Paulo Fernando de BarrosMissed Peace and Proxy War Realities: A General’s Perspective on Ukraine
Missed Peace: How Ukraine Became a Proxy War | General Kujat Interview
In an exclusive interview, retired General Harald Kujat, former head of Germany’s armed forces and NATO Military Committee chairman, reveals critical details about diplomatic failures that transformed Ukraine into a proxy war battleground. He identifies pivotal Western decisions—from NATO expansion promises to sabotaged peace talks—that systematically closed diplomatic pathways. According to Kujat’s analysis, the conflict evolved from preventable political miscalculation to entrenched warfare because key actors prioritized weakening Russia over securing Ukraine’s sovereignty through negotiation. His insider account exposes how peace negotiations in Istanbul were deliberately undermined, leaving military escalation as the only remaining option and placing European security at unprecedented risk.
The Lost Path to Peace: From Post-Cold War Promise to Proxy War
When the Cold War ended, military strategists envisioned a European security architecture that included Russia. Former General Harald Kujat, who served simultaneously as chairman of both the NATO-Russia Council and NATO-Ukraine Commission of Chiefs of Defense, witnessed this promising beginning firsthand. From his unique vantage point at the nexus of these relationships, Kujat describes how systematic diplomatic failures transformed potential partnership into what he unequivocally calls “a proxy war between the United States and Russia.”
In a revealing interview, Kujat traces the deterioration to specific turning points that military insiders recognized but political leaders ignored. The 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, which promised eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia despite warnings from European leaders like Angela Merkel, represented what Kujat identifies as “the political rupture” in relations. This declaration crossed Russia’s “red line” concerning buffer zones—a strategic concern Russia had consistently articulated since the mid-1990s to avoid direct military confrontation with NATO.
The Minsk Agreements of 2014-2015, intended to resolve the Donbas conflict through political compromise, were implemented in bad faith according to Kujat’s analysis. He references acknowledgments by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande that the agreements served primarily to “buy time” for Ukrainian military modernization rather than as genuine conflict resolution mechanisms. This “clear act of deception,” as Kujat describes it, destroyed remaining trust and set the stage for broader conflict.
How Peace Negotiations Were Sabotaged
The most damning revelations concern the Istanbul peace negotiations of April 2022. According to Kujat’s account, these talks nearly succeeded in establishing a framework for Ukrainian neutrality and security guarantees before being deliberately undermined. The negotiated draft agreement addressed core issues including Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, security guarantees from UN Security Council permanent members (including Russia), and limitations on Ukrainian armed forces size and weapon systems.
“The agreement was largely negotiated,” Kujat states. “There were still points that had not been clearly resolved… [but] these contentious issues were supposed to be resolved in a direct conversation between the two presidents.” This diplomatic pathway collapsed when then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made an unannounced visit to Kyiv on April 9, 2022, delivering what Kujat characterizes as a clear message: “You should not negotiate, just keep fighting.”
Ukrainian negotiator David Arakhamia confirmed this intervention, revealing Johnson communicated that the West would not sign any agreement with Russia. This aligned with what Kujat identifies as the emerging Western objective: weakening Russia “politically, economically and militarily” through prolonged conflict. The security guarantee impasse—particularly whether Russia could veto collective response to future aggression—provided convenient pretext to abandon negotiations that might have ended the war within its first two months.
The Escalation Trap: From Military Stalemate to Existential Risk
Kujat presents a stark assessment of current battlefield realities that contradicts prevailing Western narratives. He references former U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley’s November 2022 assessment that Ukrainian forces had achieved what was “reasonably achievable” militarily. Despite this professional military judgment, what Kujat calls “the illusion” of Ukrainian victory continued to drive policy.
This commitment to an unattainable military solution created what strategists term an escalation trap. Kujat explains: “With every new weapon system… every time it was supposed to be a game-changer. That was completely hopeless from the very beginning.” Each incremental escalation—from Javelin missiles to HIMARS to F-16 commitments—extended conflict without altering strategic fundamentals, while increasing direct NATO entanglement.
The most dangerous dimension involves potential direct NATO-Russia conflict. Kujat identifies two escalation pathways: Ukrainian attempts to “draw NATO into this war” through attacks on Russian strategic assets, and European proposals to enable deep strikes inside Russia using Western weapons. He warns particularly about revived discussions of no-fly zones, which would mean “a direct conflict between NATO… and Russia.”
Former Polish President Andrzej Duda’s revelation about Ukrainian pressure to falsely attribute a November 2022 missile strike on Polish territory to Russia illustrates this dynamic. Kujat notes such false-flag potential represents how Europe might “stumble or slide into this war” through situations that become “politically uncontrollable.”
Strategic Myopia: Europe’s Failure in a Multipolar World
Perhaps Kujat’s most profound criticism addresses Europe’s strategic paralysis throughout the conflict. “In the three and a half years of this war,” he observes, “there has not been a single attempt by the Europeans to resolve this war peacefully.” Even peace initiatives from China, Brazil, and Hungary were dismissed or punished rather than explored.
This diplomatic absence reflects what Kujat identifies as Europe’s broader crisis of geopolitical relevance. “We Europeans have lost so much influence in the arithmetic of geopolitical power because of this war,” he argues, noting economic disadvantages and diminished defense capabilities from transferring weapons to Ukraine. Rather than developing independent diplomatic capacity, Europe has increasingly depended on U.S. leadership while simultaneously obstructing American peace initiatives.
Kujat sees potential resolution through what he calls “normalization” of U.S.-Russia relations, particularly through resumed arms control negotiations on strategic nuclear systems. The scheduled February 2025 renewal of New START treaty discussions represents one pathway to de-escalation. Meanwhile, Europe faces what Kujat describes as a binary choice: continue pursuing unattainable military victory with catastrophic potential consequences, or embrace diplomatic engagement that acknowledges Russian security concerns while preserving Ukrainian sovereignty.
The Path Forward: Diplomacy or Destruction
General Kujat’s analysis culminates in a stark warning: “If Ukraine loses this war militarily, we will also lose this war militarily.” By “we,” he means NATO and Europe, whose indirect involvement through massive weapons transfers, intelligence sharing, and training has made them belligerents in everything but name. The only alternative to this outcome, in his assessment, is negotiated settlement that addresses legitimate security concerns of all parties.
The buffer zone concept—non-aligned states between NATO and Russia—reemerges as potential compromise framework. Kujat suggests this was essentially what Russia pursued from the beginning and what Ukraine’s constitution originally mandated before 2014 amendments sought NATO membership. Reconceptualizing Ukraine as a neutral bridge rather than geopolitical battleground could provide face-saving resolution for all parties.
Kujat concludes with tempered optimism that “reason will prevail” as military stalemate becomes undeniable and economic costs mount. He references changing U.S. political dynamics and Russia’s own interest in regaining “geopolitical ability to act” beyond Ukraine. The fundamental question remains whether European leaders will overcome what Kujat identifies as their inability to admit contributing to prolonged conflict and embrace diplomatic solutions before catastrophic escalation occurs.
👉 Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights on our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber, thank you: https://dunapress.org/subscriptions – Follow The Dunasteia News on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org
#HaraldKujat #NATORussiaRelations #PeaceNegotiations #ProxyWar #UkraineConflict
خبرگزاری کوکچه
Emerging Threats Hub
Dave | NortheastKingdom | He/Him/His
Obscure_Rebel
Ravager 82
Voice of East
MikeDunnAuthor
Ryan Hite
Yasir Laghari