By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Putin has reiterated that Russia will take the Donbas region, either by force or through the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops, rejecting any compromise on ending the war. This follows talks with a US delegation where a modified peace plan was discussed, though Putin stated Moscow disagreed with parts of the plan. The Kremlin is now awaiting a response from the US, while Ukrainian officials accuse Russia of stalling ceasefire agreements. European leaders have expressed concerns over the negotiations, with some fearing the US might compromise on Ukrainian territory without sufficient security guarantees.
Read the original article here
Putin says Russia will take Donbas by force or Ukraine’s troops will withdraw, and it’s hard not to see this as a statement that reinforces what’s been happening, and what Russia’s intentions are, all along. It’s a blunt, no-nonsense ultimatum, essentially demanding surrender or promising continued, intensified military action. It’s the core of the situation laid bare.
It feels like this has been the unspoken – or sometimes very explicitly spoken – objective all along. The question is, how effective has this strategy been? We’ve seen, over the last few years, a persistent struggle in the Donbas region. If the aim was to take it by force, the evidence suggests a difficult and drawn-out process. Many have pointed out the extended length of the operation and the challenges Russia has faced. It’s natural to wonder if this latest pronouncement is a tacit admission of slow progress, or an attempt to reset expectations.
This declaration is really just the latest in a long line of statements and actions that point towards the same conclusion. Is Russia really offering peace, or is this the updated version of “we want peace” that boils down to, “give us what we want, or we’ll keep doing what we’re doing”? It raises questions about the definition of peace itself. Does it mean a complete cessation of hostilities and a return to the pre-invasion status quo? Or is it a peace on Russia’s terms?
It’s tempting to view this as a threat, but it’s important to understand the audience. While it might sound like a threat to the West and to Ukraine, it’s also a message intended for Putin’s domestic supporters. It can be seen as a way to rally them, reinforcing the idea of a strong leader and a decisive course of action. It’s not necessarily a sign of strength or strategic brilliance.
The world has witnessed a military machine that has, at times, struggled. Putin’s army is far from the invincible force some may have assumed it was. There have been instances where they have lost ground and experienced setbacks. The implication is that more force will be the solution – sending more soldiers into a “meatgrinder,” as some might put it.
The reactions we’ve seen range from grim acceptance to outright skepticism. Many wonder how this strategy differs from what’s been attempted already. The implication is that “we will take it by force” is a response to the fact that the Russian army has in fact been unable to fulfill its promise.
The lack of economic and infrastructural support for the war effort adds another layer of complexity. Sanctions have crippled the ability to obtain critical parts for military equipment. All this makes the threat appear less credible, yet, the reality is that the situation in Ukraine remains devastating.
Some people are noting the irony in Russia’s claims of wanting peace while simultaneously threatening to take land by force. You can’t help but see it for what it is. The war continues and it seems like it’s a war that Putin is not winning.
The idea of appeasement is brought up again. It’s a reminder of past failures, particularly with Nazi Germany, and warns that attempts to appease Putin will only embolden him. The argument is that providing Ukraine with the resources it needs is the only effective response.
The fact that this has gone on for so long raises questions about the overall strategic vision. Why haven’t they succeeded in accomplishing their goals in Donbas? Why haven’t they taken the land they claim to want? The promise of decisive action, at this point, rings hollow for many.
And then there’s the political angle, which includes speculation about Trump and his potential involvement. Will there be more of the same, in that, sanctions will be lifted? It’s easy to see the implication of that line of thought: that Putin may find an ally in Trump, potentially weakening Western support for Ukraine.
Ultimately, this statement boils down to a continuation of a strategy that has proven, at best, only partially successful. It reveals the core goal. Take the Donbas by force. Or force Ukraine to withdraw. It’s an admission that this is what they have been trying to do. It also means the fight isn’t over, and that more suffering is likely on the horizon. The question is, how much more? And what will the world do about it?