Strengthening Ukraine’s Defense: The Path to Lasting Peace

[Social Media]

 

To secure a long-term peace in Ukraine, the world must convey to Vladimir Putin that he cannot dictate the outcome of this war. Ukraine’s security hinges on increased military support, a direct path to NATO membership, and global backing for President Volodymyr Zelensky’s peace initiative. 

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine twice since 2014, refusing to acknowledge its sovereignty. Despite his repeated efforts to control the country, the Ukrainian people have resisted his aggression. After more than two years of relentless defense, it is evident that Ukrainians will not surrender to Russian dominance. However, despite their bravery, Putin’s destructive war continues. Without firm resolve from Ukraine’s allies, the conflict risks becoming a prolonged threat to European stability.

 

Russia’s militarization poses a danger not just to Ukraine but to the entire world, with potentially devastating consequences. Already, the war has sent energy and food prices soaring globally and has threatened nuclear safety. By trampling on the core principles of international law, Russia has shaken the global order. 

 

To promote peace, it is essential for Ukraine’s allies to demonstrate that Putin will not control how this war concludes. A peace agreement must be founded on the principles of international law, backed by military aid that strengthens Ukraine on the battlefield, guarantees long-term security, and clears the way for its accession to NATO. While Putin seeks to extend the conflict, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is working toward peace.

 

This summer, Zelensky rallied representatives from over 90 countries in Switzerland to build support for his ten-point peace formula, which includes nuclear safety measures, addressing environmental consequences of the conflict, and calling for a full Russian withdrawal.

 

Global pressure is key to reaching a peace deal, but a lasting resolution also requires strong security guarantees. Russia’s repeated violations of international law and human rights demonstrate that peace cannot rely on Putin’s promises alone.

 

Ultimately, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself will determine the war’s outcome. Ukraine has every right to use long-range weapons against Russian missiles and drones that continue to kill civilians. “Limiting its ability to do so is essentially asking it to fight with one arm tied behind its back,” as Ukraine’s forces have proven their ability to use Western-supplied weapons responsibly. Allies must lift restrictions on the types of weapons supplied and how they can be used.

 

In addition to immediate military aid, Ukraine’s allies must pledge long-term support, including financial resources and military equipment for as long as necessary. Already, more than 30 countries have provided long-term security guarantees through the Kyiv Security Compact. Now, it is time to ensure those commitments are upheld. Over the coming months, efforts will focus on implementing the guarantees, assessing new threats, and aligning Ukraine’s security with Europe’s broader defense goals. 

 

Preventing Putin from winning the peace requires more than promises. Allies should expand their support by training Ukrainian forces, sending civilian contractors or military teams to repair equipment on-site, and possibly establishing an extended air-defense shield over Western Ukraine. Each of these measures will bolster Ukraine’s position in future negotiations.

 

Ultimately, the surest path to long-term peace in Europe is for Ukraine to join NATO. Leaving Ukraine in a vulnerable “grey zone” would only invite further aggression and instability. NATO must offer Ukraine a clear path to membership, sending a strong message to Putin that his war will not prevent Ukraine’s eventual accession.

 

As Putin’s militarized Russia continues to threaten Europe, Ukraine and its allies must heed the ancient Roman maxim, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Over the past two years, Ukraine has shown its determination to defend its freedom. Now, the international community must summon the courage to ensure that peace prevails.

 

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former NATO secretary-general

 

Credit: Project-Syndicate 2024-09-20

 

 

 

[jippytum]

Ukrain should be allowed to use long range weapons supplied by western allies. Zilensky is being  asked to fight with one arm tied behind his back. 

[johng]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Preventing Putin from winning the peace requires more than promises.

Prevention of peace....what a great great idea...the rest just reinforcing that Ukraine is being used as a proxy trying to destroying Russia.. They will fight till the last Ukrainian.

[animalmagic]

26 minutes ago, johng said:

Prevention of peace....what a great great idea...the rest just reinforcing that Ukraine is being used as a proxy trying to destroying Russia.. They will fight till the last Ukrainian.

The original article said, "Preventing Putin from winning the peace requires more than promises."

Which means preventing the aggressor from achieving any perceived gain from their hostile invasion of a sovereign state and the return of all Ukrainian and Russian lands to the rightful power.  If Ukraine were to be used as a proxy to destroy Russia, then the West would have helped rearm them BEFORE an invasion took place and then facilitated the invasion of Russia.  Russia is destroying itself at the moment.

[expat_4_life]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The surest path to long-term peace in Europe is for Ukraine to join NATO. Leaving Ukraine in a vulnerable “grey zone” would only invite further aggression and instability. NATO must offer Ukraine a clear path to membership, sending a strong message to Putin that his war will not prevent Ukraine’s eventual accession.

 

This is absolute nonsense, even Jens Stoltenberg admitted that "Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".  Anyone who thinks this is a path to peace and stability needs to have their head examined.

 

Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

Edited 5 hours ago by expat_4_life

[newbee2022]

For me it's a dead end street to send more weapons. 😇

[johng]

1 hour ago, animalmagic said:

Russia is destroying itself at the moment.

