Putin’s so-called demands are not, in fact, negotiating proposals. They are instruments of pressure, built to shape the narrative and put the West on the defensive. In its 28-point “program”, the Kremlin presents conditions that not only go beyond any realistic framework for a peace agreement, but also seek to rewrite fundamental rules of the international order.
Among the most blatant examples is the demand to halt the expansion of NATO – a decision that rests exclusively with the Alliance itself and the sovereign states that wish to join it. To attempt to condition it externally is to deny European and North American political autonomy.
Next comes the proposal to reintegrate Russia into the group of advanced economies, as if this depended on a peace treaty and not on the sovereign will of the members that make up this forum. The implicit message is clear: Moscow demands political privileges while pursuing a war of aggression.
Even more worrying is the attempt to impose amnesty for war criminals. Even though Ukraine can make decisions regarding its own territory and jurisdiction, no negotiation can nullify international justice processes, particularly those of the International Criminal Court. The war brought documented crimes; to pretend that they did not exist would be a moral and legal capitulation.
Everything indicates that these conditions were not formulated to be accepted. On the contrary: they are so provocative that they seem designed to guarantee rejection and allow Putin to accuse the West of blocking peace. This is a well-known strategy – creating artificial impasses, inflaming tensions and reversing responsibilities. Basically, this is Putin’s strategy. Asking for the impossible only to be refused and saying that it was Europe, the United States and in particular, Ukraine, that did not want peace. This is how to justify the continuation of the war or even suggest that it has other ramifications.
Given this, the necessary response is simple: say no. No to impositions that violate basic principles. No to conditions that distort reality. No to diplomatic blackmail. It is preferable to firmly reject rather than allow such “requirements” to become the norm. As with Chamberlain, compromises led to the inevitable. And history repeats itself.
Assistant professor at the Autonomous University of Lisbon and researcher (at CIDEHUS). Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement