By John Q. Hosedrinker 
High Representative Kaja Kallas has emphasized that any peace agreement should focus on limiting Russia’s military capabilities and budget to prevent future aggression. This contrasts with the initial US-led draft, which imposed restrictions on Ukraine. European leaders are now working to refine the deal to secure more favorable terms for Ukraine, including allowing them to determine the size of their own military. The EU is also prepared to offer substantial security guarantees, but the core issue remains Russia’s willingness to negotiate in good faith.
Read the original article here
Peace deal should limit Russia’s army rather than Ukraine’s, says Kaja Kallas. That just makes absolute sense, right? It’s like, you don’t punish the victim of a home invasion; you focus on restraining the burglar. It seems so simple, but it’s a principle that’s been consistently challenged, especially when it comes to international relations. We saw how this game ended before, with the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons for promises of security that, let’s face it, turned out to be hollow.
Asking Ukraine to hamstring its own defenses now, after everything it’s endured, feels not just unfair, but frankly, insane. It’s like telling that home invasion survivor to disarm themselves to “appease” the burglar. The party that needs to downsize its military is the one that crossed the border, the one causing the destruction. The aggressor. Makes sense, right? And, yet, it’s not always the path taken.
The real question becomes, how do we get to that point? From a “translation from Eurocrat speak”, this means the war needs to continue, as a deterrent to the aggressor. Russia needs to be deterred and the victim not punished. Now, expecting Russia to willingly write such terms into a peace agreement is probably a bit much. The ideal, of course, would be a scenario where the Ukrainian army is on the outskirts of Moscow. But the political landscape is such that when we hear a bare minimum of common sense, we are filled with joy. That’s the state of things nowadays.
Now, achieving a true zero-compromise deal with Russia would probably mean full-on war. Which is a scary thought. But the Russians have a history of aggression. They create vassal states through coercion and murder. But what happens when they violate agreements? The world’s response has been slow and inadequate in the past. If you want to prevent Russia from invading Europe, it takes real preventative action. It means committing a significant fraction of the resources that you would use if Russia was threatening you right now.
The fear is that Putin will just ignore Europe, because he knows they’re hesitant to make the real sacrifices needed to support Ukraine. The economies need to shift to a war footing. That’s when Putin will realize Europe is serious. It’s a matter of showing resolve. And, frankly, how do you enforce such a deal when Russia says no? What’s the plan? More strongly worded speeches, more debates. The ability to implement is what matters.
If Russia says no, they need to continue limiting their own army, as they’ve been doing for ages. Sanctions are easily bypassed, not being enforced. And American oil sanctions are dependent on a Trump administration, which makes them meaningless. It’s frustrating that Europe has been facing this reality for years without adapting.
The core issue is that actions, not words, are what matter. It’s easy to make bold statements and hope other nations do the work. Remember how Nazi Germany was defeated? Total war. And that’s how their military got limited. We need a plan to get Ukrainian tanks into Moscow, and it needs to be different than what’s been tried.
The way I see this war ending is one of two ways. Either it drags on for so long Russia gets bored and goes home. Or, Ukraine suffers too many losses, its forces get routed, and Russia takes over. It’s genuinely a guessing game. It’s clear that there genuinely is no peace agreement Russia will actually accept. They are just pretending to negotiate so it looks like they are acting in good faith, and Ukraine is acting in bad faith.
The US makes weapons and sells them to Europe, which donates to Ukraine. At this point, no one expects American leaders to do much. It’s all just debate competition. This is just another reason Ukraine cannot concede on demilitarization.