives and sovereignty of others. This consistent behavior, long observable, renders the recent actions less surprising and more indicative of a deeply ingrained approach to foreign policy.
The idea that anyone is surprised by this is naive. It points to a failure to understand the nature of Putin’s regime and his long-standing history of aggression. The call for a ceasefire, despite its apparent failure, was arguably a necessary step in trying to curtail the violence. However, the response serves as a harsh reminder that such attempts may be futile if one party is demonstrably unwilling to honor its commitments.
Moreover, the lack of surprise from those familiar with Putin’s track record speaks volumes. Their understanding of Putin’s character and his regime’s operating principles highlights the necessity of realistic assessments and the need to factor in this history when considering any attempt at negotiation. Ignoring the past in favor of wishful thinking is a recipe for disaster. The international community must learn from past experiences and adapt its strategies accordingly.
The president’s statement, while seemingly critical of Putin, also implicitly criticizes those who failed to acknowledge or act upon this pattern of behavior. It raises questions about the efficacy of past diplomatic efforts and calls into question the assumptions underlying previous negotiations. It demands that the world recognizes the reality of Putin’s actions and recalibrates its strategies for engaging with him.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine underscores the need for a unified international response. The international community must not only condemn Putin’s actions but also demonstrate a clear commitment to holding him accountable. A decisive and united stance is crucial to deterring further aggression and protecting the sovereignty of nations threatened by similar actions. Allowing such blatant violations to go unpunished sets a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the contrast between the purported intentions of a ceasefire and the subsequent actions highlights the need for a more robust framework for monitoring and enforcing international agreements. The current system appears woefully inadequate, allowing powerful actors to disregard commitments without sufficient consequence. A stronger system of accountability is necessary to deter similar behavior in the future and to promote genuine peace.
Ultimately, the bombing of Ukraine following a ceasefire call is not just a violation of an agreement; it’s a testament to the persistent danger posed by a regime that has shown, time and again, a callous disregard for international norms and human life. The statement from the Finnish president reflects a growing global consensus: Putin has consistently revealed his true nature. This understanding, long overdue for some, is crucial for crafting an effective strategy for peace and security in the region and beyond.