By Matt Underwood Zelensky’s firm stance, encapsulated in the simple yet powerful phrase “Russia must end” this war they started, strikes me as utterly reasonable. It’s a clear-cut declaration of what’s needed to achieve peace. It’s not a complex negotiation tactic; it’s a statement of fact. The war began with Russia’s aggression, and the solution begins with Russia’s withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. Anything less is a betrayal of basic principles of sovereignty and international law.
That’s why it’s concerning to hear whispers of alternative solutions that seem to suggest Ukraine should just “give up” to end the fighting. It’s like suggesting a victim of assault can simply end the attack by consenting to it. This kind of thinking utterly disregards the fundamental dynamics of the conflict and empowers the aggressor. History has shown time and again that appeasement doesn’t work; it only emboldens those seeking to expand their power through force.
It’s also important to remember that the pre-2014 borders are the obvious starting point. This war didn’t begin in 2022; it has a long history, and its roots lie in Russia’s actions over a decade ago. Zelensky’s demand for a cessation of hostilities and a return to those borders isn’t unreasonable; it’s a pragmatic and necessary step toward lasting peace.
Given all that, it’s a bit disheartening to consider how some might react to this straightforward approach. The expectation is that those who cling to certain ideologies will twist it, claiming Zelensky doesn’t want peace, or that he’s somehow prolonging the war. The reality is that Zelensky is advocating for a just peace, one that respects Ukraine’s right to exist and to determine its own future.
And it’s not hard to see the potential dangers. If this stance is misrepresented, it could pave the way for reduced support for Ukraine, whether that’s the provision of weapons or crucial financial aid. In the face of aggression, such a shift would not only be a betrayal of Ukraine but also a dangerous signal to other potential aggressors around the world.
It’s vital to recognize the implications of those who suggest Ukraine surrender to Russia because Russia is the bigger, more powerful nation. Is that the kind of world we want to live in? Where might makes right, and the size of your army dictates your entitlement to take what you want from a neighbor?
The entire premise of the war is not that complicated. The only solution that leads to any lasting peace is that Russia must end the war. Period. No other compromises are truly viable, because to make them would be to reward aggression and set a precedent that would encourage similar behavior in the future.
It seems like those who are quick to offer that Ukraine simply “give up” do not have to live with the consequences of that decision. To me, that’s an easy position to hold, if your life and the lives of your loved ones are not the ones at risk.
And if it does come down to the U.S. being invaded, as a country that has experienced attacks, it would be insulting to suggest the U.S. should just give up the stolen land. We would never stand for it. So why, exactly, would we suggest that Ukraine should?
It’s crucial to understand that Zelensky and Ukraine are not the problem. The problem is the aggression of Russia and that can’t be resolved by Ukraine.
This situation is a trap, and it’s vital to see it as such. When a leader from another country starts telling you to end a war you did not start, it is a PR trap, and needs to be recognized as one.
The focus on Ukraine should not be on their response to the war, or a “peace deal.” Russia is the one that must end the war. If Russia were to end the war and return to its pre-2014 borders, the conflict would very likely end, and it would end immediately. That is the essence of the solution, and Zelensky is right to repeat it. Anything else would be a tragedy.