By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to the EU’s top diplomat, any lasting peace in Ukraine requires real concessions from Russia, particularly regarding its military size and budget. Kaja Kallas warned that without these concessions, future conflicts are likely, even if Ukraine receives security guarantees. While welcoming the U.S.’s peace proposal efforts, Kallas emphasized Russia’s lack of genuine commitment to peace, highlighting the ongoing attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. She insisted that sustainable peace hinges on preventing future Russian aggression, which necessitates Moscow making significant compromises.
Read the original article here
Russia Must Shrink its Army for Any Peace to Hold, Says Top EU Diplomat, and this really seems to be the core of the matter. It’s not just about a ceasefire or a treaty; it’s about fundamentally altering the power dynamics in the region. The idea is that for any lasting peace, Russia can’t maintain the military capacity it currently possesses. This isn’t just a political talking point; it’s a recognition of the reality that a heavily armed Russia poses a constant threat.
The concern here is that promises made by Russia are, shall we say, unreliable. Historical precedent suggests that agreements are easily broken, especially when it suits their strategic goals. Even if Russia were to sign a treaty limiting its army size, there’s a widespread feeling that such a promise wouldn’t necessarily be honored. This is why the conversation quickly turns to the necessity of backing up any demands with a credible threat of force. Without a willingness to “punch back,” as the saying goes, peace becomes a fragile and probably temporary state.
The complexities here become obvious when you think about the potential trade-offs. The question often raised, as we’ve seen it mentioned, is whether Ukraine could have, or should have, given up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees. The fact that this didn’t prevent the current conflict highlights the lack of trust and the deep-seated security concerns driving the situation. Russia’s actions have essentially made such guarantees worthless, especially in light of the invasion and its continued aggression.
It’s clear that many believe that Russia isn’t interested in peace as it currently stands. The economic pressure is mounting, and many seem to see this as a key lever to force change. The belief is that Russia needs a significant defeat – economically, militarily, or both – before it will be willing to genuinely engage in peace negotiations. Along with that, there is strong feeling that the current leadership in Russia, along with those associated with the current regime, need to be removed to prevent any repetition of the current situation. The fear is that the same actors would just continue their attempts to influence foreign politics, engage in military activities, and engage in a variety of other, less than savory, behaviors.
The debate also inevitably circles back to the long-standing international crimes that Russia has committed. This includes the downing of MH17, and the general pattern of aggression. Calls for accountability are frequent, with the understanding that without addressing these past actions, any talk of peace will ring hollow. The prevailing sentiment is that Russia must undergo a significant transformation – either through a drastic reduction in power or even a potential dismantling – for any peace to be more than just a pause before the next conflict.
Of course, the practicalities are intensely difficult, which is what seems to have many people asking “how do you achieve this?” Sanctions and other forms of pressure are seen as vital, but there’s a strong awareness that Russia might simply regroup and continue its aggressive actions. The ideal outcome would be a complete withdrawal, demilitarization, and reparations, but the path to achieving that is very unclear. And of course, there are those who see the issue and say that Ukraine is already doing the heavy lifting in this regard.
The underlying tension here, the core of the problem, is the conviction that Russia is inherently imperialistic, and driven by a need to exert its power. The ongoing conflict is seen as part of a larger pattern of aggression and not an isolated event. So, any peace deal, no matter how carefully crafted, is seen as unlikely to hold if the fundamental drivers of Russian behavior remain unchanged.
The idea that Russia is a “full war economy” also adds another layer of complexity. De-militarizing too rapidly could create economic instability, potentially pushing Russia to seek new conflicts as an outlet for its military industrial complex. This is why many people see the demands as very complex. The situation is seen not just in the context of the current war, but as a part of a much longer pattern. This pattern of behavior is seen as proof that Russia will attack again and again.
Ultimately, the argument boils down to this: genuine peace requires Russia to shrink its military capacity, and that a willingness to accept this fact has to be present, and then a means of enforcing it, for any lasting peace to be possible. It’s a daunting challenge, filled with potential pitfalls, but it reflects the underlying belief that the current situation is unsustainable and must change if the world wants lasting peace.