By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has cautioned against pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, labeling such proposals a “trap” orchestrated by Putin. Kallas emphasized that Russia has made no concessions and that Putin may not be interested in a peace deal, especially after receiving a “welcoming” during talks. President Zelensky has also expressed skepticism about Russia’s willingness to negotiate, citing their avoidance of a meeting and continued aggression. The piece highlighted the EU’s continued sanctions and the need for robust security guarantees for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Proposed Ukraine land concessions are Putin’s trap, EU top diplomat tells BBC, and it’s a sentiment that resonates strongly.
Forcing Ukraine to cede territory as part of any peace plan, particularly if it’s a plan originating from someone like Donald Trump, would be a monumental misstep. It’s not about appeasement or finding a quick fix; it’s about recognizing the nature of the threat. The EU foreign policy chief is right: this is a trap. Granting Russia territory in this scenario is akin to rewarding aggression and mass killing, which only serves to embolden Putin and his regime.
Russia hasn’t shown any signs of backing down; in fact, it has only escalated its actions. Real security for Ukraine means steadfast support, not a surrender of land. The West must understand that Russia doesn’t fear weakness. They are prepared to absorb casualties that the West might find unacceptable. Now is the opportune moment to diminish Russian influence on the global stage.
It seems obvious that Russia fell into a trap when it invaded Ukraine, a trap triggered by their initial invasion of Crimea. From the perspective of the EU, the UK, and the US, the war, before certain shifts in political sentiment, was a strategic advantage: significantly weakening a long-term adversary at a relatively low cost to themselves. If the intent had truly been to end the conflict, more decisive action and resources would have been employed. Instead, Ukraine has been bled dry at the cost of Ukrainian lives.
Perception is everything. If Ukraine were to cede territory, Russia would declare victory, irrespective of the true costs they have incurred. Both the Russian government and its people must understand that they have lost this war. There’s a clear indication that the goals involve full capitulation, and any proposed land concessions only aid those goals. What’s stopping Putin from taking more land later? The United States has shown hesitation to intervene, and the EU may struggle to sustain its financial support. Such a scenario might pave the way for the US to curtail its assistance to Ukraine. Putin has no real interest in ending the war. Russia is making slow progress, but Ukraine is far from defeated. The incentives to stop the war are few. History, specifically World War II, has taught us that appeasement doesn’t work; it only encourages further aggression. The most effective response involves standing firm and letting Putin know that his actions will not be rewarded.
The idea that backing Ukraine means not sending troops on the ground creates a sense of disconnect, but what other options are available? Ukraine needs a robust supply of advanced weaponry. It should obliterate Russia’s oil refineries; this would significantly cripple their economy. Time seems to be on Ukraine’s side, but they should not concede anything. Not winning was an unforgivable choice. Russia has enough land; this war isn’t about land. Putin already controls Crimea and a land bridge to it along the southern coast. He could easily declare victory today. Especially since Putin has stated that Europe and NATO cannot provide security guarantees, and Ukraine cannot join NATO.
Putin’s demands and strategies are tied to his economic concerns. Ending the war now would lead to a massive recession in Russia, endangering his position, especially among the oligarchs.
The West faces a critical decision: either confront Russia on the battlefield in Ukraine or prepare for it to happen in Europe. The hesitations of democracies, particularly in making tough choices, are evident. Short-term thinking tends to prevail. The war could have been won much earlier with more decisive action. Instead, the focus seems to have been on optics. Backing Ukraine with strength too often translates to hollow words and inadequate support.
It is worth pointing out that as long as Russia doesn’t deliberately attack a NATO country, direct military engagement remains unlikely. However, individuals are free to join the Ukrainian army, just as foreigners have done in past conflicts for Finland or the UK.
The persistent desire for Russia’s collapse is a dangerous sentiment, as such an event would have catastrophic consequences across the board. Ending the war would cause a recession for Russia? Yes, continuing the war is what would more likely ruin Russia’s economy. The reasons the US might be reluctant to commit its own troops are understandable; there are many considerations. Ukraine is not asking for troops to be sent into battle before a ceasefire. They need money, support, and weapons.
The US and Europe have provided considerable aid, but significantly more is needed. Waging war demands financial resources, and many wars have stalled due to running out of money.
If you can live on savings for three years, does that mean you can do it indefinitely? Russia’s economy is heavily focused on military spending, and other sectors are stagnant or contracting. Sanctions, emigration, and a lack of R&D are all issues for Russia.
Their economy won’t collapse, but a severe recession fueled by stagflation is likely if the military sector retracts. Russia is facing a period of high inflation and economic stagnation.
The US has created a beneficial situation where they have no real military competition, which is good for stability and their monopoly on power. That is why the US has a responsibility. The Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine gave up its nukes, is a significant factor. The weak response to the war means that nukes are now seen as a necessity for national defense, motivating countries like Iran to develop their nuclear programs.
If treaties are not trustworthy, no one will trust you to make them. The US has put itself in this situation since WWII, for many reasons. Europe can and hopefully will step up. The US has lost trust.