By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a meeting of the “coalition of the willing,” French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Russia’s peace proposals appear to be offering Ukraine’s surrender rather than a genuine peace. This follows talks between Putin and Trump, where a plan involving Ukraine ceding unoccupied territory was reportedly discussed. Zelensky has rejected any land swaps and insists negotiations should begin at the current front lines, with European leaders agreeing on Kyiv’s assessment. Macron, along with Zelensky, emphasizes the need for a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the return of prisoners and innocent people.
Read the original article here
Russia seeks ‘Ukraine’s surrender, not peace,’ Macron says ahead of talks with Trump, and frankly, it’s hard to disagree with that assessment. Macron seems to understand the situation clearly, which is a stark contrast to some other leaders who might be, shall we say, less perceptive. The core of the problem, as it stands, is that Russia isn’t looking for a negotiated settlement. They want Ukraine to capitulate, and that’s a very different thing entirely. Any talk of peace seems, at best, a smokescreen.
Considering this, the ongoing war, with all its devastating consequences, is likely to continue. The sad truth is that both sides are fighting for more than just territory; they are fighting for the utter defeat of the other. Russia wants total dominance, and Ukraine, understandably, isn’t willing to concede. This stark reality makes any meaningful negotiation nearly impossible. We’re not talking about minor adjustments or compromises here.
The core issue also involves the role of international actors. It appears that some, like the US under a potential future administration, might see the situation not as a humanitarian crisis but as an opportunity. There’s the possibility of using the situation to gain leverage over other countries, particularly within Europe. The idea is to create dependency, using the threat of disengagement or, even worse, support for Russia, to force concessions on other fronts. This approach, sadly, isn’t new.
In light of these challenges, the best path forward for Ukraine seems to involve relying on continued support from its European allies. Ukraine needs to be able to continue its fight, hopefully until an administration change in the US might alter the country’s course and stance in the conflict. Surrender would undoubtedly be the end of Ukraine as an independent nation.
However, it’s frustrating to see some of the responses coming from Europe. Talk of “European strategic independence” rings hollow when you look at the actual level of support, especially military aid. France, despite having a significant military, has been criticized for its relatively low financial and military commitments. The focus seems to be more on protecting its own industries rather than offering genuine support.
The larger picture here is one of great powers maneuvering. There is a risk of the EU facing immense pressure to appease a US leadership that could have ties to Russia. Imagine a scenario where Ukraine is forced to surrender, and Russia is at the EU’s doorstep. The EU may be forced to cut trade deals and buy American weapons just to keep the US on its side. This kind of dynamic is what creates dangerous leverage.
The sad truth is, many countries, including the US, are acting like they can’t or won’t stop Russia. The only viable option seems to be to allow Ukraine to continue fighting, hopefully until the US changes course or until Russia is no longer in charge. Surrender is not an option. The only way forward seems to be to keep the pressure on. The only option is to keep fighting.