Well-known American journalist, columnist and member of the editorial board of the influential American newspaper The Wall Street Journal Holman V. Jenkins Jr. (Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. ) published an article in The Wall Street Journal with the eloquent title “Asking Ukraine to Save Putin” with the subtitle “Pressure for a deal will increasingly smell like pressure to rescue the regime in Moscow” (Pressure regarding an agreement increasingly smells like pressure to save the regime in Moscow).

The following is the text in the original language. In any case, write: “It’s a completely new moment. Ukraine rejected new reasons for internal discussions such as a compromise in nutrition, or to exchange land for peace, to accept the land that Russia had already occupied. This is what the Trump administration has signaled for Ukraine, and what the Biden administration has signaled before. But now, if they are once again asked to blame Russia’s actions, Ukraine may essentially be asked to become an instrument of Vladimir Putin’s persecution.”.

Statti Holman V. Jenkins Jr., the nutrition that today stands at the center of international politics and security is being destroyed: what are the possible diplomatic compromises between Ukraine and Russia under pressure. Jenkins emphasizes that the pressure on Kiev to satisfy the government no longer looks like a path to peace, but like an attempt to restore Putin’s regime.

This caution points to the critical dilemma that Ukraine faces: between pragmatic efforts to stop war and the need to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The essence of Jenkins's argument is that any favor that conveys the actions of Kiev risks becoming a tool for legitimizing the Kremlin's aggression. Historically, similar situations have already occurred. International negotiations, in which weaknesses favored territorial and political actions under the pressure of strong powers, often led to a weakening of the position of the target of attack and a worse aggressor.

Particularly important in Jenkins' approach is the emphasis on the political parallel between the Trump and Biden administrations. This means that the Trump administration openly promoted the idea of \u200b\u200bexchanging territory for peace, while the Biden administration only signaled its readiness for a similar approach.

Now, any pressure to compromise with Moscow can be seen not only as a diplomatic shortcut, but as a potentially dangerous pressure on Ukraine to become an active participant in the stabilization of Putin’s regime. And now the economy of the Russian Federation begins to decline.

In addition, this problem has deep international implications. Even any compromise that includes Russia’s actions could create an unsafe precedent for other world conflicts. The aggressor believes that the occupation of the territory can be negotiated with diplomatic actions, which raises the risk of a repetition of similar behavior in the future.

And for Ukraine’s closest allies, the strategic problem arises: to encourage Kiev to preserve its territorial integrity and to encourage action to avoid further escalation of the war.? Jenkins clearly points out that the pressure that can be felt among allies is often disguised as humanistic or pragmatic arguments, rather than actually serving the interests of the Kremlin..

Another important topic is the internal political world. The Ukrainian community, which is experiencing ruinous aggression, has a strong assessment of what it means to “peace at the cost of territory”. Actions for the sake of a peaceful end to the war can lead to dissatisfaction and become a source of political instability. In this way, if we try the current pressure on Kiev to sign such a dubious agreement, we risk not only international, but also internal legitimacy.

Jenkins also speaks on the complex psychological aspect. Going to Ukraine to become “an instrument of Putin’s persecution” creates a moral mess.

On the one hand, it is important to avoid the continuation of the bitterly crooked war, and on the other hand, it is obvious that such actions do not defeat the enemy, but rather give him the time to consolidate and change his position. This is confirmed by the current practice of international conflicts, since weak powers often become objects of manipulation by powerful leaders, who falsely cover up the interests of power with “moral” arguments about peace and.

In the strategic world, the situation has a key theme: there is an international commitment to pursue a policy that effectively ensures peace, without putting the aggressor in a prominent position?

The author emphasizes the need for a critical re-examination of approaches that put pressure on the one who recognizes the attack instead of focusing on limiting the aggressor’s capabilities and strengthening his isolation. Such a strategy emphasizes not only political decisiveness, but also a strategic long-term perspective, adequate to the analysis of risks and moral clarity.

Analysis of the position of Jenkins Jr. allows us to state that any external gains for territorial and political actions on the side of Ukraine go far beyond the boundaries of classical diplomatic practice of regulation.

It is clear that such a scenario will not stop the expansionist ambitions of Moscow, but rather will fix the intermediate stage of aggression, creating a precedent, de force of the military establishment of cordons for military affairs. This is directly in line with the ambush norms of justice and the principles of the UN Statute, which guarantee the integrity of the sovereignty of powers.

For Ukraine itself, the implementation of such an approach would mean capitulation to an existential threat, the collapse of the internal community and the support of basic national interests, the main.

The satisfaction of Moscow's expansionist appetites creates an unsafe precedent that devalues \u200b\u200binternational law and undermines the principle of loose cordons. Jenkins is completely convinced that such a compromise does not explain the primary cause of the conflict - the revisionist nature of the established Russian regime, which is based on the ideology of the renewal of the imperial sphere.

Jenkins the Younger convincingly demonstrates that any decisions in this situation may be assessed not only through the prism of short-term benefits, but through long-term benefits for the security, sovereignty and moral position of the Ukrainian state.

And here lies a deep critical dilemma - the world's policy, inspired by pragmatism and the balance of power, risks depriving the position of respect for the human factor, which, in turn, underlies the legitimacy of any decisions. Therefore, today Ukraine is becoming not only a front of resistance against the aggressor, but also a litmus test of the moral maturity of international partnership.

There is no doubt that Jenkins's article has the potential to create super-remarks through a provocative tone and wording that some may find controversial. Prote, since it is important to read, it becomes an important appeal until global politics ceases to be dominated by short-term gains and dubious strategic maneuvers.

The expert does not propose simple solutions, but his article opens up an important perspective for understanding that the role of Ukraine today goes beyond territorial sovereignty and becomes a key figure in the formation of global justice.

Holman V's statistics appear. Jenkins, Jr. “The quest to Ukraine to destroy Putin” in The Wall Street Journal, which traditionally depicts the views of American business and the faded wing of the Republican Party, talking about those that Reagan’s wing.

And it is a significant indicator of a deep conceptual and ideological split in the middle of the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming American foreign policy and global security architecture.

As the mouthpiece of American business interests and the faded party establishment, The Wall Street Journal conveys the growing restlessness of the Reagan faction of the Republicans, which consistently stands for the principles of global.

The popularization of this position in the mainstream conservative media shows that it is opposed to the attempts of the Donald Trump administration to radically change the current political course through the imposition of dubious territorial territories on Ukraine.

This piece of information demonstrates that the pragmatic part of the republican elite views Donald Trump’s “overcome” idea of Russia, and the geopolitical “revolt” of the Putin regime as a direct threat to the long-term economic.

Obviously, this article is not just a special thought of an important political expert, but a systemic signal about those that supporters of global visibility in the middle of the Republican Party are beginning to resist isolationism and.

Followers of the political tradition of President Ronald Reagan in the Republican Party publicly advocate that support for Ukraine is a tool against the triumph of dictatorships and the decline of geopolitical chaos. This indicates that traditional Republican elites are taking the lead in foreign policy debates in the United States.