Eventually, our discussions turn to where the war should end and what should it look like. Some directly express concerns, suggesting that certain political circles legitimately ponder why Ukraine doesn't just sign a peace deal with Russia if Russia can't be defeated. This, of course, aligns with a Russian narrative portraying Russia as an undefeatable dove seeking peace, while Ukraine is depicted as a warmongering state.
Unfortunately, the truth is, even if we sign some sort of truce or peace accord, there would be absolutely no security guarantees to prevent Russia from regrouping and attempting to repeat its actions later. While some Western politicians and former officials publicly state that Ukraine should join NATO soon, these are often just words without substantial backing. Even if they would be backed by an official agreement, the violation of such promises doesn't carry significant consequences beyond reputational damage.
In 2014, Ukraine was advised not to escalate against Russia in Crimea, leading to further escalation as it created a perception of Ukrainian weakness. Russia then attempted to replicate the scenario in Donbas. Our failure to liberate Donbas and the failure of the West to help only solidified Russian confidence in taking over Ukraine, eventually leading to the events of 2022. So, what exactly would prevent Russia from launching another offensive just a few years later?
I've also come across suggestions that if Ukraine were to sign a peace agreement, it would provide an opportunity to rearm and resupply its army. However, this raises another question for me - who and why would precisely arm Ukraine during peacetime, especially when in 2024 Ukraine is already facing challenges in securing foreign military aid? If anything, obtaining military assistance during a time of war for the right to exist seems more feasible than trying to secure the same volumes during peacetime.
Russians don't just annex territories - they almost immediately erase Ukrainian presence in every dimension. They forcefully russify the local population, imprison, deport, or execute the most prominent pro-Ukrainian activists, leaders, and cultural symbols. They pillage crops, move industrial machinery from factories to Russia, or simply take over businesses and profit from them. While some may find it easy to suggest abandoning these people and signing a peace deal, we all know that after eight years of such policies in Donbas and Crimea, Russia has formed multiple corps and units from these people, later deploying most of their male population to invade Ukraine.
One might say, "Okay, well, good luck then, you can handle it on your own, just without our aid." I don't think that we will eventually reach that point, but it's very naive to think that this would bring an end to the war. After all, Ukraine held its defenses and repelled the Russian invasion during the first months without any substantial Western aid. Now, I understand that the situation has changed since then, and the realities on the battleground are different, but even if the frontline collapses in such events, it won't result in Ukraine simply giving up - instead, it will lead to guerrilla warfare with assassinations, sabotages, and typical methods associated with guerilla warfare. Europe would end up with a persistent bleeding spot, populated with millions of angry people who feel unjust, radicalized, marginalized, betrayed, and filled with resentment.
Ukraine isn't fighting this war out of a desire to fight or to seize someone else's territory or people. Ukraine is compelled to fight by an invader, and realistically, the only means to halt this war is to restrain Russian imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine and Europe at large. Concessions can't achieve this goal.
#UkraineConflict, #RussiaNarrative, #SecurityGuarantees, #NATOMembership, #ForeignAidChallenges, #RussianAggression, #GuerrillaWarfare, #EuropeanSecurity, #WarConsequences, #ImperialisticAmbitions, #PeaceAccord, #RussianPropaganda, #GeopoliticalStrategy, #WesternInfluence, #GlobalSecurity