Ukrainian Peace Talks With Russia Would Stink of Defeat | Opinion

The first peace summit for Ukraine is set to be held in Switzerland in a few weeks. World leaders will be discussing the conditions for ending the war unleashed by Russia.

Russia said that it saw no point in attending the summit. However, certain countries are pushing Ukraine toward direct negotiations with Russia, turning a blind eye to the fact that under the current conditions, peace talks would focus solely on the terms of Ukraine's capitulation.

Those countries present this not as a surrender but as a "freezing" of the conflict, similar to the truce that ended active fighting in Korea in 1953. And the group is growing larger.

When China proposed a broadly worded peace plan in 2023 that called for direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv, it was rejected by both Ukraine and the West for failing to call for Russia to leave occupied parts of Ukraine.

However, time has passed and Western opinion has changed. The world is tired of the war in Europe and is looking for ways to stop it. It's a situation Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking to take advantage of.

On May 15, Putin said in an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua that he was ready to hold peace talks with Ukraine, but with Russia's interests in mind. In other words, he demands that Ukraine give up its claim to its lost territories.

It is clear that both Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have similar demands. Despite their talk of peace, Russian forces are pressing an offensive in northeastern Ukraine's Kharkiv region, while China continues to supply key components needed by Moscow for weapons production.

Putin is rushing to advance his troops as far as possible while Ukraine's depleted military waits for new supplies of anti-aircraft missiles and artillery shells from the United States after months of delay. He understands achieving a military triumph will enhance his leverage during negotiations, and he harbors absolute certainty that talks will occur during the upcoming summer.

Until now, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly proclaimed that any negotiations must include a restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression, and security guarantees for Ukraine.

Setbacks on the battlefield may push him toward a more flexible stance. Additionally, his Western allies, who are committed to peace in Europe, are subtly influencing him to reconsider this approach.

As a result, Zelensky now finds himself caught between two fires.

By choosing to prolong the war until Ukraine wins, he risks losing the support of powerful allies and confronts increasing tensions inside Ukraine, which is suffering from shelling, blackouts, and an economic recession.

By agreeing to negotiations with Russia, he will anger the patriotic heart of the nation and lead his country to surrender.

He will almost inevitably lose his presidency in either case.

Paradoxically, Zelensky finds that the safest course of action is to prolong the war. In an interview with Agence France-Presse on May 18, he rejected a French call for an Olympic truce this summer and expressed his dissatisfaction by saying: "We want the war to end with a fair peace for us," while "the West wants the war to end. Period. As soon as possible."

Zelensky's demeanor resembled that of a disgruntled child, possibly the result of an unexpected recent visit by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Kyiv. The Ukrainian media's limited coverage of their meeting could be attributed to the insufficient information provided by the presidential office.

Meanwhile, Blinken's message to Zelensky was extremely clear. He said the Biden administration hoped to build up Ukraine's military capabilities, but achieving this goal would necessitate significant reform initiatives to combat corruption in the country.

Blinken spoke even more directly the following day, no longer addressing Zelensky but students of the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. In a unequivocal speech—a change from his usual diplomatic style—he said: "Winning on the battlefield will prevent Ukraine from becoming part of Russia. Winning the war against corruption will keep Ukraine from becoming like Russia."

In my opinion, Zelensky's vulnerability lies in his inability to purge the government of corrupt officials. While he can evade inquiries from journalists regarding the whereabouts of funds designated for fortifying defensive lines and upgrading the power grid, he cannot dismiss these same inquiries from Western allies. This erosion of trust in him, unfortunately, coincides with diminishing optimism for Ukraine's triumph in the prolonged conflict with Russia.

Not long ago, Volodimir Zelensky drew comparisons to Mr. Winston Churchill. If he fails to eradicate corruption within his government and loses the backing of the West, who will he be likened to this summer?

It is my wish that once global leaders decide to turn away from Zelensky, they will bear in mind that he is merely a transient figure representing the Ukrainian people, who deserve admiration for their strength, bravery, and determination to win.

Sergey G. Maidukov is a Ukrainian writer, author of Life on the Run and Deadly Bonds. Follow @sergeymaidukov on Instagram.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.