Editorial: For Genuine Peace in Ukraine, Examine the Motivations Behind Putin's Initiation of the Conflict -- Editorial
This article explores the author's father's opposition to Putin, which ultimately led to his death. It delves into the significance of understanding Putin's reliance on domestic repression, offering insights that may be crucial for finding a resolution to the war he initiated.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump accurately advocates for an end to the fighting in Ukraine. He is also correct that the conflict has turned into a war of attrition that benefits Russia.
Nonetheless, Trump overlooks a vital aspect of the war: Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated it largely for domestic political gains rather than in response to any external threats. For Trump to effectively negotiate a lasting peace agreement, understanding the domestic political motivations guiding Putin's actions is essential.
Consequently, the crucial factors for a successful deal will not revolve around how much territory Russia retains, how many rare earth minerals Ukraine relinquishes, or whether Ukraine may eventually join NATO—though both sides are likely to engage in fervent debates on these subjects. Instead, what will truly determine the success or failure of an agreement is whether it alters the political calculus for Russia and either increases or decreases the chances of future aggression.
Throughout Putin’s lengthy tenure as Russia's leader, his primary ambition has been to maintain his power indefinitely. This obsession with authority has considerably influenced his decisions. He has methodically eliminated potential threats to his rule and suppressed dissent. Various political opponents, including my father, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny, have faced dire consequences, and independent media has all but vanished.
Currently, this domestic repression facilitates Putin's ability to wage war and retain power. He views Ukraine—long striving for distance from Russia—as a threat to his regime’s stability. A democratic and thriving Ukraine aligned with Europe could demonstrate to Russians that an alternative to Putinism exists. This perspective is why Putin aims to eliminate Ukraine's existence as a nation.
Waging war permits Putin to keep Russia in a perpetual state of emergency, providing him with numerous advantages: it serves as an ideal justification for escalating repression, tightening censorship, and explaining economic struggles. The eradication of diverse media outlets and the enactment of laws that silence military criticism allow the Russian populace to be conditioned into believing that a protracted war is essential, despite its severe human and economic toll.
Moreover, in a state of emergency, the public is less likely to contemplate the future or demand the government present any developmental plans. The absence of an emergency suggests fewer enemies plotting against Russia, prompting questions about what alternatives Putin might propose to maintain his hold on power.
Trump has consistently asserted that he believes Putin desires peace with Ukraine. However, this stance contradicts U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Putin is disinterested in a lasting peace agreement. His interests lie in maintaining the offensive.
It's important to note that while Putin likely seeks a temporary cessation in hostilities, driven by the high costs of soldier recruitment and the impact of international sanctions on his economy, he retains aspirations of dominating Ukraine. To realize that goal, he requires time to bolster his military resources and recruit additional troops.
Public sentiment in Russia also leans towards desiring an end to hostilities. A recent poll conducted by Russian Field revealed that 56 percent of respondents favor peace talks; 55 percent support a ceasefire without specific terms, and 76 percent would back Putin's signing of a peace agreement with Ukraine.
However, distinguishing between stopping the fighting and achieving sustainable peace is crucial. Clearly, Putin's long-term ambitions indicate a lack of interest in enduring peace. The most likely scenario involves him using any temporary pause to rebuild Russia's military strength. Once he achieves that, the driving logic of his regime suggests he will recommence hostilities against Ukraine or other nations. This very reason is why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rightfully demanded security guarantees.
Interestingly, the next target for Putin might not be Ukraine itself. Instead, an easier objective could be neighboring Belarus, governed by an aging dictator and bordering Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Russia's military possesses significant combat experience, posing a risk to any neighboring countries in the medium term. If Russia gains complete control of Belarus, these nations—three of which are EU and NATO members—would find themselves directly threatened and situated on Russia's borders.
How can Trump mitigate this scenario? By insisting that any peace agreement incorporate provisions aimed at fostering long-term changes in Russia’s economy and society.
Firstly, a deal should include measures to prevent Russia from rearmament, which Putin is expected to resist. Currently, Russian military expenditures surpass the combined defense budgets of all European nations. The country's economy will likely remain on a war footing, necessitating parts, electronics, and machinery to produce advanced weaponry. Russia will likely push hard for the lifting of Western sanctions, including those blocking technology exports. Therefore, certain sanctions, particularly those prohibiting high-tech exports to Russia, should remain in effect. The West should avoid making it easy for Russia to rearm by lifting these critical sanctions.
