By Matt Underwood Vance says Ukraine peace deal unlikely to satisfy either side, and honestly, it’s hard to disagree when you break it all down. The whole concept of a “satisfying deal” for both sides in this situation feels fundamentally flawed. How can Ukraine, having been invaded, accept any peace deal that doesn’t involve the complete restoration of its territory? The previous agreements have been disregarded, so trust is non-existent. You have to ask yourself, how could anyone possibly believe that Putin, or for that matter, someone like Trump, would honor any agreement? It’s a minefield of distrust, and that’s before you even get to the details of what a potential deal might look like.
When you look at the core issue here, the very idea of Russia being “satisfied” by anything seems deeply problematic. They initiated the invasion. The argument can be made that only Ukraine should be satisfied. The US, if it’s truly on the side of democracy and international law, should be unequivocally supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination and its territorial integrity. There seems to be a concern that the current administration and some others are primarily driven by self-interest, making it more about their own goals than genuine peace or justice for Ukraine.
The underlying sentiment is pretty clear: Russia doesn’t want peace in any meaningful sense. If the goal isn’t a complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory, then it’s not peace, it’s capitulation. Any arrangement that doesn’t involve Russia returning all conquered lands is not a genuine peace deal. This means that there’s really only one deal on the table that is acceptable: Russia leaves, period. The alternative is a compromise that rewards the aggressor and punishes the victim, which is not a deal at all.
There’s also a prevalent concern that some individuals or groups are actively working against Ukraine’s interests, potentially in concert with Russia. The release of the Epstein files casts a shadow. You have to think about why Trump would want a meeting when the stakes are so high. This makes any discussion about “peace” feel like a smokescreen for something far more sinister, a way to legitimize a land grab and appease a hostile regime. The idea that these “deals” are negotiated in good faith is a total fabrication.
The whole situation really boils down to a fundamental question: who should be appeased, and at what cost? This is not a negotiation between equals. One side is the aggressor, the other is the victim. To consider what Russia “needs” or what might “satisfy” them is to lose sight of the fundamental injustice at the heart of the conflict. Ukraine has already said they don’t like the deal, yet a meeting is being held. If a country is invaded, the invader shouldn’t get to dictate the terms of peace.