By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared that the war’s conclusion must be just and uphold the security needs of European populations. He expressed gratitude for those supporting Ukraine and its defense of European security. Zelenskyy also highlighted Ukraine’s endorsement of the joint statement from several European leaders. This statement urged the US president to negotiate with the Russian leader, but only under the condition of a ceasefire and security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and that’s a monumental challenge, a concept that seems almost fantastical in the brutal reality of this conflict. The very premise of fairness feels like a foreign language when spoken in the context of a war that has inflicted so much devastation and loss. The comments suggest a deep understanding of how unfair the entire conflict has been. The aggressor, Russia, initiated this war, causing immense suffering, and therefore, a truly fair end would mean Russia entirely withdrawing from Ukraine and paying reparations.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, yet the practicalities of achieving this are daunting, particularly with the current geopolitical landscape. Many believe that a “deal” will likely give Russia what it wants, and any agreement would fail to prevent future aggression. Some people suggest that there is no chance that the country will accept an unfair deal, a deal that simply pauses the conflict to allow Russia to rearm and return. There’s a widespread understanding that any settlement is likely to be an unjust outcome, shaped by the current circumstances.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, meaning that any negotiation has to consider the sacrifices made by the Ukrainian people. They’ve accomplished a military feat, resisting an invading force far larger than themselves. Demanding that they “throw in the towel” disregards their resilience and the strategic victories they’ve secured. Any ending must recognize the true stakes, understanding the strategic goals of the different players.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and that means rejecting anything that legitimizes the annexation of Ukrainian territory. The constitution of the country needs to be considered. As one commenter pointed out, a truly fair deal would begin with Russia’s leaders facing justice. The aggressors should face legal repercussions for war crimes and the devastation they have caused. Some even make the case that Russia should pay for all damage, the removal of all troops, and that Putin should be arrested.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, yet it’s acknowledged that this is exceedingly complex, especially considering the potential involvement of individuals like Donald Trump. There is a fear that the US may have altered its stance. There’s a feeling that this is a result of Trump’s influence, a betrayal, and a sense of isolation. It’s a challenging situation where trust is eroded.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, but there’s a practical acknowledgment that achieving this ideal outcome is unlikely. One person mentions that without a Russian defeat, a genuinely just settlement seems out of reach. The idea of fairness in war is almost an oxymoron. The war is an unfortunate circumstance, so any outcome will likely be unjust.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and there are some suggestions for what a fair settlement would entail, starting with Russia removing its troops, guaranteeing Ukraine’s borders, and paying for the cost of the war, to its allies and the US. The stakes are high. A lack of fairness means many more people will die.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and the current dynamics don’t seem to favor a just conclusion. The current state of affairs and the lack of a definitive military advantage by Ukraine could hinder its ability to negotiate from a position of strength. There’s a recognition that any agreement will require compromises.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, but the conversation acknowledges the difficult position Zelenskyy is in. It’s a situation where he’s forced to accept what is offered, if he wants to prevent the complete destruction of his country. This means giving up land and NATO, even though the UK and the US urged him to reject an offer before the war.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, yet one cannot ignore the accusations of potential corruption and failed military investments before the invasion. Some ask why weren’t the borders prepared and why did Ukraine fail to invest enough in its military? These are complicated questions.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and there is suspicion that this process is engineered to pressure Ukraine into making concessions. Some suggest it is a performance, and that the US is intentionally making Ukraine seem unreasonable in order to cut aid. The goal, the comments suggest, may be to force Ukraine into an unfavorable agreement.
Zelenskyy: End of war must be fair, and this situation underscores the challenges facing Ukraine. In such circumstances, the path forward is complex, and finding an outcome that aligns with Zelenskyy’s ideals while protecting the interests of the Ukrainian people will be one of the most difficult tasks he undertakes.