- February 15, 2026
- 9:04 pm
- World News
Statements about a “quick peace” have once again brought the Ukrainian issue to the forefront of American politics. This time, the occasion was remarks by Donald Trump that the war could be ended in the foreseeable future β with a timeframe of several months being mentioned.
Ukrainian journalist and publicist Vitaly Portnikov considers this approach to be mistaken. In his opinion, the very logic of simultaneously pressuring Kyiv and Moscow blurs the basic understanding of what is happening β who attacked and who is defending.
Why the idea of “pressuring both sides” provokes sharp criticism
Portnikov formulated his position on social media. It is simple and harsh: equating the sides automatically changes the political and moral structure of the war.
The question of equal responsibility
The journalist draws attention to the obvious fact: Russian troops are on Ukrainian territory and continue military actions.
In this situation, accusations of “prolonging the process” against both sides, in his opinion, appear as an attempt to equate the country that is defending itself with the state that initiated the invasion.
This thesis is becoming central in discussions not only in Kyiv but also among Ukraine’s allies, including Israel, where society closely monitors how Western rhetoric is changing. NAnews β Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes that any formula in which the distinction between aggressor and victim disappears is perceived extremely painfully.
What pressure on Ukraine might lead to
Portnikov poses a rhetorical question: if pressure is increased specifically on Kyiv, what result do the initiators expect?
Cessation of resistance.
Agreement to cede territories.
Rejection of sovereign decisions.
In this logic, “peace” begins to resemble capitulation rather than settlement.
Who is responsible for ending the war
An important part of Portnikov’s argumentation concerns the center of decision-making.
The Kremlin as the key target of pressure
According to him, the end of hostilities is primarily in Moscow’s hands. If the Russian leadership decides to cease fire, the war will end without additional demands on Kyiv.
This statement brings the discussion back to the question of tools: who exactly should feel the real consequences of international policy.
Sanctions and armament as factors in negotiations
Portnikov is convinced that a real opportunity for diplomacy arises when pressure is increased specifically on the aggressor.
Aid to Ukraine.
New restrictions against Russia.
Supply of long-range systems.
This sequence, in his opinion, can create conditions under which negotiations become productive rather than formal.
The mistake of “top-down” dialogue
Separately, the publicist calls the desire to restore contacts with Moscow at the highest level without changing Russia’s behavior a problem.
The signal read in the Kremlin
Any desire to “negotiate,” in his opinion, is perceived by the Russian leadership not as a compromise but as a sign of the partner’s weakness and an opportunity to increase demands.
Portnikov considers this dynamic to be defining for the last year of the war.
The discussion about the US strategy towards Ukraine is unlikely to subside anytime soon. But the more often the thesis of equal responsibility of the sides is voiced, the more actively the response is heard: peace is possible only when pressure is directed at the one who started the war.
