Why Ukraine Should Not Let Russia Win
The editorial from The New York Times suggesting that Ukraine might need to make territorial concessions to Russia for peace has been met with strong criticism and concern. This stance is seen as overlooking the broader implications of Russian aggression and the significance of maintaining Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Conceding territory to Russia would be tantamount to accepting defeat for Ukraine, given the consensus in Ukrainian society and government that victory only comes with the restoration of Ukraine’s full territorial integrity, including Donbas and Crimea. Any other outcome would either mean the war is not over or that Ukraine has been defeated. This perspective is critical as it influences how other countries perceive the outcome of the war. The United States has likened its aid to Ukraine to the World War II-era Lend-Lease program, raising the stakes of countering Putin. A concession by Ukraine could be viewed as a defeat for NATO and, particularly, the United States, damaging the credibility of the West in countries that are still deciding their developmental paths and potentially increasing skepticism about the US, the EU, and NATO in many countries, including those in Europe.
On a practical level, making territorial concessions to Russia would not guarantee “peace for our time.” History has shown that appeasement can lead to further aggression. The occupation of Crimea has turned the region into a militarized base for Russia, posing a threat not just to Ukraine but to other countries in the region. If concessions are made, Russia may interpret this as a sign that it can gain new territories without significant consequences. This could embolden other nations with similar aggressive intentions, potentially inviting actions like Chinese aggression against Taiwan.
Ukraine’s defeat could also exacerbate the global food crisis. Russia has mined the Black Sea to block Ukrainian ports, and retaining the occupied territories could delay demining efforts for years, impacting Ukraine’s ability to export grain. Additionally, Ukraine’s defeat would likely increase the direct spending of Western donors in aiding the rebuilding of Ukraine.
Moreover, the crisis in Ukraine is rooted in Russia’s refusal to accept Ukraine’s independence and its attempts to subjugate and eliminate Ukrainian national identity, even through acts of genocide. By suggesting Ukraine make painful territorial decisions, there is a risk of implicitly agreeing with the ongoing genocide against the Ukrainian people. The suggested concessions in the NYT article could be seen as a misunderstanding of the Russian war against Ukraine, overlooking the principal motivation for Russia’s attempts to reconquer Ukraine — the non-recognition of Ukraine as a distinct nation and people.
In summary, the idea of Ukraine making territorial concessions to Russia is fraught with severe implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty, regional stability, and global security. The resistance of Ukraine against Russian aggression is not just a matter of national survival but a stand for democratic principles and international order. The unwavering support of the West, in terms of military, economic, and diplomatic aid, remains crucial for Ukraine to defend itself and uphold these values. The international community’s steadfast support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is essential in this context.
