By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following recent discussions, Russian aide Yuri Ushakov stated that a durable peace in Ukraine is unattainable without addressing territorial matters according to the “Anchorage formula.” Ushakov emphasized Russia’s alleged interest in a political and diplomatic resolution, yet asserted that military operations would continue until their objectives are met on the battlefield, where Russia maintains the strategic initiative. The talks, lasting over three and a half hours, involved Vladimir Putin and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin.
Read the original article here
Kremlin after talks with US: War cannot end without Ukraine giving up Donbas. This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? After whatever discussions have been had, the position seems to be crystal clear: the war will only end if Ukraine cedes control of the Donbas region. It’s a non-negotiable demand, a statement that underscores the Kremlin’s strategic goals and what they’re unwilling to budge on.
It’s tempting to see this as a negotiation tactic, but the underlying message is more akin to blackmail. “We can’t stop killing people until we get what we want.” That’s the core of the message. The implications are significant; it implies that Russia is not interested in a just peace, but rather a surrender that grants them their territorial ambitions. Appeasement, history has shown us, doesn’t work. Giving in to such demands would only embolden aggressive actors, not just in this conflict, but potentially around the world. It’s like the “Give a Mouse a Cookie” scenario – once you give an inch, they’ll want a mile.
The Kremlin’s stance also raises the question of what exactly they hope to achieve. The goal, at least as they portray it, seems to be the establishment of a “fortress belt,” a strategic buffer zone to protect their interests and allow for the future rebuilding of their military. The objective is clear. It’s about more than just the Donbas; it’s about control, power, and securing future military advantages. Any concessions, any giving up of territory, would be seen as a sign of weakness, an invitation for further aggression.
The situation is further complicated by the perception of those involved in the negotiations. There’s a narrative that some of the officials involved from the US side are inexperienced and maybe even clueless. If this is true, it further plays into Russia’s hand. The US’s involvement has been scaled back, which in turn might embolden Russia’s cause and the idea of giving up Donbas as the only solution for peace.
The simple and obvious solution to ending this conflict is also the most difficult for Russia to accept: a complete withdrawal from Ukraine. The war could end tomorrow if Russia stopped invading. Yet, they choose not to. It becomes obvious that Russia has no intention of stopping, and has ulterior motives that go beyond Ukraine’s border.
Of course, the war could also end if Russia were to collapse internally. But, that’s not something the Kremlin would voluntarily permit. A collapsing Russia means Putin losing power, and so he must press on. A scenario like this would likely lead to China becoming involved, capitalizing on Russia’s weakness to take control of Siberian territories.
This approach of unwavering demands and unwillingness to compromise is typical of dictators. They are surrounded by yes-men, and any dissent is squashed. The result? Poor decisions, such as invading Ukraine, are doubled down on, leading to a drain on resources and creating a pariah state. The invasion of Crimea had that impact, and so will any further land grabs.
There’s a clear parallel between the Kremlin’s current tactics and past historical events, most notably the appeasement that preceded World War II. The lesson remains that rewarding aggression only encourages more of it. Never give in to blackmail, because what you give will never be the end of it. The Kremlin is just like a blackmailer, what is given will never be the end of it.
The United States’ role in all this is also under scrutiny. Its decreasing military aid and the increasing production from other countries means it has less leverage to force Ukraine’s hand. The reality is that the end of the war is not solely in Ukraine’s hands, or America’s, or even Russia’s. It’s a complex situation with too many unknowns to be sure what the end game will look like. The Kremlin’s position isn’t exactly a recipe for a just peace; it is a recipe for a continuing cycle of conflict. The only way it will end is if Russia withdraws, which they have no intention of doing.