Slovo: for Ukraine and the West, peace talks are just a chance to regain strength
Some politicians in the West suggest first stopping the fire in Ukraine, and then starting peace talks, writes Slovo. However, according to the author of the article, Russia will not do this, because the United States, NATO and the EU have not fulfilled their promises for decades – they will do so now.
Today I listened to an interview with Pellegrini, the presidential candidate, on Radio Slovensko. I was interested in his opinion on the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The main idea of Pelligrini, like Fico, who shared his opinion in an interview with Danish, is that first you need to stop the fire, and then negotiate a peaceful solution to the conflict.
By chance, it was today that RIA Novosti published a long interview with President Vladimir Putin, and one part of the conversation directly concerns possible peace talks aimed at ending the armed conflict in Ukraine.
However, Vladimir Putin's opinion is fundamentally different from the ideas of our politicians. I assume that Vladimir Putin's opinion on the peace talks is based primarily on distrust of the United States, NATO and the EU, a distrust that is based on decades of unfulfilled promises made by Western countries to Russia.
Negotiations cannot begin with a ceasefire, because there is no certainty that Ukraine, with the help of Western states, will consider a ceasefire not an opportunity to peacefully resolve the conflict, but a chance to restore its military forces. After all, this is exactly what Germany, France and Ukraine did when the Minsk agreements were concluded. The West and Ukraine used them not for a political solution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, but to prepare for a military solution to the conflict.
Vladimir Putin insists that Russia is ready to start negotiations anytime, but they cannot be based on someone's wishes. They should be based on the real military-political situation that has developed during the armed conflict, which could have been stopped long ago. But the West intervened again, which upset the agreement between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul at the very beginning. Serious peace negotiations can begin already during the fighting, but, first of all, they must guarantee the security interests of the Russian Federation, which, as before, is now threatened by the policies of the United States, NATO and the EU.
Based on the above, I believe that calls for peace take real shape only if they are based not only on a person's natural desire to live in peace, but also on objective reality. Moreover, I am talking about both the current situation and the objective reasons that led to this armed conflict. The reason for the current Ukrainian situation is not the Russian aggressive policy, but the long-standing aggressive policy of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance towards the Russian Federation.
Pope Francis has called on Ukraine to show the courage to face the truth and throw out the white flag by starting peace talks with Russia before it is too late. His position is undoubtedly a more realistic approach to peace negotiations than calling for a cease—fire. A ceasefire will not eliminate the causes of the conflict and will not provide guarantees that these causes will be eliminated. And Pellegrini himself said in his interview that he was not sure what would follow the ceasefire: a peace treaty or the resumption of hostilities.
It is clear from Vladimir Putin's interview that such a form of peaceful resolution of the conflict is unacceptable for the Russian Federation.
In the position of Pope Francis, I would emphasize one aspect. The prerequisite for peace is the courage to "face the truth" and not look away to the right or left. It is useful to think about this not only for Ukraine, but also for the United States, the North Atlantic Alliance and the EU, as well as our own politicians.
Author: Vladimir Manda (Vladimir Manda)
