By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that if Vladimir Putin was truly interested in ending the war, he would not be encouraging neighboring countries, specifically Slovakia, to implement an energy blockade against Ukraine. Zelensky highlighted Russia’s actions as an attempt to target Ukraine’s energy sector, emphasizing the need for unified pressure from European partners and the United States. He also expressed gratitude to countries like Slovakia that provide energy assistance during shortages. This statement was made during a joint media address with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who had recently met with Putin to discuss issues related to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Zelensky: If Putin truly wanted to end war, he wouldn’t be inciting our neighbors to impose energy blockade.
This thought, this core idea, really cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? It’s a deceptively simple statement, but it exposes a crucial truth about Putin’s intentions. If the goal were genuinely peace, a genuine desire to de-escalate and bring an end to the bloodshed, then the actions we’re seeing wouldn’t be happening. The very idea of manipulating energy supplies, essentially weaponizing the cold and the dark, is a clear indication of something other than peace. It’s a power play, a gamble, and a deeply cruel one at that.
The core argument here seems to suggest Putin’s approach to peace is essentially, “If I make everyone else miserable enough, they’ll just stop fighting.” It’s a bleak and cynical outlook, one that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of conflict. War isn’t just about military engagements; it’s also about the will of the people, the resilience of a nation, and the support of the international community. Targeting energy supplies is a tactic aimed at breaking that will, at creating internal strife and ultimately, forcing capitulation. It’s not a strategy for finding common ground or building trust; it’s a strategy of intimidation.
Putin’s focus on winter as a weapon speaks volumes. He seems to believe that the cold, the discomfort, and the economic hardship caused by energy shortages will somehow break the spirit of the Ukrainian people and their allies. It’s a miscalculation, a profound underestimation of human resolve. Throughout history, people have endured unimaginable hardships in the face of adversity. Using the cold as a tool is a desperate move, a sign of someone grasping for whatever advantage they can find, rather than someone sincerely seeking an end to the war.
Now, the flip side of this argument, of course, is the hypothetical suggestion that if Zelensky truly wanted to end the war, he would simply agree to whatever terms are currently on the table. But this is a problematic suggestion. It implies a false equivalence, suggesting that the aggressor and the defender are somehow equally responsible for the conflict. It also ignores the fundamental principles at stake: the sovereignty of a nation, the right to self-determination, and the very real human cost of occupation.
What terms are actually “on the table?” And what is the price Ukraine would have to pay for those terms? Are they acceptable? Are they fair? The notion of simply surrendering territory or sacrificing fundamental rights for the sake of a quick peace is deeply troubling. Peace achieved at any cost is not peace; it’s simply a surrender, and it doesn’t guarantee a lasting resolution. It may simply pave the way for future conflicts.
The assertion that Russia denies using energy blockades as a tactic is, frankly, unsurprising. It’s a classic tactic in the playbook of any aggressor: deny, deflect, and distort the truth. This kind of denial should be viewed skeptically because it indicates a lack of responsibility and a lack of willingness to engage in good-faith negotiations. Instead, it only strengthens the case that Putin has no real interest in reaching a just and lasting peace.
Bringing up Donald Trump is, admittedly, a common distraction. It detracts from the immediate point at hand, which is to analyze and understand Putin’s current actions. It is important to remain focused on the core issue: Putin’s actions are not consistent with someone who sincerely desires peace. Instead, the strategies being used point to a deeper intent: to create suffering, sow division, and coerce Ukraine and its allies into submission.
The idea of applying more pressure to Russia to bring the war to an end is important. However, it is unclear what that pressure should look like. But it is clear, that the current level of pressure is not creating the effect it should. Perhaps the key is for other countries to realize that they are also impacted by the strategies being used by Putin. The weaponization of energy is not just impacting Ukraine, but also the neighbors in Eastern Europe.
In essence, Zelensky’s observation is a crucial one. It offers a simple yet powerful lens through which to view Putin’s actions. The energy blockade is not a tool of peace. The actions Russia has undertaken throughout the war is not the act of someone looking for resolution. It is a tactic to inflict suffering and force submission. If Putin truly desired an end to the war, he would be acting in a manner that supports peace, not actively sabotaging it.