adam zivo: vladimir putin's new 'peace' terms are a predatory farce
russia wants ukraine to be stripped of defensive capabilities, which would only lead to another invasion
4 minute read
soldiers of ukraine's 30th separate mechanized brigade fire a rocket toward russian positions at the front line in the donetsk region of ukraine on tuesday, june 3, 2025. (ap photo/andrii marienko, file)
want further proof that russian president vladimir putin has no genuine interest in ending the war? look no further than the “peace memo” his government presented to ukraine in istanbul on monday. the document makes absurd demands that, if fulfilled, would render ukraine’s dismemberment inevitable. evidently, putin’s goal is conquest, not coexistence.
while the trump administration naively hoped that this week’s istanbul peace talks might produce some kind of diplomatic breakthrough, the russian memo merely rehashed moscow’s longstanding, maximalist position: “hand over more territory, disarm yourselves and we pinky-swear not to invade again.”
specifically, the russians want kyiv to cede four ukrainian provinces — donetsk, luhansk, zaporizhzhia and kherson — which putin unilaterally “annexed” in late 2022. while russia currently occupies 99 per cent of luhansk, ukraine has managed to retain control over 29 per cent of the remaining three provinces, including the cities of zaporizhzhia and kherson, which are the capitals of their eponymous regions.
putting things into perspective, these unoccupied lands (24,000~ square kilometres) are slightly larger in size than israel and equal to four per cent of ukraine’s total area. despite the ravages of war, hundreds of thousands of ukrainians continue to reside there, primarily in zaporizhzhia city.
advertisement
there is no way that any government in kyiv — aside from a puppet regime — could voluntarily trade away these territories. doing so would consign countless ukrainians to the brutalities of russian occupation, and precipitate a mass exodus of refugees whose destitution would further strain ukraine’s already overstretched state resources.
worse yet, putin’s so-called peace plan is structured in a way that would leave ukraine vulnerable to total conquest in a matter of weeks or months, not years.
the memo outlines a clear sequence of steps for ending the conflict — among the first would be the signing of a “ceasefire memorandum” that would establish timelines for the implementation of moscow’s demands. unlike treaties, memorandums are relatively informal documents that are legally nonbinding.
a 30-day ceasefire would subsequently commence, coinciding with the beginning of ukraine’s withdrawal from the four annexed provinces. during this period, kyiv would be banned from mobilizing new soldiers or receiving any foreign military aid. existing ukrainian forces would have to begin demobilizing, and would be barred from being redeployed within the country (except when withdrawing). martial law would be lifted and new elections would be announced, to be held within 100 days.
advertisement
kyiv would also be expected to sign a separate agreement within these 30 days, wherein it would terminate all of its military alliances, ban any foreign military activity on its territory (e.g. western peacekeepers), and consent to limits on the size of its armed forces (both in terms of personnel and equipment). while the memo does not specify what these limits would be, russia’s 2022 “peace” proposals demanded that ukraine’s forces be reduced to 30-40 per cent of their pre-war capabilities.
this second agreement would also mandate that ukraine restore its diplomatic and economic relations with russia, which would include the annulment of bilateral trade restrictions, and waive any claims of wartime reparations.
after this point, and upon the conclusion of new ukrainian elections, kyiv and moscow would sign a final, legally-binding peace treaty, which would, according to russia, be endorsed by a un security council resolution.
notably, this process includes no restrictions on russian military activity. moscow would be free to asymmetrically expand its forces and alliances, while ukraine would be stripped of its defensive capabilities. this is obviously insane, especially when you consider what implementing this “peace” deal would look like in practice.
advertisement
the war’s current frontline is primarily located within these four “annexed” provinces. ergo, withdrawal from these areas would necessitate the abandonment of most of ukraine’s defensive fortifications (e.g. trenches, minefields, bunkers, anti-tank ditches). constructing high-quality replacement defences along the new borders would require billions of dollars and months of labour, which is a financial and security liability that kyiv simply cannot afford.
ukraine would essentially be left undefended. and its vulnerability would be exacerbated by a renewed refugee crisis, a chaotic election and the end of martial law.
putin is a habitual liar who has broken almost every ceasefire deal he has signed with kyiv, so it is almost certain that he would restart hostilities shortly after stripping away ukraine’s defences. he could either just ignore his own ceasefire memo (it would be legally nonbinding, afterall), or fabricate a pretext to avoid signing the final peace treaty.
russia could claim, for example, that ukraine’s post-ceasefire elections were rigged (or that they were won by “banderites” and “neo-nazis”), and that the resumption of war is necessary because the new government lacks the authority to sign a final treaty.
advertisement
whatever excuse putin invents, russian soldiers would then flood into the rest of ukraine, using the newly-annexed provinces as a launching pad. robbed of high-quality fortifications, the ukrainian army would be powerless to stop them. kyiv would fall, more land would be stolen by russia and ukraine would be transformed into an obedient rump state, with horrors inflicted upon its citizens.
security analysts often warn that a bad peace deal would lead to ukraine’s collapse within a few years, but this is worse than that. putin’s newest proposals are so nakedly predatory that only a fool would fail to see that he is toying with the world and engaging in bad-faith negotiations.
national post
share story
