There will be no peace this way

The war in Ukraine has now been going on for almost 12 years. There are no universally accepted figures on the human and material costs of this war, but they are certainly enormous – and every additional day of war means even more death and destruction. Efforts to end the war and establish stable peace are therefore an urgent imperative of reason and humanity that arising every day.
    However, not everything that says “peace” on the label is a genuine offer of peace. Unfortunately, the call for “peace” is also being misused for propaganda purposes by those who want to continue the war and know full well that their “peace” plans will not lead to peace – but want to cover this up. It was therefore to be expected that the decision taken on 6 January in Paris¹ by the “coalition of the willing” led by British Prime Minister Starmer, French President Macron and German Chancellor Merz, with the participation of Volodymyr Zelensky and the two envoys of the US President, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, would not bring us any closer to peace. On the contrary, this decision hardens the fronts. This is evident from the official reaction of the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman on 8 January².
    But why did this meeting and this decision take place if they do not lead to peace?

1. The “coalition of the willing” and Volodymyr Zelensky are trying with all means at their disposal to keep President Trump’s US administration on its war course against Russia. The participation of the two US envoys and their broad agreement with the decision of the “coalition of the willing” – albeit without signing the decision – was therefore probably the greatest “success” of this coalition.
2. The Paris decision ignores the Russian position with its demands, for example, for a massive rearmament of Ukraine, for NATO troops in the country, for a quasi-NATO alliance and the unquestioning adoption of the formula of Russian aggressiveness and threat. This underlined by the official response of the Russian Foreign Ministry. At the same time, however, the resolution speaks of “stable and lasting peace”, “just and lasting peace”, “consistency with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”, “progress achieved”, “self-defence”, “guaranteeing sovereignty”, etc. This resolution is quite obviously part of the information war. The actors involved know that the vast majority of the international community wants nothing more than an end to the war. After many years of trying to pillory Russia for its role in the war, now the blame for the war not ending is being shifted to Russia.
3. Meanwhile, the “coalition of the willing”, led by the governments in London, Paris and Berlin, have an interest in continuing the war in Ukraine. A peace agreement that, given the current state of the war, would have to take Russia’s political goals into account would be a total defeat for these three governments, which since 2014 have taken an increasingly clear stance against all of Russia’s concerns. The house of cards built on disinformation and propaganda would collapse. This would be compounded by the inevitable economic decline. All this would have far-reaching consequences. At the same time, however, these governments do not want to be seen as those responsible for prolonging the war. This distinguishes them from Nazi Germany, which, after its defeat at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942/43, openly declared total war – which meant more death and destruction until the end of the war than in the preceding years of the war. Despite this difference, however, everyone must be aware that if the “coalition of the willing” continues as before, the consequences could be the same as after Stalingrad.

    The war in Ukraine is being fought primarily on the backs of the people of Ukraine and – albeit to a much lesser extent – the people of Russia. In the countries of the “coalition of the willing”, there has been no death or destruction directly related to the war so far. This is particularly shocking about the policy of this coalition: it is waging war at the expense of others. Chancellor Merz openly demanded that Ukraine recruit more young people as soldiers, as cannon fodder for the front. How long can this continue to work?
    No less shocking is the fact that the leaders of the “coalition of the willing” show no insight into their own mistakes – except for the no less propagandistic formula that they were slow to recognise the true nature of Russian politics. Self-righteous and smug, they still behave as if they were the masters of the world. Why not instead seriously and publicly examine the question of what part they themselves have played in the war in Ukraine?
    Lines such as those above do not please the “coalition of the willing”. And they please them even less the more this coalition finds itself with its back to the wall. This explains why critical voices are to be suppressed in an increasingly blatant manner. In this war waged by the “coalition of the willing”, the motto seems to be: if you’re not with us, you’re against us – and therefore on the side of the “enemy” that must be fought. This construct is illogical. The correct interpretation is that anyone who questions the “coalition of the willing” course of war is primarily concerned with peace. That is why the fight for freedom of expression is so important!
    PS: In a speech at the New Year’s reception of the Halle-Dessau Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) and the Halle Handwerkskammer, the German Chancellor also spoke about relations with Russia at the very end of his detailed speech. Friedrich Merzs’ statements caused an international stir. He said:
    “If we then succeed in ensuring that peace and freedom return to Europe, that we finally find a balance with our largest European neighbour, namely Russia, in the longer term – I am not saying this because I am here in the East; I say it everywhere else in Germany too: Russia is a European country – if peace prevails, if freedom is guaranteed, if we succeed in all of this, ladies and gentlemen, then this European Union, then we in the Federal Republic of Germany will have passed another test, and then we can look ahead with great confidence beyond the year 2026. I wish for this for us. I am sure that we will succeed. Please contribute to this!”³
    We must take the Chancellor at his word and indeed contribute to ensure that there is a change of course – and that the Chancellor’s words become something more than just another of the many feints of recent years. •

¹ https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/992814/2401868/f-72a4c4f4c998aa017f254e22864f93/2026-01-07-paris-ukraine-koalition-der-willigen-data.pdf?download=1
²https://mid.ru/print/?id=2071702&lang=en
³https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/rede-kanzler-ihk-halle-dessau-2402682 of 14 January 2026