Secondly, Russia should be held accountable for Ukraine's reconstruction. It is Russia that has inflicted multibillion-dollar damage on Ukraine. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that direct damages to Ukraine's infrastructure amount to $170 billion. Given this reality, it makes sense for Russia to fund the rebuilding efforts—a proposal consistent with Trump’s transactional approach to international relations. With approximately $300 billion of Russian assets currently frozen in the West, Europe and the U.S. hold a strong negotiating advantage in this regard.
The notion that Russia should owe compensation to Ukraine is unpopular even among the Russian opposition. However, facilitating such a waiver would not only be unjust but would also encourage future aggressive actions from Putin. Funds that Russia is compelled to direct towards Ukraine's reconstruction are funds it cannot use to rearm itself. To pressure Russia into assuming financial responsibility for Ukraine's rebuilding, any settlement should link the removal of specific non-military sanctions with Russian contributions to a reconstruction fund.
Lastly, provisions could be introduced aimed at decreasing Putin's domestic repression and making it more challenging for him to rally public sentiment for future wars. One potential avenue might involve reviving something akin to the Jackson-Vanik amendment that required the Soviet Union to uphold certain human rights standards and permit Jewish emigration in exchange for expanded trade with the United States. In this instance, the West could insist that Russia release political prisoners, dismantle censorship laws—including those that target "foreign agents" and other entities viewed as adversarial to the regime—and unblock platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, as a condition for lifting some sanctions.
Although the appeal of promoting human rights may have diminished, such provisions could help reduce the risk of future Russian aggression. My observations lead me to believe that heightened human rights violations, including unlawful imprisonment, killings, and media crackdowns, preceded Russia's aggressive maneuvers against Ukraine. In contrast, empowering individuals within the country who feel safe to oppose the government naturally acts as a deterrent against unnecessary wars, as does a free press.
Many of my friends outside of Russia have questioned why Putin seems indifferent to the high casualty rates in Ukraine. The straightforward reason is that he operates in a state-controlled media landscape, where he is not held accountable by the public. Neglecting the domestic aspects of Putin's grip on power will only perpetuate his aggression beyond Russia's borders.
At this moment, the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine is pressing. However, the manner of execution is vital. If the Trump administration aspires for a beneficial resolution to the conflict, it must focus on the finer details.
Martha Ruth Allen contributed to this article for TROIB News
Nonetheless, Trump overlooks a vital aspect of the war: Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated it largely for domestic political gains rather than in response to any external threats. For Trump to effectively negotiate a lasting peace agreement, understanding the domestic political motivations guiding Putin's actions is essential.
Consequently, the crucial factors for a successful deal will not revolve around how much territory Russia retains, how many rare earth minerals Ukraine relinquishes, or whether Ukraine may eventually join NATO—though both sides are likely to engage in fervent debates on these subjects. Instead, what will truly determine the success or failure of an agreement is whether it alters the political calculus for Russia and either increases or decreases the chances of future aggression.
Throughout Putin’s lengthy tenure as Russia's leader, his primary ambition has been to maintain his power indefinitely. This obsession with authority has considerably influenced his decisions. He has methodically eliminated potential threats to his rule and suppressed dissent. Various political opponents, including my father, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny, have faced dire consequences, and independent media has all but vanished.
Currently, this domestic repression facilitates Putin's ability to wage war and retain power. He views Ukraine—long striving for distance from Russia—as a threat to his regime’s stability. A democratic and thriving Ukraine aligned with Europe could demonstrate to Russians that an alternative to Putinism exists. This perspective is why Putin aims to eliminate Ukraine's existence as a nation.
Waging war permits Putin to keep Russia in a perpetual state of emergency, providing him with numerous advantages: it serves as an ideal justification for escalating repression, tightening censorship, and explaining economic struggles. The eradication of diverse media outlets and the enactment of laws that silence military criticism allow the Russian populace to be conditioned into believing that a protracted war is essential, despite its severe human and economic toll.
Moreover, in a state of emergency, the public is less likely to contemplate the future or demand the government present any developmental plans. The absence of an emergency suggests fewer enemies plotting against Russia, prompting questions about what alternatives Putin might propose to maintain his hold on power.
Trump has consistently asserted that he believes Putin desires peace with Ukraine. However, this stance contradicts U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Putin is disinterested in a lasting peace agreement. His interests lie in maintaining the offensive.
