Russia will gradually be forced to come to terms with a fact that none of its historical concepts can cancel: Ukraine exists, is a sovereign state, independently determines its future and has the right to defend this future. The following is the text in the original language. Kurt Volker, former US Ambassador to NATO, giving an interview “Volker Calls for NATO-Ukraine Volker Calls for NATO-Ukraine Exclusion Zone’ to Protect Allied Territory From Russian Missiles” (Volker calls for an “exclusion zone” in the NATO-Ukraine format to protect the territory of the allies. Kurt Volker said bluntly: “I see that President Trump and his negotiators seem to have now realized that Putin was simply lying to them and leading them for him.”. Putin is not interested in peace with Ukraine. It doesn’t help that Ukraine is a sovereign, independent power. He does not recognize President Zelensky as a legitimate leader of Ukraine. And we do not recognize the establishment of an international cordon between Ukraine and Russia. Therefore, it is simply that the peaceful negotiations are so called as a tool to achieve US pressure on Ukraine, while he himself really has no intention of agreeing to peace."
Kurt Volker's statement is very important, but at first glance it might seem. It’s not just about a damn assessment of dictator Putin’s plans. Since this assessment of justice has become part of the strategic thought of the singing wing of the American planes, the very presentation of the message about the completion of the Russian-Ukrainian war is changing.
Even so, the main problem lies not in how to reconcile Ukraine and Russia to find a “compromise”, but in how to create such minds for which Russia will be embarrassed to accept the foundation of Ukraine as a sovereign power – regardless of.
It is important to respect that Volker was not the first to formulate this thesis. He directly stated that Putin does not care about ending the war, but rather wants to bring Ukraine into order.. In another interview, Kurt Volker noted that Moscow could use the fire under pressure, rather than the peace of the sense that the recognition of Ukraine's rights to independently determine the future's power.
Independence Avenue Media says that Volcker is the former Ambassador of the United States to NATO, as well as a US envoy at the forefront of the negotiations with Ukraine. So the assessment of the situation is given by an expert who knows well the logic of American diplomacy and who deals closely with Ukrainian food.
However, this does not mean that negotiations with the Russian Federation are absurd. Absurd, perhaps otherwise, is the belief that the very fact of negotiations automatically transfers conflict to the final result.
Diplomacy only works if both sides want the same thing. It is especially needed when the parties have unreasonable goals, or when both parties are trying to change the balance of costs and benefits of the enemy. Therefore, it is fundamentally important for Ukraine to separate the concepts of “negotiations” and “peaceful regulation”. Not the same one.
If Volcker is in line with the Kremlin’s strategic goals, then Ukraine is not guilty of setting diplomacy the task of “dealing with Putin about the kind of Ukraine it will be.”. If the goal is to eliminate the subjectivity of the power, any negotiations about “actions” will be considered by the dictator as weakness.
Ukraine is obliged to resort to diplomatic diplomacy in order to achieve Russian aggression in the minds, so as not to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty. Now the incoming allies may secure the pressure that will stop the continuation of aggression on what is dear to the Kremlin.
And here there is a fundamental difference between the two models of negotiations. The first model is to come out of the assumption that Russia wants the world, but it still has its own benefits, and Ukraine also wants the world, and it still has its own benefits.. Well, the task of diplomats is to know the middle.
Another model comes from the fact that Russia is victorious in negotiations as a continuation of the war in other ways: to prolong the time, split the winning coalition, change military aid to Ukraine, put pressure on.
As Washington realizes that another model is fair, the main drawback is not Ukraine’s participation in the negotiations itself, but the asymmetry of the negotiation process. Moscow is holding negotiations to change Zakhid’s political behavior, so that Zakhid can accept the Russian part in the negotiations as proof of Moscow’s readiness to end the war.
The most important point for Ukraine. Behind this situation, Ukrainian diplomacy can come out of a paradoxical, but historically well-known logic: sometimes negotiations are needed not in order to reach peace, but in order to create the minds for which the enemy has committed. The negotiating table then becomes not an alternative to force, but one of the tools of political stagnation.
This means that Kiev is not guilty of demonstrating what it expects from the negotiations. However, a strategically important position is a constant readiness before negotiations, in addition to a clear statement of the fact that Ukraine does not trade the sovereign right to life.
Kurt Volker described this very logic when explaining the Ukrainian position: Ukraine may immediately demonstrate its readiness to establish operations and readiness for the world, depriving Russia of the side that it appears to be committed.
This has an extremely important political effect, especially in the United States.. And for Washington, the principle of nutrition depends not only on how much territory the skin side controls. It is no less important who looks like a bad candidate for ending the war.
