By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On January 5th, 2025, over 160 prominent Ukrainian figures released an open appeal, “Do Not Appease Evil,” to global leaders. The appeal argues that Russia’s war aims extend beyond territorial gains, seeking to dismantle the existing world order. It warns against a negotiated peace that cedes Ukrainian territory, asserting this would embolden aggressors and destabilize global security. Conversely, a decisive defeat of Russia’s aggression is presented as crucial for restoring global stability and averting wider conflict.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian public figures are urgently urging world leaders to resist the temptation of appeasement when confronting aggressors. The consequences of such a path, they warn, are far-reaching and potentially catastrophic, echoing historical precedents where appeasement only emboldened further aggression.
The argument centers on the inherent danger of rewarding evil behavior. A failure to hold perpetrators accountable, whether through insufficient sanctions or a reluctance to confront blatant acts of aggression, creates a dangerous precedent that invites further escalation. This is particularly relevant in the current geopolitical climate, where the line between compromise and complicity can be dangerously blurred.
The concern extends beyond the immediate conflict, highlighting the global implications of inaction. Allowing aggression to go unchecked in one region can embolden similar actions elsewhere, potentially destabilizing international relations and creating a climate of fear and uncertainty. The precedent set now will affect future conflicts and international stability.
Economic considerations, such as continued trade with nations that support aggressors, are also criticized as a form of appeasement. Prioritizing economic gain over ethical considerations and national security weakens the collective stance against aggression and undermines efforts to hold those responsible accountable. This short-sighted approach prioritizing profit over principle risks far greater long-term consequences.
The argument against appeasement is strengthened by the observation that even seemingly small concessions can be misinterpreted as weakness, emboldening aggressors and leading to further demands. History teaches that appeasement rarely satisfies aggressors; instead, it fuels their ambition and encourages them to push their boundaries further. This pattern has repeated itself throughout history, and ignoring this lesson risks repeating past mistakes.
Critiques of current international responses, such as sanctions selectively applied while trading with supporting nations continues, underscore the inconsistency and ineffectiveness of current approaches. These inconsistencies send mixed signals, weaken the overall message, and ultimately undermine efforts to deter further aggression. A unified and decisive approach is crucial to effectively counter aggression.
Furthermore, the criticism extends to internal actions within affected nations. The failure to address corruption and recover stolen assets weakens national resilience and undermines efforts to resist aggression. Addressing these issues internally strengthens the nation’s resolve and ability to defend itself against external threats. The call is for decisive internal actions to accompany external pressure.
Ultimately, the message from Ukrainian public figures is clear and unequivocal: Appeasement is not a viable solution. It is a path that leads to further conflict, suffering, and instability. The only way to ensure peace and security is to firmly confront evil, hold aggressors accountable, and stand united against those who threaten international order. The continued insistence on this approach is crucial for the future of global stability.