It's important to note that while Putin likely seeks a temporary cessation in hostilities, driven by the high costs of soldier recruitment and the impact of international sanctions on his economy, he retains aspirations of dominating Ukraine. To realize that goal, he requires time to bolster his military resources and recruit additional troops.
Public sentiment in Russia also leans towards desiring an end to hostilities. A recent poll conducted by Russian Field revealed that 56 percent of respondents favor peace talks; 55 percent support a ceasefire without specific terms, and 76 percent would back Putin's signing of a peace agreement with Ukraine.
However, distinguishing between stopping the fighting and achieving sustainable peace is crucial. Clearly, Putin's long-term ambitions indicate a lack of interest in enduring peace. The most likely scenario involves him using any temporary pause to rebuild Russia's military strength. Once he achieves that, the driving logic of his regime suggests he will recommence hostilities against Ukraine or other nations. This very reason is why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rightfully demanded security guarantees.
Interestingly, the next target for Putin might not be Ukraine itself. Instead, an easier objective could be neighboring Belarus, governed by an aging dictator and bordering Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Russia's military possesses significant combat experience, posing a risk to any neighboring countries in the medium term. If Russia gains complete control of Belarus, these nations—three of which are EU and NATO members—would find themselves directly threatened and situated on Russia's borders.
How can Trump mitigate this scenario? By insisting that any peace agreement incorporate provisions aimed at fostering long-term changes in Russia’s economy and society.
Firstly, a deal should include measures to prevent Russia from rearmament, which Putin is expected to resist. Currently, Russian military expenditures surpass the combined defense budgets of all European nations. The country's economy will likely remain on a war footing, necessitating parts, electronics, and machinery to produce advanced weaponry. Russia will likely push hard for the lifting of Western sanctions, including those blocking technology exports. Therefore, certain sanctions, particularly those prohibiting high-tech exports to Russia, should remain in effect. The West should avoid making it easy for Russia to rearm by lifting these critical sanctions.
Secondly, Russia should be held accountable for Ukraine's reconstruction. It is Russia that has inflicted multibillion-dollar damage on Ukraine. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that direct damages to Ukraine's infrastructure amount to $170 billion. Given this reality, it makes sense for Russia to fund the rebuilding efforts—a proposal consistent with Trump’s transactional approach to international relations. With approximately $300 billion of Russian assets currently frozen in the West, Europe and the U.S. hold a strong negotiating advantage in this regard.
The notion that Russia should owe compensation to Ukraine is unpopular even among the Russian opposition. However, facilitating such a waiver would not only be unjust but would also encourage future aggressive actions from Putin. Funds that Russia is compelled to direct towards Ukraine's reconstruction are funds it cannot use to rearm itself. To pressure Russia into assuming financial responsibility for Ukraine's rebuilding, any settlement should link the removal of specific non-military sanctions with Russian contributions to a reconstruction fund.
Lastly, provisions could be introduced aimed at decreasing Putin's domestic repression and making it more challenging for him to rally public sentiment for future wars. One potential avenue might involve reviving something akin to the Jackson-Vanik amendment that required the Soviet Union to uphold certain human rights standards and permit Jewish emigration in exchange for expanded trade with the United States. In this instance, the West could insist that Russia release political prisoners, dismantle censorship laws—including those that target "foreign agents" and other entities viewed as adversarial to the regime—and unblock platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, as a condition for lifting some sanctions.
Although the appeal of promoting human rights may have diminished, such provisions could help reduce the risk of future Russian aggression. My observations lead me to believe that heightened human rights violations, including unlawful imprisonment, killings, and media crackdowns, preceded Russia's aggressive maneuvers against Ukraine. In contrast, empowering individuals within the country who feel safe to oppose the government naturally acts as a deterrent against unnecessary wars, as does a free press.
Many of my friends outside of Russia have questioned why Putin seems indifferent to the high casualty rates in Ukraine. The straightforward reason is that he operates in a state-controlled media landscape, where he is not held accountable by the public. Neglecting the domestic aspects of Putin's grip on power will only perpetuate his aggression beyond Russia's borders.
At this moment, the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine is pressing. However, the manner of execution is vital. If the Trump administration aspires for a beneficial resolution to the conflict, it must focus on the finer details.
Martha Ruth Allen contributed to this article for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
