The counter-offensive concludes inconclusively, leaving Putin and his regime firmly in control of Russia. There is little alteration in the strategic support for Ukraine; assistance arrives in modest quantities and faces significant delays. It serves to mitigate losses rather than shift the balance on the front lines. Some countries may witness a surge in anti-Ukrainian sentiments.
Behind closed doors, talks between Russia and Western powers persist without interruption. Eventually, they arrive at a mutual understanding, culminating in a peace proposal. This article seeks to delve into the ensuing public discourse and how it might be perceived by the world's major players.
- Ceasefire: All military actions stop.
- New Borders: Established along the Line of Contact, no further claims.
- Prisoner Exchange: Both sides release captives.
- Green Corridors: UN-protected six-month period for mutual resettlement.
- Security Guarantees: Ukraine joins NATO, and possibly hosts U.S. nuclear weapons.
- Sanctions: Remain in place.
🇺🇦 Ukraine: "No way, we'll never give up our sovereign territory. Let the cannons talk."
🇪🇺 EU: "That's interesting and worth discussing. However, only just agreements can ensure long-lasting peace in Europe. Ukraine should decide for themselves."
🇨🇳🇮🇷🇰🇵 China/Iran/N. Korea: "This is a real chance for a peaceful resolution that must not be squandered!"
🇷🇺 Russia: Agrees in principle and behind closed doors. In public: will try to include sanction cancellation in the package. Will try to demand more land that it controls. Will try to force Ukraine to create a DMZ or have a veto over what weapons and where Ukraine can deploy. Will probably demand some symbolic gesture that could be sold to the home audience as denazification (for example, demolition of some statues).
🇺🇸 U.S.: Reaction depends on the administration. If the hawks prevail, will support Ukraine in order to reduce the overall military capability of the Russian army with Ukrainian lives and no boots on the ground — pennies on the dollar bargain (this way it doesn't bother Americans). If the doves prevail: the cost of the war in terms of human suffering on both sides has been enormous. The war has had a negative impact on world trade, it disrupts established trade links. Energy prices soared, which contributes to an already crippling inflation. Supporting Ukraine is growing unpopular amongst Western nations. We should always give peace a chance.
🌍 Global South, Trumpists, EU Right Populists: "Ukraine should seek peace and not just shrug off genuine attempts to stop the war. Further weapon deliveries encourage Kyiv's authorities to enable the pointless meatgrinder. NATO should stop deliveries and force their partners to the negotiating table. We have already seen that both sides can't possibly achieve their objectives — Ukraine won't liberate Crimea, Russia won't occupy Kyiv. This is a win-win for everyone — Ukraine keeps its national state and gives Russia's regime a way to save its face. Both sides can declare victories. Let's move on and trade."
-
Trust Issues: Russians can't be trusted. This just buys them time to rebuild and finish us off next time.
- Counterargument: NATO nuclear umbrella, separate defense pacts with the USA, UK, and others.
- IMO 📛 lost position. NATO is the ultimate protection, which was both the alleged reason for the invasion and the publicly declared goal of all post-Maidan Ukrainian governments. Russia will hardly pick a fight it cannot possibly win — the Ukraine invasion was a miscalculation on their part.
-
Moral High Ground: We can't let imperialists and dictators win. This sets a bad precedent. + Russia must pay for their crimes.
- Possible Counterargument: we keep the sanctions on the aggressor. Bad peace is better than a good war! Regarding reparations: frozen funds of $300B go to Ukraine.
- IMO ✅ Probably the only good one. Cons — appeals to abstract principles of justice, might not resonate with many short-sighted people.
-
Borders: We won't give up internationally recognized borders.
- Counterargument: This is not a reasonable position. You are not in a place militarily to do that on your own. We have no obligation to help you. Some even argue it's immoral and prolongs the suffering. Believe me, it's for your own sake, you will thank me later. Why don't you become a new South Korea and set an example? We will massively invest in your economy after the peace deal, but how can you expect to invest in a literal warzone?
- IMO 📛 lost position. Ukraine is the only actor really interested in this. Nobody else really cares about the UA/RU border that much.
-
Concern for Occupied Citizens: Risk of repression and torture.
- Counterargument: We will organize safe passages, guarded by EU peace forces / UN or even NATO. Every person can decide where they would rather live. Ukraine may retain its population to soften the demographic blow + it filters out unpatriotic elements, which in turn eliminates the need for repressions, and ethnic cleanses. Keeping these people inside your country lays the groundwork for future irredentist/separatist movements.
- IMO 📛 lost position. Russia can mess up "green corridors," but it's not very probable if it's really interested in peace for the time being at least. This way will cause fewer civilian casualties than forceful reintegration, which Ukraine intended.
- Human Cost: War is bad for people. The sooner peace is established, the fewer people will die. It's the morally correct thing to do.
- Economic Cost: War is bad for the economy. The West is spending a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, essentially paying the price of a new Cold War.
- No Viable Alternative: Given that Ukraine doesn't have the resources to fight on its own and the West doesn't think it's worth the risk of a nuclear holocaust to go 'all in', there's no viable alternative to peace.
- Win-Win Scenario: The phrase "Wolves are fed and sheep are safe" encapsulates the idea that both sides get something they want.
Ukraine gains working security guarantees and is admitted to NATO, something it has aspired to for the whole last decade. It can attract investments and live a peaceful life. It retains its national state and its population.
Russia acquired new territories that are now internationally recognized. Russia's population increases, which somewhat alleviates its demographic problems.
In Ukraine, the peace agreement would likely face strong opposition, especially from military families and veterans. Questions like "Did my son die for nothing?" would dominate public discourse. President Zelensky, who currently exercises significant control over the media due to wartime laws, would have a tough job selling this agreement as a win.
This isn't mere speculation. In March 2022, during the Istanbul peace talks, the Ukrainian government launched a media campaign against NATO, preparing the public for potential concessions. When the talks failed, they reverted to their pro-NATO stance as if nothing had happened.
Economic hardship and the dire humanitarian situation could also shape public opinion. If Ukraine survives another harsh winter, enthusiasm for prolonged fighting may wane. Russia's bombings of power plants have made life without electricity and heating a grim reality. Given that Ukraine is economically disadvantaged and borders are closed for fighting-age males, the country can't sustain a long-term conflict without significant hardship.
Inside Russia, the reaction would be mixed but generally favorable. Marginal chauvinistic imperialists would be the main dissenters, as their vision of victory includes the capture of all of Ukraine. However, a significant portion of the population is anti-war, and an even larger segment is indifferent, caring more about economic issues like salaries and inflation than geopolitics. The Russian government would likely try to sell this as a win against the "Ukronazi regime" and the West, capitalizing on nationalistic sentiments.