Putin does not seek an end to the war, still believes that Russian troops are expected in Ukraine

MP Mykola Knyazhytskyi believes that the statement that for peace it is enough to “give up Donbas”, change the uniform of the CCC employees, and urgently hold elections is a manifestation of populism. According to him, such ideas may indicate the authorities’ irresponsibility or their desire to humiliate the enemy. He notes that the current authorities are falling into the trap of low efficiency, while the threat from the Russian leadership is catastrophically high.

It is necessary to maintain a critical approach to statements about “immediate negotiations”, readiness for “security guarantees”, and calls for an end to the war. It is important to remember that the meetings held in Abu Dhabi were not, in fact, formal negotiations. They were rather consultations in which Russia represented its military interests, indicating the absence of real alternatives to a political solution.

Territorial issues in the context of the war are secondary. The hypothetical return of Ukraine to the 1991 borders does not guarantee an end to violence. The main factor should be security commitments that will make it impossible to resume the conflict. Such measures may include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of military contingents on its territory, the strengthening of defense lines, and the development of missile capabilities to adequately respond to any threats.

Membership in the European Union is not sufficient to provide security guarantees, as it does not pose a direct threat to Russia. At the same time, the idea of forming a European army based on Ukrainian forces could be an effective way to deter aggression.

Statements about “full readiness” for security guarantees are mostly part of informational contextualization. The lack of urgent details is explained only by Western media reports discussing the mythical aspects of NATO Article 5. This article does not contain a clear commitment by any specific country to a military response, leaving room for interpretation.

The end of the war now depends on the decisions of one person — the Russian leader, who continues to live in a world of his own illusions, believing in the support of the local population and that his troops “care” for civilians. Vladimir Putin’s entourage usually does not expose anything that contradicts his ideas, whether in public statements by officials or in military commands.

Thus, there are no political and economic incentives to stop the war. The information space around Putin emphasizes the success of the actions and reinforces his perception of reality. This indicates that the conflict will continue as long as Russia has the resources to support it — and the resolution of this issue depends more on actions on the battlefield than on diplomatic meetings.