By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Russian President Putin has never intended to end the war in Ukraine and only feigns negotiations to avoid increased pressure from the United States. Zelenskyy elaborated that global instability, particularly in the Middle East, has allowed Russia to significantly boost its revenues, potentially prolonging the conflict and undermining sanctions. He further revealed intelligence indicating Russia has supplied Iran with drones and components, which have been used in attacks on American bases and regional neighbors, thus impacting Middle Eastern security.
Read the original article here
The assertion that Vladimir Putin never truly intended to end the war in Ukraine, but rather merely simulated diplomatic engagement, stems from a perspective that views his actions through a lens of calculated self-preservation and strategic brinkmanship. This viewpoint suggests that Putin initiated what he termed a “special military operation” with the expectation of a swift victory, a move designed to bolster his political standing. However, as events unfolded, this rapid triumph proved elusive, leaving him in a precarious position where withdrawal carries immense personal and political risk, potentially leading to his downfall.
From this perspective, Putin finds himself in a prolonged conflict not because of any genuine desire for peace on his terms, but because retreating now would be perceived as a definitive failure, an admission that his initial gambit did not pay off. This predicament is likened to being “stuck,” unable to afford an exit strategy that doesn’t involve salvaging some semblance of victory, however hollow it might be. The notion is that he is locked into a trajectory of continued conflict as a means of avoiding an even worse outcome for himself.
The idea that Putin is merely imitating talks, rather than genuinely pursuing peace, is bolstered by the observation that his purported peace proposals often included demands for territory or concessions that were, from Ukraine’s standpoint, unacceptable. This pattern suggests a strategy of appearing open to negotiation while simultaneously setting conditions that make a genuine resolution impossible. The repeated invocation of phrases like “remove Nazis” is seen not as a sincere justification for the invasion, but as a propaganda tactic, a thinly veiled excuse designed to mask the true geopolitical ambitions at play.
A central theme in this interpretation is the belief that Putin overestimated his capabilities and, in doing so, has trapped himself in a protracted war. The expectation is that he will allow the conflict to drag on indefinitely as a way to “save face,” to avoid the humiliation of admitting defeat or accepting unfavorable terms. This prolonged engagement is then seen as a strategy to wait for external factors to shift in his favor, such as diminishing Western support for Ukraine, which he hopes will eventually lead to Ukraine’s collapse and allow Russia to make significant territorial gains.
The incentive for Putin to continue the war, therefore, lies in his calculation that time is on his side, or at least that it is less detrimental than immediate capitulation. The prospect of achieving a full military victory might be slim, but the hope persists that a prolonged conflict will erode Ukraine’s resilience and its allies’ commitment. This strategy hinges on the assumption that Russia, with its larger population, can sustain losses for a longer period than Ukraine, especially if external aid dwindles.
Furthermore, this perspective suggests that Putin may be influenced by domestic pressures, perhaps from hardliners within Russia who would view any peace deal that doesn’t achieve substantial gains as a betrayal. The fear might be that accepting a peace deal too early would lead the Russian public to question the immense cost of the war thus far, potentially sparking widespread dissent and undermining Putin’s authority. The war, in this context, becomes an existential gamble for Putin, where stopping it prematurely is perceived as more dangerous than continuing it.
The idea of a “never-ending war” is not necessarily about achieving a decisive victory, but about managing a perpetual state of conflict that serves to maintain the status quo and prevent a clear defeat. This approach is compared to a playbook designed to prolong a situation, where the goal is not necessarily to win outright, but to avoid losing and to keep the adversary engaged in a draining and unsustainable conflict.
The comments also touch upon the perceived hypocrisy of certain international actors, with a particular focus on Europe’s economic ties to Russia, such as the purchase of gas and oil. This is presented as a factor that complicates efforts to exert decisive economic pressure on Russia, suggesting a reluctance to take actions that would significantly harm their own economies, even if it meant weakening Russia’s war-fighting capacity.
The comparison between Trump and Putin, highlighting their alleged shared tendencies towards narcissism and compulsive lying, underscores the belief that their interactions are based on mutual admiration for such traits rather than genuine trust or strategic alignment. Trump’s apparent willingness to believe Putin’s falsehoods over his own intelligence services is seen as a key indicator of this dynamic, suggesting a shared affinity for deception.
Ultimately, the core of this argument is that Ukraine did not initiate the war, and that Russia holds the sole power to end it by withdrawing its forces. The ongoing conflict is therefore not a shared responsibility, but a deliberate choice made by Putin, driven by his personal stakes in the outcome and his strategic calculations for maintaining power. The implication is that any perceived peace talks are merely a strategic maneuver, a delaying tactic designed to buy time and wait for a more opportune moment for Russia to achieve its objectives, or at least to avoid a clear and undeniable defeat.