Negotiating Peace: The Ukraine Lens
Why Understanding a Nation's Survival Matters More Than Great Power Assumptions
Liudmyla Kurnosikova is currently pursuing a Master's in Public Administration as a McCloy Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. Her academic focus centers on the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine, with a particular emphasis on fostering investment. She was a student at the 2013 Harvard Ukrainian Summer Institute.
As the United States approaches potential peace negotiations to end the Russo-Ukrainian war, one critical voice is being systematically silenced: Ukraine itself. The disastrous meeting in the Oval Office revealed more than diplomatic missteps—it exposed a fundamental misunderstanding of Ukraine that could critically undermine the American position in this negotiation. The current approach to Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations echoes the theory of realism in international relations, where great powers assume smaller nations have no meaningful input in their own fate. Contrary to these assumptions, over the past three years, Ukraine has proven its ability to make sovereign strategic decisions, challenging existing power narratives. Ukraine's response to the full-scale invasion has revealed sophisticated military adaptation and institutional resilience, transforming what was predicted as a short-term territorial intervention into a prolonged engagement that has fundamentally reshaped the understanding of modern warfare.
Today, Ukraine wants peace more than anyone, but the hesitancy stems from the approach to achieving it. President Zelensky has consistently articulated a nuanced stance, while constantly reaffirming that the country is ready to make strategic concessions while protecting core national interests. Despite Ukraine's willingness to engage strategically, the US diplomatic approach has unilaterally reframed negotiation dynamics, effectively stripping Ukraine of negotiation leverage and creating a framework that demands Ukrainian concessions without equivalent pressure on Russia. For any peace deal to succeed, engaging Ukraine demands a genuine understanding of its strategic interests, not attempting to squeeze unilateral concessions.
The path to sustainable peace in Ukraine begins with a fundamental recognition: what we think we know about Ukraine is largely wrong. For decades, Western perspectives have been clouded by deep-seated misconceptions, Russian propaganda, and a profound lack of genuine understanding. The root of this misunderstanding lies in a systematic marginalization of Ukrainian studies. While Russian studies flourished in Western academic circles, Ukrainian perspectives remained largely invisible.
The international analysis of this war reveals a stark cognitive dissonance. Where the world expected swift capitulation, Ukraine demonstrated unprecedented strategic capability. Yet, the dominant narrative in the West remained fixated on understanding Putin's "mistake" through a Russian-centric lens – crafting elaborate theories, inspired by Russian propaganda, about NATO expansion, despite evidence showing that Russia's security concerns were fundamentally manufactured. This approach reveals a deeper problem: the persistent attempt to rationalize Russian aggression rather than listen to the Ukrainian perspective.
For Ukrainians, this is not a war about territory, but a battle to prevent the extinction of their nation, culture, and very existence. This conflict is deeply rooted in centuries of historical trauma, from the Russian Empire's systematic suppression of Ukrainian language and culture to Stalin's genocide in Ukraine in the 1930s which killed millions of Ukrainians. Each invasion, each attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, is part of a long, painful narrative of survival against systematic oppression. Unlike Western perspectives that seek diplomatic compromise, Ukrainians see the current war as an existential struggle—a fight not just against territorial invasion, but against the historical forces that have repeatedly sought to deny their right to exist as a distinct nation. In this historical context, robust security guarantees transform from a diplomatic instrument to a foundational requirement for Ukraine's national survival.
The systemic failures of the Minsk Agreements negotiated in 2014-2015 after Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the start of the war in Eastern Ukraine remain a critical institutional memory that fundamentally guides Ukraine's negotiation principles. Imposed under conditions of military vulnerability and external political pressure, these agreements effectively transformed from a potential peace framework into a strategic mechanism for continued Russian territorial aggression. This time, Ukraine understands that concessions without robust, verifiable security guarantees are nothing more than a diplomatic capitulation that again perpetuates existential risk.
Critically, Ukraine's buy-in is the fundamental prerequisite for any sustainable peace. Public support, as demonstrated by consistently high approval ratings for President Zelensky, indicates a robust civic consensus that any peace agreement must substantively address national strategic interests. The current US approach of attempting to squeeze maximum concessions from Ukraine and dismiss security concerns fundamentally misunderstands the domestic influence on the negotiation dynamics. For a deal to succeed, implementation must be the central consideration, with all relevant parties actively shaping the process, including Ukrainians, who in the end will need to accept the deal and rebuild their country.
Contrary to Washington's assumptions, both Ukraine's geopolitical standing and its national capacity have fundamentally transformed since 2014. Ukraine now provides approximately 40% of its own military needs, with Europe and the United States contributing the remainder. European powers, from Germany's Friedrich Merz to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, are signaling unprecedented support, with proposals for massive defense spending and direct military assistance. This enhanced strategic autonomy and international backing create a fundamentally different negotiation landscape for Ukraine than in 2014 and even in March 2022, challenging previous diplomatic approaches in mediating peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
Some Western scholars argue that Russia's nuclear capability and Ukraine's geographic proximity necessitate unconditional diplomatic concessions to prevent escalation to World War III. In a recent interview, Kaja Kallas, Vice President of the European Commission, provided a strategic counterpoint to the existing diplomatic narrative on the Russian nuclear threat. If the United States is prepared to confront China—another nuclear power with a significantly larger economy and global influence—why should Russia's nuclear threats be treated differently? The logic of nuclear deterrence cannot be selectively applied based on geopolitical convenience.
Ukraine's primary strategic objective is preserving national sovereignty, which cannot be compromised based on nuclear intimidation. Ukraine seeks a collaborative approach to conflict resolution that preserves its sovereignty, security, and strategic autonomy. The suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing does not push Ukraine towards compromise but potentially increases the risk of prolonged conflict by reducing its ability to defend itself effectively. The international community must recognize that deterrence is not achieved through unconditional surrender, but through demonstrating resilience, providing strategic support, and maintaining clear, enforceable boundaries.
A true resolution demands a comprehensive understanding of Ukraine's position, recognizing it as an indispensable negotiation participant with a fundamental right to shape the outcome.
The world is watching. And history will judge not just the outcome, but the process.