 

Russia is not destroying itself,  the US/NATO Ukrainian proxy war has obviously not gone as planed  they thought Russia would quickly fold after illegal sanctions ,would quickly run out of bullets,bombs,tanks,aircraft and that Russian equipment was old and useless  etc etc etc

 

BRICS is upcoming, Russia is a big player in this shift away from the US petrol dollar  forging new alliances with the "global south"

The US becomes weaker in the end stage of its empire  last ditch attempt to remain "number 1"  is to provoke WWIII  and hope they will come out on top

[ericbj]

1 hour ago, johng said:

 

Russia is not destroying itself,  the US/NATO Ukrainian proxy war has obviously not gone as planed  they thought Russia would quickly fold after illegal sanctions ,would quickly run out of bullets,bombs,tanks,aircraft and that Russian equipment was old and useless  etc etc etc

 

BRICS is upcoming, Russia is a big player in this shift away from the US petrol dollar  forging new alliances with the "global south"

The US becomes weaker in the end stage of its empire  last ditch attempt to remain "number 1"  is to provoke WWIII  and hope they will come out on top

 

I agree with what you write here.

 

NATO may have believed to some extent their propaganda of Russian military incompetence (and initially the Russian Stavka made some serious miscalculations).

 

But essentially, I believe NATO staff wrongly expected Ukrainian resistance to fold rapidly.

 

The Russian attack was deliberately provoked by the build-up of a powerful Ukrainian strike force in the gap beween the two break-away republics combined with an unprecedentally heavy shelling to 'soften-up' (as reported by OECD observers on the spot).

 

The purpose was to cripple Russia with unlimited economic sanctions, adding to those introduced as result of the destruction of flight MH17 in 2014.

 

The US wanted the EU to sanction Russia prior to the shooting down of that aircraft, but it was only after that murderous incident that the EU agreed to do so.

 

Too long to go into the details here of that aircraft's loss.  Suffice it to say:

 

(1.)  The enquiry was rigged.  (see who was allowed to participate)

 

(2.)  Evidence of an air-traffic controller, viewing the flight on his radar screen.  (he and his evidence subsequently disappear from public view)

 

(3.)  Eye-witness testimony collected from civilians on the ground by BBC reporters, saying they saw the civilian aircraft attacked by a fighter aircraft.  The video interviews appeared briefly on the BBC's web-site but were quickly removed.  (but not before they had been copied; I viewed and saved them with their English subtitles, and hopefully they are backed up somewhere on an old hard-drive)

 

(4.)  Russian radar picked up TWO fighter aircraft approaching the airliner, one from either side.  (the civilians on the ground saw only one)

 

(5.)  A German civilian pilot decided to do a personal investigation of the wreckage on the ground, before it was removed.  His high-definition photograph of a panel from the cockpit showed multiple round holes of identical size, some with what looked like smooth edges and others with ragged edges facing outwards.  These could not have been caused by a BUK missile strike.  Instead they suggested 20 mm cannon fire coming from both sides of the airliner.  (I viewed and saved this photograph, but do not have it to hand)

 

(6.)  A BUK missile battery was shown on satellite imagery to have been brought into the area by the Ukrainian army in a part of that area that they controlled.  The soldiers sat around, apparently drinking, as on the ground appeared what seemed like piles of bottles.  No missile was fired, and they subsequently withdrew.

[Lapun]

2 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

This is absolute nonsense, even Jens Stoltenberg admitted that "Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".  Anyone who thinks this is a path to peace and stability needs to have their head examined.

 Putin became Prime Minister in Russia from 9 August 1999 – 7 May 2000. Since1999, according to -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

 

. . . there have been wars involving Russia under Putin

1. Dagestan (1999)
2. Chechnya (1999-2009)
3. Georgia (2008)
4. Ukraine (2014-present)
5. Syria - a civil war between Russia, Iran, Hezbollah & Syria versus ISIL, Ahrar al-Sham, Tahrir al-Sham, & the Syrian Opposition (2015-present)
6. Central Africa - a civil war between Russia, the Central African Republic & Rwanda versus the Coalition of Patriots for Change (2018-present)
7. Mali - a war between Russia & Mali versus Al-Qaeda & Islamic State (2021-present)
8. Burkina Faso - a war between Russia & Burkina Faso versus the Jihadist insurgency of Al-Qaeda & Islamic State

So Russia will willingly go to war for whatever reason they deem fit. NATO expansionism may have been only part of the reason. But states close to Russia may well have feared for their sovereignty.

 

Strangely enough, the Charter for Eropean Security was adopted on 19 November 1999. Russia was one of the signatories, as was Ukraine I believe. This charter - 

 

"reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve."

 

See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

 

Russia has not always followed this Charter - 4 violations have been listed under the section "Significance of the Charter"  at -

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_for_European_Security

 

Therefore, IMO it would be overly simplistic to blame NATO expansionism for the Putin invaision of Ukraine.

 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

 

This is absolute nonsense, even Jens Stoltenberg admitted that "Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".  Anyone who thinks this is a path to peace and stability needs to have their head examined.

 

Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

By Jeffrey Sachs.

Far left propagandist.

AI could write his garbage. 

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

By Jeffrey Sachs.

Far left propagandist.

AI could write his garbage. 

Doesn't mean he's wrong

How about showing us why he's wrong?

You know... Evidence.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

Doesn't mean he's wrong

How about showing us why he's wrong?

You know... Evidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/anti-war-camp-intellectually-bankrupt/671576/

 

How the Anti-war Camp Went Intellectually Bankrupt

Critics of U.S. foreign policy from both ends of the ideological spectrum have found common cause in supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

Doesn't mean he's wrong

How about showing us why he's wrong?

You know... Evidence.

Taking quotes from Jens Stoltenberg head of NATO then taking them out of context and jumbling the order of them up is more than misleading and forms the basis of his whole flawed opinion piece. How about Sachs shows some evidence of why he's right?