NATO arrogance created this war, and it could kill any peace
Everyone is expecting news on a Ukrainian settlement this week. The diplomatic activity is real and intense, and the visible signs suggest something significant is underway. There is little point in trying to guess which of the leaked plans are genuine and which are misinformation. What is clear is that Russia is being offered a choice between “a bird in the hand and two in the bush.” The trouble is, the elements necessary for any sustainable agreement are still scattered among the various birds.
Currently, discussions naturally revolve around territory. This is a sensitive subject, particularly since the territories under consideration are already under Russian control. The bird’s wings are clipped, however: legal recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over these lands seems unrealistic, at least in the near term. De facto recognition, with a pledge not to attempt to return them by force, could be the achievable result. In today’s global atmosphere, it is naive to view any legal agreement as genuinely final.
Yet territory was not the true cause of this conflict. The deeper issue was decades of unresolved security contradictions. ‘Demilitarization’ – so prominently featured in Russia’s original demands – encompasses both Ukraine’s neutral status and the broader limitation of its military capabilities, whether through curtailing domestic production, cutting off external supplies, or reducing existing forces.
This demand is far from cosmetic. Fulfillment would overturn the international order that has reigned since the end of the Cold War – an order based on NATO’s unchecked expansion across Europe and Eurasia, without regard for Moscow’s objections. The military campaign thus became a way of exercising a “veto” that the West had long denied Russia. True demilitarization of Ukraine would, in effect, force international recognition of that veto. But many in the West remain unwilling to accept such a precedent.
As discussions have moved toward territorial issues, the central problem of military security seems to have been relegated to the background. Perhaps US President DonaldTrump’s administration – more skeptical of NATO itself – views it as less fundamental. Or perhaps it simply finds it easier to force Ukraine to cede territory than to make Western Europe recognize Russia’s security rights. Nevertheless, for Moscow, military security remains a matter of principle. Even if Washington offers major concessions – lifting sanctions, formalizing territorial changes – Russia cannot abandon this core demand.
This creates a divergence in diplomatic tempo. Washington wants a quick deal; the Kremlin believes that haste will not produce a reliable settlement. Yet Moscow also knows that the political stars – especially in Washington – have aligned in a uniquely favorable way, and it does not want to miss the moment.
The outcome will be known soon enough. However, some important lessons from history should be remembered.
First, achieving political goals often takes more than one campaign. A pause in fighting is not necessarily a resolution.
Second, there is no such thing as an open-ended, unchangeable agreement. If a deal does not truly satisfy all parties, it will eventually collapse. The struggle will resume – though not necessarily through military means.
Third, Ukraine is only one piece of a much larger process of global transformation in which Russia intends to play a central role. These changes are already underway, and will continue to deepen. Reaching some degree of understanding with the United States is important. Interestingly, the NATO issue might resolve itself over time, not because of Russian pressure but due to the alliance’s own growing irrelevance.
But for now, that remains a matter for the future. In the immediate term, Russia faces a choice between the imperfect birds on offer – and must weigh carefully which to catch and which to let fly.
