By David Lucky

Peace skills are essential in resolving conflicts from global disputes to personal disagreements.

In 2022, months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I authored “Exposing Putin’s Lies,” a detailed critique of the propaganda utilized by the Putin regime to justify its unprovoked assault on Ukraine. This book, available here on Amazon, addresses a critical question: How does revealing falsehoods contribute to peace? Truth is the bedrock of genuine peace. Agreements founded on deception are doomed to fail. Acknowledging the truth allows for the creation of durable peace accords. For instance, the 2014 invasion of Crimea was predicated on falsehoods largely overlooked internationally, setting the stage for the more devastating 2022 invasion. Unmasking these lies is crucial for preventing the repetition of history and establishing a stable peace. Peaceful resolution should always be the primary objective. Yet, this can only be effectively pursued when the opposing party is willing to engage reasonably. When faced with an adversary resistant to reason, unveiling the truth and dismantling their falsehoods serve as crucial steps towards global peace, providing a foundation for understanding and addressing the misinformation that fuels conflicts.

Walking Away:

Sometimes, disengagement is the only viable option, particularly when it becomes evident that an opponent is uninterested in a rational or constructive dialogue. Opting to walk away, though it may seem counterintuitive, can be the most effective way to maintain peace temporarily. Persisting in fruitless confrontations with someone prone to irrational and ad hominem attacks can escalate into violence, benefitting no one. Therefore, withdrawing from such interactions often proves to be the wisest decision for all involved. Conversely, if the other party shows a genuine interest in open and respectful communication, it is worthwhile to engage and discuss the issues at hand. Over the years, I have faced situations requiring me to withdraw from discussions, particularly when the other party remained obstinately irrational and unyielding. These decisions, though difficult, were necessary to preserve civility and peace.

Principles of Action: Personal and International Perspectives

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine exemplifies the interplay of personal and international principles of action. Claims from Russian apologists that President Vladimir Putin is a peacemaker who desires negotiation, while Western powers, including Ukraine’s President Zelensky, resist dialogue, are misleading and rooted in propaganda. As the author of “Exposing Putin’s Lies” and a scholar of these issues, I offer a clear rebuttal to these assertions:

1. Inherent Desire for Peace: If Putin truly sought peace, he would not have initiated an attack on Ukraine. Prior to the 2014 and 2022 invasions, Ukraine and Russia were at peace—a state disrupted only by Russia’s aggressive actions.
2. Misrepresentation of Negotiations: The narrative that Putin wants “negotiated peace” suggests that peace could be achieved if Ukraine were to surrender demanded territories to Russia. This is a flawed premise, proven by the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which led to further aggression rather than peace. Agreeing to such terms provides no assurance against future invasions.
3. Trustworthiness: In 1991, the international community recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a stance that Russia affirmed. However, the questioning of these borders years later reflects a breach of trust, highlighting Putin’s unreliable nature in international agreements.
4. The Budapest Memorandum: In 1994, Ukraine surrendered approximately 1,700 nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement promised that Russia would never attack Ukraine and respect its sovereignty. Unfortunately, Russia failed to uphold these commitments, demonstrating a clear disregard for international agreements.

These points underscore the discrepancies between public statements by Russian officials and their actions, revealing a strategy that manipulates the narrative of peace for geopolitical gains.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Ukraine

As we consider the future, Ukraine faces critical decisions. Surrendering an additional 20% of its territory to Russia would likely only embolden further territorial demands in the future, potentially escalating to a bid for the entire nation. Thus, the most prudent course for securing long-term peace involves steadfastly maintaining Ukraine’s current stance against such aggressive demands, refusing to participate in lopsided negotiations that would only legitimize and reward Russia’s invasive actions.

The geopolitical landscape is fraught with tension, with the potential to escalate into a global conflict if not managed carefully. To counteract this threat, I advocate for the continuation and escalation of economic sanctions against Russia. The strain of these sanctions has already begun to show significant effects on Russia’s economy, and sustained pressure could catalyze a shift in public sentiment within Russia, potentially leading to demands for political change.

In this complex scenario, the most effective strategy for peace involves a three-pronged approach: maintain diplomatic pressure, continue to illuminate truths and counter falsehoods, and relentlessly expose the manipulations and fabrications of the Putin regime. Only through such concerted efforts can we hope to lay the groundwork for a durable peace.

Wishing for a peaceful future, 

David Lucky

For comments or questions email: [email protected]