By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump has declared ending the war in Ukraine as his top priority, aiming to stop what he considers a drain on US resources through military aid. While he hasn’t revealed his strategy, his advisor, Mr. Lanza, emphasizes a realistic approach, suggesting that regaining Crimea from Russia is unrealistic and not a US goal. He advocates for a “vision for peace” rather than “winning” and urges an honest conversation with Ukraine about achievable outcomes. Although Trump has discussed the situation with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the specifics of his peace plan remain unclear, with various advisors potentially offering conflicting viewpoints.
Read the original article here
A recent statement from a Trump adviser suggesting that Ukraine should focus on peace rather than retaking lost territory has sparked outrage and criticism. This stance, which echoes a strategy of appeasement, is seen as a betrayal of Ukraine’s right to self-determination and a dangerous precedent for international security.
The idea that Ukraine should simply accept the loss of territory and agree to a peace deal with Russia is widely perceived as a capitulation to aggression. Critics argue that such an approach rewards Russia’s illegal invasion and sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. If a country can simply seize territory and then demand peace on its own terms, it would embolden other authoritarian regimes to act with impunity.
The adviser’s suggestion also ignores the human cost of Russia’s aggression. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, and countless lives have been lost in the conflict. The idea that peace can be achieved without addressing the root causes of the conflict, including the return of stolen territory and accountability for war crimes, is seen as a naive and dangerous approach.
Furthermore, the adviser’s stance fails to recognize the broader geopolitical implications of Russia’s actions. The invasion of Ukraine has already destabilized the European security order and emboldened China to consider similar actions against Taiwan. Accepting Russian aggression in Ukraine would only embolden these authoritarian powers and create a more dangerous and unpredictable world.
The call for peace is a noble one, but it cannot come at the expense of justice and the right of self-determination. A true peace must be based on respect for international law, accountability for aggression, and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Anything less would be a betrayal of Ukrainian people and a dangerous precedent for the future of international security.