Neither Russia nor West ready to make concessions

1. If two countries are at war and both need a break, then a truce is possible. But if one side has money for rearmament, and the other has no money for rearmament, who will benefit from the break?

Obviously, the party that has the money. It will rearm and continue.

2. If two sides want to make an agreement, and one demands the other to make concessions while being unwilling to make any concessions itself, what is the likelihood of an agreement?

If a third party encourages these two sides to reach an agreement but is not willing to give anything itself, does this increase the likelihood of an agreement?

Ukraine is currently being asked to make concessions on territories (and people), potential NATO membership, and various other things (such as the status of the Russian language or other new demands). Meanwhile, Russia is not willing to make any concessions. The West is also unwilling to concede anything, is not ready to finance rearmament during a brief peace, and is not prepared to provide any security guarantees.

“This is not peace, this is an admission of defeat, because the break will not last long, and the rearmed Russian army will move on.”

The active promotion by Russian propaganda and Western journalism of the idea that an agreement has already been effectively reached is merely pressure on Ukrainian society and politicians. It's like a thug trying to steal your wallet, and when you're actively resisting, he politely explains that you've already essentially agreed to hand the wallet over to its new owner.

Source

About the author. Valerii Pekar, lecturer at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.