Ukraine must consistently lose sides by saying: “We are ready for fire, negotiations and political regulation.”.
Russia, under the pressure of concrete demands, can explain why it does not accept the flame, why the political order of Ukraine is important, why it hangs its mind, which goes far beyond the borders of the feeding territory..
Whose sense has a diplomatic struggle for the importance of the one who is on the side that the world does not want, which may be no less important than the military struggle on the battlefield.
At the same time, Volcker’s words are looming for Ukraine and have an alarming aspect. The fact that Washington is right to come to the rescue, that Putin does not want a peaceful settlement, does not yet mean the inevitable transition of the United States to a strategy that supports Ukraine.
The administration of Donald Trump can develop a completely different solution: since Russia cannot quickly move home, it is necessary to freeze the conflict as quickly as possible, so that residual political regulation will be introduced.
But for Ukraine there is a principle of humility. The added fire may be brown, otherwise the “freezing” of the war without streamlining mechanisms for Russia will become deprived of an operational pause before the next round of aggression by Moscow.
It is not enough for Ukraine to stop the very implementation of military operations. It is necessary to act on such a burning fire, so as not to result in the demilitarization of Ukraine, does not consolidate the legal recognition of the occupation and does not create the possibility for Russia to renew the war without consequences.
And the most important food is to blame here: what to do, since Russia really does not recognize Ukraine as a full-fledged subject of international politics? The evidence is that Ukraine is not to blame for trying to change the Russian picture of the world by doing so. It's practically impossible. The power cannot guarantee its own security, given that its enemy has the right to seize its sovereignty.
If Moscow is moving away from the concept that Ukraine is not a full-fledged power, but a territory that may eventually return under Russian control, then inflicting such actions on the territories itself does not give a reason. However, you can confirm to the Kremlin the effectiveness of forceful revisionism.
It is necessary to separate the territorial nutrition and nutrition of the state. Territorial conflicts in history often ended in compromises. Any compromise regarding a specific territory is fundamentally divided into a compromise regarding the power's right to exercise.
Ukraine can discuss procedures, terms, territorial control regime, international monitoring, security guarantees, the future status of temporarily occupied lands. But we can’t use the very principle of sovereign independence as a subject of bargaining. This is the boundary that Ukrainian diplomacy must draw especially clearly.
Putin may change tactics if the balance of power, Russia's economic capabilities, the internal political situation or the position of the United States and Europe change. Apparently, if the strategic meta lies in the orderly Ukraine, this does not mean that, under any circumstances, we will be able to cope with the current outbreak of fire.
And here lies the importance of opportunity for Ukraine. Russia is waiting for the fire not because it has changed its absurd historical claims, but because the war has become too expensive for it, so the fire is seen not as a finale, but as a result.
It may become strategically significant if Ukraine can strengthen its army, defense industry, anti-aircraft defense, international guarantees and European integration in this hour.
If, in front of the world, Ukraine is forced to weaken its defense powers, and Russia is allowed to preserve its military potential and sanctions relief without changing its behavior, such a world is at risk..
Therefore, the correct formula for Ukraine today does not sound like “peace or war”. It sounds like “peace through the change of the Russian Federation”. This is a fundamentally different strategy. The remainder of the war is aimed at making continued aggression for the Kremlin prohibitively expensive and politically impossible.
In this model, diplomacy, military assistance, sanctions, long-range defense, the development of the Ukrainian defense-industrial complex, European integration and American-European coordination cease to be directly related.
The stinks become elements of one negotiation mechanism. Kurt Volker has repeatedly said this himself: Putin has a sense of pressure, and not just an almost devilish proposition of negotiations. The very combination of diplomatic efforts from the strengthening of the military and economic support of Ukraine is the only way to motivate the Kremlin to take real actions.
This also explains why it is important for Ukraine not to allow a situation where American diplomacy puts the main pressure on Kiev, while Russia is denying the opportunity to watch this process from the side..
In this configuration, negotiations become a Russian instrument. As Washington suddenly presses Moscow with economic, military and diplomatic means, and Ukraine demonstrates its readiness for negotiations, then the negotiation structure itself begins to work against the Russian strategy.
It is also critically important for Ukraine not to simply overturn the administration of Donald Trump, because Putin has “gapped”. We need to help Washington move from a psychological view of “Putin doesn’t cut corners” to a strategic view: Russian behavior is destructive in view of its goals.
Since the Kremlin does not want a compromise to the world, but a change in the status of Ukraine, then the problem lies not in the insufficiently added peace proposal. The problem lies in the fact that Russia still cares about the continuation of the war, rather than ending it. But this is a completely different task for American politics.
