Marking the war’s 1,000th day, Ukrainian President Zelensky addressed the European Parliament, urging allies to increase pressure on Russia for a “just peace,” emphasizing that Putin will not stop without external pressure. Zelensky’s speech followed reports of a possible first use of US-supplied ATACMS missiles within Russia, and coincided with escalating tensions including the reported deployment of North Korean troops and Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine. The conflict continues to inflict devastating casualties, with recent drone attacks in Sumy resulting in civilian deaths. Zelensky warned that delaying action allows Russia to strengthen its position.

Read the original article here

Ukraine’s unwavering declaration to “never submit” as the war against Russia reaches its 1,000th day is a powerful statement of defiance, yet it also raises crucial questions about the realistic possibilities of ending this conflict. The sheer determination of the Ukrainian people is undeniable, fueled by a deep-seated desire to protect their sovereignty and national identity. This resolve is mirrored in countless personal stories of bravery and sacrifice, highlighting the immense cost of this war.

This enduring resistance, however, must be viewed within the context of a complex geopolitical landscape. A hypothetical “peace deal” brokered by unlikely figures like Trump and Putin, potentially involving territorial concessions by Ukraine, presents a chilling scenario. While such a deal would be rightly rejected by Ukraine, it underscores the precarious dependence on continued Western aid and the potential for a power vacuum should that support falter. The very notion of surrendering land illegally occupied by Russia is understandably abhorrent to Ukrainians.

The longevity of the conflict – extending beyond the initial full-scale invasion to encompass the ongoing struggle since 2014 – highlights the depth of the crisis and the stubborn refusal of Russia to respect international borders. This raises the specter of a protracted frozen conflict, akin to the division between North and South Korea, with no official resolution and lingering tensions. This possibility is deeply concerning, suggesting a lasting scar on the geopolitical map and a continued drain on resources and human lives.

The iconic phrase, “I don’t need a ride. I need ammo,” encapsulates the desperate need for continued military support from Ukraine’s allies. This need goes beyond mere survival; it’s about the fundamental right to self-determination. It’s crucial to acknowledge the frustration felt by Ukrainians at times regarding the pace and scope of Western aid, especially given the magnitude of the threat they face. The desire for a total victory, liberating all Ukrainian territory, is understandable from their perspective.

However, the reality is more nuanced. While a resounding victory that utterly dismantles the Putin regime would be ideal, it’s not a guaranteed outcome. There’s a critical need to balance the desire for a complete victory with the pragmatic understanding that protracted conflict has its own costs and consequences. The high number of casualties – not only Ukrainian but also Russian – speaks volumes. The need to protect the lives of Ukrainians and minimize further suffering is paramount.

A crucial point often overlooked is the perspective of those who have witnessed and lived through countless wars throughout history. The unwavering “never surrender” mentality, while inspiring, risks ignoring the harsh realities of war’s ultimate outcomes. Even nations with legendary military prowess, like Finland, have had to make difficult compromises in the face of overwhelming force. The most realistic hope is a peace deal ensuring the protection of what remains of a free Ukraine, even if it necessitates painful compromises.

This pragmatic approach isn’t a suggestion for surrender or appeasement; it’s an acknowledgement of the limits of warfare and the need for a path towards a sustainable future. The West has a responsibility to aid Ukraine, not just with weapons, but with a comprehensive strategy for lasting peace and security. The focus should be on enabling Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength while also realistically assessing the limitations of a prolonged conflict.

The potential for a major shift in US policy, particularly under a different administration, is another crucial element. A sudden halt to US aid, as some predict, could drastically alter the balance of power and force Ukraine into a drastically more difficult situation. This underscores the need for Europe and other allies to step up and strengthen their own defense capabilities, reducing their reliance on a single power for their security.

In conclusion, Ukraine’s vow to “never submit” reflects the courageous spirit of a nation fighting for its survival. However, this resolve needs to be balanced with a realistic assessment of the geopolitical landscape and the need to find a pathway to a sustainable peace. The international community, particularly Ukraine’s allies, must continue providing crucial support while working towards a solution that safeguards Ukraine’s future, recognizing that sometimes the best outcome isn’t necessarily the ideal one. A nuanced approach that weighs both resilience and pragmatism will be vital in navigating the difficult path towards peace in the years to come.