The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has been urged to reconsider his approach, particularly in his dealings with the Ukrainian political opposition. Mikuláš Dzurinda, President of the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, highlights that a shift in strategy is necessary, especially given the prolonged war with Russia that has stretched on for nearly three years. Many political figures and analysts are now deliberating on how to bring this conflict to a close and establish a sustainable peace.
A popular suggestion being floated is the idea of applying a framework similar to the one used in Germany following World War II. For Ukraine, this would mean accepting that it will not be able to reclaim the territories currently occupied by Russia through military means. Under this model, Ukraine would not formally relinquish these territories, nor would the West ever recognize them as part of Russia. Instead, Ukraine would acknowledge the reality on the ground and commit to a non-violent approach in addressing the occupation. In return, Ukraine would demand firm security guarantees from its allies, ensuring that Russia would be deterred from future acts of aggression.
This concept has gained traction recently, with figures like Czech President Petr Pavel and outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressing similar views. The question remains, however, why such a solution has not yet been implemented.
One key obstacle to this solution, as Dzurinda sees it, is the unrealistic expectations held by many Ukrainians, as well as significant parts of the democratic world. This is not an uncommon issue in politics. Populist leaders, and sometimes even well-meaning politicians, can inadvertently create inflated expectations among their constituents by making ambitious promises. Such promises, while inspiring hope, often lead to significant risks for both the politicians and the communities they represent. When expectations are not met, it can leave little room for retreat or compromise, which is a dangerous path in any conflict, particularly one as volatile as the war between Ukraine and Russia.
Ukraine’s initial successes in the war have only amplified these unrealistic expectations. The defence of Kyiv against a rapid Russian invasion, the protection of Kharkiv, and Ukraine’s subsequent counteroffensive sparked a sense of optimism both in Ukraine and among its Western allies. These victories led many to believe that a full Ukrainian victory over Russia was within reach. President Zelenskyy and parts of the West became emboldened by these achievements, fostering the idea that Ukraine could eventually reclaim all occupied territories, including Crimea.
The West also played a role in building these high expectations. The narrative that Western economic and military power would eventually force Russian President Vladimir Putin to retreat or reconsider his actions became widespread. Some Western leaders held out hope that Putin could be pressured into stopping his military campaign or, at the very least, slowing it down. Ukraine’s candidacy for EU membership, which seemed unattainable before the war, was granted with remarkable speed, further contributing to the sense of progress and success.
However, this sense of optimism and the belief that Putin would eventually yield created a distorted view of reality. The immense challenges posed by the conflict were downplayed, and the notion of a swift and decisive Ukrainian victory became more of an illusion than a feasible outcome. The West’s support, while substantial, has not been enough to deliver the rapid victory that many anticipated, and it is clear that Russia remains entrenched in its position.
In addition to the exaggerated expectations among the public and politicians, there is also a deeper strategic issue at play. Many observers believe that the only way to truly end the war is through negotiation, not military victory. However, this perspective clashes with the sentiment in Ukraine, where many believe that accepting any form of compromise with Russia would be tantamount to defeat. The desire to reclaim all lost territories remains strong, but the reality of the military situation makes this an increasingly unlikely outcome.
As a result, Ukraine faces a difficult decision. On one hand, there is the desire to continue fighting and pushing back Russian forces in the hopes of achieving a full victory. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition that a negotiated settlement may be the only viable path to peace. This settlement would likely involve significant compromises, including accepting that Ukraine will not regain all of its lost territory. For many Ukrainians, this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it may be necessary to bring the war to an end and ensure long-term stability.
the protracted war between Ukraine and Russia has created a complex and difficult situation for both Ukraine and its Western allies. While early successes in the conflict fueled hopes of a decisive victory, the reality is that the war is unlikely to end in a straightforward military triumph. Unrealistic expectations have been fostered by both Ukrainian leaders and Western supporters, and these expectations must now be tempered with the harsh realities of the situation. A negotiated settlement, while difficult, may be the best path forward to secure peace and stability for Ukraine in the long term. However, this will require significant political courage and a willingness to make difficult compromises, both for Ukraine and its allies in the West.
