- January 1, 2026
- 1:09 pm
- Ukraine
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, in an interview with American journalist Bret Baier, formulated a position that today defines the Ukrainian agenda: Ukrainians want peace. But not just any peace. According to him, peace without justice will not be a way out of the war and will not close the moral and political wounds that the conflict leaves behind.
This statement came against the backdrop of a prolonged war, where diplomacy increasingly faces not the search for solutions, but attempts to “fix a pause.” It is here, according to Kyiv, that the fault line lies between the end of hostilities and true peace.
The discussion inevitably leads to the role of the USA and the figure of Donald Trump. The former president has repeatedly stated his ability to “end wars” and claimed that eight conflicts were stopped with his involvement. However, critics note: his rhetoric emphasizes the cessation of fire as such, without a clear answer to the question — what will happen next and under what conditions.
Trump’s approach to the Ukrainian conflict appears contradictory. On one hand, he speaks of the need to immediately stop the bloodshed. On the other — he almost does not touch on the topic of responsibility, security guarantees, and consequences for the future of Europe. Such imbalance, Kyiv believes, makes any “quick peace” potentially unstable.
Attempts at mediation between Moscow and Kyiv also run into the Kremlin factor. The intransigence of the Russian leader has repeatedly thwarted diplomatic efforts. In this context, analysts recall the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency when he tried to achieve a historic agreement between Israel and the PLO. Then the negotiations ended in failure, and hopes for a sustainable peace were postponed for years.
Historical parallels here are inevitable. Military strategist and historian Edward Luttwak wrote in his works that wars sometimes end not with agreements, but with the exhaustion of the parties — resources, will, ability to continue. The Balkans of the 1990s became an example of how this factor forced conflict participants to sit at the negotiating table.
In the Middle East, Trump, on the contrary, often chose a strategy of non-intervention, allowing conflicts to “mature” to a point where the parties themselves sought a way out. This approach sparked debates, but in some cases, it indeed led to relative stabilization. The question is whether such logic is applicable to Ukraine.
In the Ukrainian case, betting on exhaustion carries enormous risks. Temporary truces do not solve key problems but only postpone the next round of violence. Kyiv insists: without clear conditions, guarantees, and recognition of the reality of aggression, any diplomatic maneuver will remain half-hearted.
Ultimately, the conversation about peace rests not only on geopolitics but also on honesty. Honesty before societies, allies, and history. Zelensky speaks precisely about this — about peace that will not be a pause before a new war.
How these dilemmas are perceived in Israel, the USA, and Ukraine, and why the issue of justice today sounds louder than any promises of a “quick end to the conflict,” is regularly reported by NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency.
