By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his approval of the amended peace plan aimed at ending the war with Russia, with the revised version incorporating “correct elements”. The initial 28-point plan, which was perceived as favoring Russia, was revised after objections from Ukraine’s European allies. While details of the new 19-point plan are still developing, sensitive issues, including territorial concessions, will be discussed by leaders. A virtual meeting of Ukraine’s European allies is scheduled to discuss the latest developments, with a focus on achieving a just and lasting peace.
Read the original article here
Volodymyr Zelensky warns against giving away territory to Russia, as latest Ukraine talks end, and the core of the issue boils down to a fundamental principle: appeasement doesn’t work. The lessons of history, particularly World War II, clearly demonstrate that rewarding aggression only emboldens dictators. If Russia is allowed to keep any Ukrainian territory as a result of these talks, the message sent to the world is that force is a viable means to achieve territorial gains. This would set a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to pursue similar aggressive actions.
The concern extends beyond the immediate conflict, touching on the very foundations of the post-World War II international order. If Russia is permitted to retain territory, it signifies the erosion of the rules-based system, ushering in an era where “might makes right” prevails. In such a scenario, major powers could subjugate their smaller neighbors, leading to a world where conflict, potentially involving advanced weaponry like nukes and AI-powered drones, becomes increasingly likely. This isn’t a future anyone should desire.
The question of who has the right to decide Ukraine’s fate is also crucial. It’s hard to overlook that no single nation has the authority to dictate Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Yet, some appear to be considering proposals that would cede Ukrainian land to Russia. The idea of the United States deciding the fate of Ukrainian territory just doesn’t sit right. This echoes a concerning pattern, reminiscent of the world’s muted response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Learning from past mistakes is crucial.
The need for unwavering support for Ukraine is emphasized. This means ensuring that Ukraine gets back all its territory. The only path towards lasting peace involves making aggression costly, restoring Ukraine’s borders, and holding Russia accountable for its actions. Allowing Russian troops to remain in place would only create “frozen conflicts,” potential future flare-ups that Moscow could easily reignite. Real security guarantees and steadfast support for Ukraine are the necessary ingredients for stability.
It’s important to understand Russia’s strategic motivations. Russia has been seen to offer “peace conditions” that ultimately benefit their position, a clear indication that they are planning for future conflict, regardless of any current agreements. The “NATO expansion” narrative, often used by Russia as justification for its actions, is just a cover for its underlying ambitions.
The potential influence of individuals and political figures like Donald Trump is also being questioned. There are concerns that some may prioritize their own agendas over the interests of Ukraine and the broader international community. It is also pointed out how one of the only policy changes during Trump’s campaign was to cease aid to Ukraine. This is alarming, especially when considering the implications of rewarding aggression.
The actions of the United States are scrutinized, noting that the country possesses the largest munitions stockpile, and therefore, an immense role to play in supporting Ukraine. The timing of events is also being analyzed, noting that Putin started building his military on the Ukrainian border in 2021, and then invaded in 2022. Whether or not this interrupted earlier plans is something to consider.
There’s a sense that the current situation represents an attempt to rectify a larger plan that has gone awry. There are suspicions that Russia anticipated a different outcome, potentially influenced by developments in the U.S. political landscape. The concern is that Russia, like those who attempted the same thing during World War I, will not learn the lesson that attacking other countries is a costly mistake.
The focus shifts to the actions of the international community. Many believe that other allies need to step up and provide increased aid to Ukraine. This means offering both financial and military support, to enable Ukraine to defend itself and reclaim its territory.
The broader implications are vast. The issue at stake is not merely the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s the future of the global order. If aggression is rewarded, it will be the beginning of the end of the rule-based order. This is a crucial moment, and the decisions made now will reverberate for years to come.