Analysis
A truce in Ukraine could come soon, but peace is a lie
Ukraine is rich in raw materials and natural resources. Will Kyiv be given the space and independence it needs for a rebirth? At this point, the answer is no.
According to the most widely accepted linguistic analysis, “Ukraine” originally meant “borderland,” in a world in which Moscow was seen as the center of power and to its west was a land that acted as a buffer with the other potentates of the time. Ukrainians reject this view, and instead cite the Kievan Rus as the origin of the Slavic states of Eastern Europe. This recent dispute is itself marked by irredentism and the settling of scores, nationalism and accusations vying for justice in the evanescent court of history.
And now that Ukraine begins its fourth year of war against the same giant that has been a constant presence during all of its previous existence, everyone is wondering what its future will look like, since everyone – even Kyiv's military intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov – is taking it for granted that the conflict “will end this year.”
Vladimir Putin can’t wait to be finally able to declare victory, which has escaped him for such a long time. “We will achieve all the objectives of the special military operation” is the phrase we have heard the most from the Kremlin in recent years – and yet, to date, Russia has only succeeded in only one of its goals: namely, turning Ukraine into an economically bankrupt country.
If Western economic support were to suddenly stop tomorrow, Kyiv would soon go bankrupt. This is a direct consequence of the Russian invasion and war effort to fight off an economically and numerically stronger enemy, and there’s not much that can be done about that fact. But that doesn’t mean that one cannot rise from the ashes of a war, no matter how bloody it has been. Especially if, like Ukraine, one is rich in raw materials and natural resources.
This is precisely the point: will Kyiv be given the space and independence it needs for a rebirth? At this point, the answer is no. Donald Trump continues to insist on a so-called “Agreement” over Ukrainian rare earths, which Zelensky has refused to sign because it would mean premature capitulation. Giving direct or indirect concessions to exploit Ukrainian mineral deposits, granting the free use of ports and transport centers, eliminating all tariffs and making a court in New York (!) competent to solve any disputes would mean tying a noose around his own neck.
It is true that Ukrainian politicians have been saying for years that they want to move toward the West, but this is a bridge too far. Evidence of this is the fact that Zelensky continues to say no, and that Donald Trump on Friday went for Mafia-style intimidation: “We're either going to sign a deal or there's going to be a lot of problems with them,” the U.S. president said. It is essential to the effect of such threats that they don’t specify what those problems will be, but according to Reuters, Washington negotiators have reportedly threatened to take away access to the Elon Musk-owned Starlink satellite system.
And still, what has Russia gotten out of these 1095 days of war? About 25 percent of pre-war Ukrainian territory, a large-scale ban on trading with Western Europe, with accompanying sanctions, and a significant increase in public debt. Those still claiming the economic restrictions have had no effect should look up the Russian Central Bank's 2025 forecast. The Donbass, the heart of Putin's claims, the flagship of the sacred duty to protect Russian speakers across the world, is still partly controlled by the Ukrainians, to the tune of around 40% of Donetsk.
“But if Russia really wanted to...” is the most common retort from fervent advocates of Kremlin’s supposed power. Moscow did want to, and it tried – not to the utmost limits of its strength, one must acknowledge, because there’s always the nuclear bomb – but it failed. Putin expected a blitzkrieg that turned into a three-year trickle. He thought he would be welcomed as a liberator in many of the regions where he sent his soldiers, but there was no welcoming committee.
In short: he wanted to prove to the world that he was the leader of a superpower, and failed to use military strength to defeat a much weaker enemy. This is why he obviously agrees with Trump: a ceasefire is needed now, because the war could last who knows how much longer.
This assumes that the West won’t completely turn away from Ukraine, as Washington already seems to want to do. A Ukraine without NATO weapons and money would be a much easier target, but we’re already well past the time in which “victory” would have been plausible.
We could point out that on the ground, there is no victory to be seen, only death, destruction and desolation. But in this moment of geopolitical frenzy, when theories about future global arrangements are being tossed around like in drunken games of Risk, there’s not much point to doing so. One particular note, however, is necessary, coming from the Donbass, where this article is being written: don't call it “peace.” Whatever it ends up being will not be worthy of that name.
Not because it won’t be the “just peace” that Zelensky has been calling for and European politicians have been parroting for years; not even because in some ways it will be favorable to Russia, which, as almost everyone was saying three years ago – but those were other times – is the aggressor. That’s not the reason. As anyone familiar with the Ukrainian situation knows, there will be thousands of military personnel unhappy with submitting to Trump's will – and what will these trained ex-soldiers do, deprived of humanity by three years of conflict and possibly armed? In Russia, the hawks are blowing on the embers of the idea of national greatness, despising any effort towards peace.
In the territory controlled by Kyiv, there are already hundreds of thousands of newly poor and displaced people with no jobs left, and the number will only increase. Inflation and unemployment are skyrocketing. Not to mention the teenagers and children who have been deprived of social contact with their peers for three years. All for a renewed clash of superpowers, with the underdog of the day paying the price. It was Ukraine's turn this time, and it has already gone terribly, as it has for many other countries before. But for once, let us at least try to avoid hypocrisy.
Originally published at https://ilmanifesto.it/tregua-ucraina-allorizzonte-ma-la-pace-e-una-menzogna on 2025-02-23