No peace deals on russia’s terms: Statement from Vitsche
No peace deals on russia’s terms
Statement from Vitsche The future of Ukraine must not be negotiated without Ukraine. Decisions on security in Europe must not be determined without Europe. The Ukrainian people have a tremendous desire for a just and lasting peace, but this can only be guaranteed through reliable and effective security guarantees.
A peace plan must not resemble Munich in 1938. If the international community gives in to an aggressor, it will not promote peace, but lay the groundwork for the next escalation. Concessions to a tyrant who deliberately shifts borders and uses violence as a political tool do not create security, but encourage further attacks. Those who accept an unjust peace today risk an even more extensive war on their own doorstep tomorrow.
Sustainable peace requires, first and foremost, the clear identification of the aggressor who has attacked Ukraine in 2014 and, on a full scale, in 2022. The experience of recent years shows that a frozen conflict is merely a pause during which russia renews its forces and later strikes again. Any proposal for a peace process must ensure that Ukrainian sovereignty remains protected against new aggression, so that this war is not only interrupted but ended permanently. Peace in Europe should not only be achieved for our generation, but also for future generations, and not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe and Germany in particular. Today, the future of Europe is also being decided, and that is why we must all stand alongside Ukraine.
- No negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine and on Europe without Europe.
The representatives of Ukraine and Europe must have a legitimate seat at the negotiating table, with Ukraine serving not as an object of geopolitical interests, but as a sovereign state. The original draft was largely drawn up without European and Ukrainian involvement. Europe demands full transparency – no covert negotiations between major powers over the heads of those affected.
- Negotiations should start once a ceasefire has been established
Last week, we saw in Kharkiv, Dnipro, Ternopil and other cities that russia does not want peace, but rather the total destruction of Ukraine. Time and again, we see russia using negotiation processes as a strategic weapon to divide Ukraine’s coalition of supporters.
- Credible mechanisms for security guarantees
Although the present plan speaks of guarantees, it simultaneously restricts Ukraine’s defence capabilities and offers no credible mechanisms for security guarantees, meaning that russia could launch another massive attack at any time. An effective deterrent must be clearly defined, enforceable and effective against any violations. The plan on offer is being called the ‘Budapest Memorandum 2.0’ – in other words, a guarantee without a guarantee. Germany calls for binding, robust and sanctionable security mechanisms. Europe must not allow military aggression to be rewarded by gaining territory that it has previously occupied. Europe must make it clear that without verifiable, enforceable security mechanisms, there will be no peace, but rather a standstill in preparation for the next attack.
- No ultimatum for Ukraine, but for russia
russia attacked Ukraine and should take responsibility for it; you cannot expect the victims to pay for a lasting and just peace. russia’s wish list is focused on restricting the Ukrainian army, but not the russian one. Any restriction on Ukrainian soldiers forces Ukraine into structural defencelessness. Europe must strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself – not artificially weaken it.
- russia’s wish list paves the way for the next war
Several points contradict the fundamental principles of European security and international law. These include unconstitutional restrictions on Ukrainian sovereignty, such as a NATO ban, the de facto surrender of Ukrainian territories, the limitation of armed forces, and russia’s possible return to international structures before the war has actually ended and issues of reparations and compensation have been resolved.
- russian funds to be treated as leverage rather than as an imperative for the aggressor
Clear commitment to the use of russian state assets for the benefit of Ukraine – not as a geopolitical bargaining chip. The plan provides for reconstruction-linked release, which is politically linked to concessions. Germany should make it clear that recourse to frozen assets is russia’s legal responsibility, not a matter for negotiation. The plan provides for Moscow’s geopolitical reintegration, while Ukraine is expected to make concessions.
- Ukraine is a sovereign country that belongs to its people, not a pawn of external powers
Ukraine must decide for itself which coalitions (such as the EU or NATO) it wishes to belong to. Europe must make it clear that security policy decisions must never be made under russian or any other coercion. Europe must never accept a russian veto over Ukraine’s future.
Finally, we would like to emphasise and make it clear to you that any proposal that implicitly or explicitly urges a ‘final settlement’ is contrary to international law. There can be no peace that protects perpetrators and disenfranchises victims. The moment perpetrators are not being prosecuted, international borders are being shifted by force, and victims are being denied the right to self-determination, a world emerges in which no one can believe in international laws and feel safe anymore – just like after 1938.