As we mark three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s resilience has thwarted Russian advances, but the war has entered a grinding phase, testing both Ukraine’s endurance and Western support. In an op-ed for Aljazeera, Maksym Skrypchenko, President of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center, highlights the risks of pressuring Ukraine into a flawed peace deal that freezes the conflict rather than securing lasting security.
With a new U.S. administration pushing for a swift peace deal, concerns are rising that Ukraine could be pressured into concessions that fail to ensure long-term security. The recent U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, held without Ukraine, reinforce fears of a deal that freezes rather than ends the war.
The failures of the Minsk agreements serve as a warning. Designed to halt the fighting, they instead allowed Russia to consolidate control and prepare for further aggression. Any peace settlement ignoring Ukraine’s security needs would risk repeating this mistake.
Polls show that while Ukrainians support negotiations, most reject territorial concessions. Any leadership agreeing to such terms would face immense public resistance. Sustainable peace requires continued Western military aid, allowing Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength.
Russia’s claims of economic resilience aim to create the illusion that time is on its side. But appeasing Moscow would only embolden future aggression. Instead, Ukraine needs a robust security framework—whether through NATO, bilateral agreements, or European-led defense commitments—to ensure lasting stability.
The coming months will define the West’s role in Ukraine’s fight—not just to reclaim land but to secure its sovereignty for good.
Read the full article via the link.