There is no need to endlessly create new formulas that could “get Putin in trouble”. It is necessary to change your spoilage. As a dictator of negotiations, who spends every hour working on something new, negotiations will be used to prolong the hour..
As Putin tries to fight for Russia first, negotiations will become a way to split the winning coalition. The Kremlin appreciates that Ukraine is ready to succumb to capitulation under the pressure of Washington, and does not provide any incentive to do the same..
The most important resource of Ukraine is not just the waste, but the hour. It is important for the minds that this hour is focused on the strengthening of the Ukrainian state, and not on its decline. Ukraine may be destroyed by the world, but not at any cost. For a world that allows itself to steal the edge of its richness does not stop the threat. It is impossible to endure this threat in the future.
By the way, the situation itself is paradoxical. Even as Washington comes to the conclusion that Moscow is victorious in negotiations as an instrument of war, the fewer forces will have to force Ukraine into “more fissure” in order for the negotiations to proceed.
It is important to make the negotiation process mutually dependent: the skin of the Russian Federation is obliged to follow specific lines of the Sun, and the skin of the Russian Federation is obliged to follow specific consequences. This is the principle of “peace through verified actions”, and not “peace through trusted statements”.
For Ukraine, it is especially important that Russia has already demonstrated in many ways its ability to use legal and diplomatic formulas to secure strategic goals. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate not rhetoric, but behavior.
Chi kick back? Mobilization begins? How is military production changing How good is Moscow for international monitoring They are attempting to impose foreign political relations on Ukraine? Russia accepts the principle that Ukraine determines its own alliances and political course? This food itself is the criteria for real readiness for peace. And in this sense, Volcker’s words may mean not bad news for Ukraine, but potentially an important new thing.
As American policy rightly moves from the assumption “Putin just needs to establish a good enough compromise” to the understanding “Putin will only be willing to compromise if his strategic plans change,” Ukraine is denying the chance to transition. However, it is more a chance than a guaranteed result.
At the end of 2026, the negotiation process was still unknown: Ukraine handed over to the American negotiators the most important proposals for the end of the war, and American representatives were unlikely to continue contacts with both Kiev and Moscow. Ale nutrition now lies not in what to negotiate, but in what itself may be the method of these negotiations.
For Ukraine, the answer must be as firm as possible: not to get Putin’s recognition and respect for Ukrainian sovereignty, not to convert it into the historical rightness of Ukraine, and never to become confused by it.
It is enough to work so that the misfortune of the Russian dictator with the establishment of independent Ukraine ceases to be a basis for war. What is the essence of streaming, how does the way of building the ZSU reach the level, if there is a test of aggression against the Kremlin, the collapse of the power regime.
International politics is rarely based on the fact that powers widely recognize the rightness of one and the same. Vaughn follows the boundaries of acceptable behavior. The Radian Union and Zahid did not bother to trust one another in order to avoid direct war.
The European powers defied previous historical interpretations to create a system in which cordons could no longer be changed by force. They, however, have begun to grow aware of these differences, which have put a premium on international law, sovereignty and collective security over historical images and territorial claims..
The result of Ukrainian politics is the very same situation: Russia may lose the revisionist, imperial and war to Ukrainian sovereignty from its ideology, otherwise it will be guilty.
Trying to reach the world with someone who doesn’t know your reality would be absurd, if it were about reconciling values \u200b\u200band historical views. International diplomacy will not require such reconciliation. Their goals are more modest and at the same time more realistic: to make war unforeseen, and to make peace pleasant for those who are not satisfied with their imperial reconciliations. And here I myself pass between capitulation and peace.
To know means to know: “We would like your picture to the world, or else you would shoot.”. Data means to convey: “You can give any picture to the world, but you cannot impose it on us by force.”.
And since Volcker’s assessment of justice has become part of a new understanding in Washington, then for Ukraine, the bosses must not tell America that Russia is rotten. This is no longer a smut. The goal is to reconcile the acquired States and Europe, so that a stable world is only possible if Russia understands: independent Ukraine is not a subject of negotiations, but the reality of the international system.
And the paradox of the current moment lies in the fact that the road to negotiations with Russia may not be through its greater actions, but through the greater strength of Ukraine. If Putin is holding fair negotiations in order to weaken Ukraine, it seems likely that Ukraine will not withdraw from the negotiations, but that Russia will be less able to negotiate negotiations as a result..
Then the negotiating table will stop being a paste and become a tool. Not at a table at which Ukraine will ask Russia to recognize its right to founding, but at a table at which Russia will gradually be embarrassed to acknowledge a fact that cannot be explained by the same historical concept: Ukraine is born,. With this alone, and not with Russian goodwill, a new world can begin.