In the early 19th century, the Prussian general and military historian Carl von Clausewitz remarked on the nature of military aggressors, noting, “The conqueror is always peace-loving; he would much prefer to march into our state calmly.”
This sentiment has often resonated through various military conflicts, yet it was largely overlooked in Europe’s understanding of Moscow’s intentions following the onset of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014.
European diplomatic efforts and commentary tended to focus on the Kremlin’s public declarations of peaceful intentions towards Kyiv, leading many to believe that negotiation could moderate Russia’s ambitions.
This perspective fundamentally missed a crucial point: Russian President Vladimir Putin favored a non-violent control over Ukraine to avoid the complications and uncertainties of a military invasion.
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and covert operations in eastern Ukraine, the strategy employed was one of hybrid warfare, relying on subversion by Russian agents and proxy forces rather than large-scale military occupation.
However, the context changed significantly over the past three years. The ongoing war has come to serve a stabilizing function for Putin’s regime, which increasingly leans on militarization, extremist ideology, and societal mobilization.
In contrast, the perception of Moscow’s strategic intentions in Washington has shifted towards a more escapist approach since January 2025.
The naivety, moral indifference, and lack of diplomatic finesse exhibited by the new U.S. administration in its response to the war have alarmed European leaders and allies.
Despite past erratic policies during Donald Trump’s first term, the recent actions taken by the White House regarding the Russo-Ukrainian conflict have left many incredulous.
In the first four months in office, American diplomatic initiatives, including high-profile negotiations, have yielded minimal results.
After discussions between Trump and Putin, both leaders proclaimed success. However, tangible outcomes from the trilateral talks involving Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv have been elusive.
Putin has explicitly indicated that a ceasefire is not imminent, underscoring the idea that Russian imperialism is not amenable to negotiation, compromise, or concession.
Trump’s suggestion of renewed direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ignored the fact that the two nations have engaged in various negotiations for over eleven years.
Moreover, Putin used the term “memorandum” to reference potential future agreements, which serves as a subtle but pointed reminder of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
This historical agreement, wherein Moscow guaranteed Ukraine’s security in exchange for nuclear disarmament, has been violated repeatedly, making Putin’s recent language appear more like a mockery than a genuine diplomatic overture.
He also suggested that a future ceasefire might only be temporary, contingent upon reaching “appropriate agreements.”
This admission reveals that Russia’s war economy and military mobilization are now so entrenched that halting hostilities is not an easily reversible process.
A sudden end to conflict may create significant post-war challenges in terms of managing a vast military force and reconciling a populace that has been primed for military engagement through extensive propaganda and education initiatives.
Consequently, these insights lead to a grim conclusion: the resolution of the Russo-Ukrainian War will likely require a decisive Russian defeat on the battlefield.
Historically, military failures in Russia have precipitated significant internal reforms, as seen after the Crimean War and the Russo-Japanese War.
The failures in Afghanistan also contributed to shifts towards glasnost and perestroika in the late Soviet era.
Ultimately, such lessons indicate that negotiations, compromises, or concessions will not suffice to diminish Russian imperialism.
Instead, these approaches might only embolden further foreign aggressions and increase military tensions along Russia’s borders.
For a sustainable end to Russia’s expansionist ambitions and its violent campaign against Ukraine and its civilians, the Russian populace must recognize that these actions cannot lead to victory.
The fear of repercussions and domestic collapse, accompanied by a clear understanding of the costs of imperialism, is essential for significant change in Moscow’s behavior.
Only then can genuine peace discussions genuinely be pursued, fostering hope for stability in the region and beyond.
image source from：https://kyivindependent.com/why-washington-failed-to-end-the-russo-ukrainian-war/
