By Matt Underwood EU’s Kallas: “Territorial concessions to Russia would bring more war, not less.” That statement really cuts to the heart of a massive, complex issue. It’s a position that’s easy to understand, and for good reason: history has shown us, time and again, that giving in to aggression rarely brings lasting peace. Quite the opposite, in fact. Concessions can be perceived as a sign of weakness, and that can embolden an aggressor to push further, leading to more conflict, not less. It’s a chillingly familiar pattern.
Think about the lessons of the past, specifically the lead-up to the Second World War. The appeasement policies adopted by some nations, hoping to placate the expansionist desires of others, ultimately failed. The hope was that granting territorial concessions would satisfy the aggressor and prevent a wider war. Instead, these concessions only whetted the appetite for more, and ultimately failed to avert the catastrophic global conflict they were intended to prevent. It’s a stark reminder that appeasement is often a short-sighted strategy.
Of course, applying this to the current situation is not simplistic. The nuances are enormous, and the stakes are high. But the core principle remains relevant. If you concede territory to Russia in the hopes of ending the war, you risk legitimizing aggression and creating a precedent that encourages future violations of international law. It could create a situation where the conflict is not resolved but rather merely paused, only to be restarted later, perhaps on a wider scale and on terms far less favorable.
It’s also important to think about the practical implications. If the goal is a lasting peace, what does that really mean? Simply giving up territory wouldn’t automatically guarantee an end to the fighting. The question of what happens to the people living in the ceded areas, and the ongoing security concerns along the borders, would need to be addressed. A “peace” achieved through concessions could easily be an unstable and temporary one.
There’s a palpable frustration, I think, in the observation that the EU isn’t “doing anything new about it,” but this shouldn’t be misconstrued as complacency. It reflects the complex web of political and strategic considerations at play. The challenge lies in finding a path that balances the immediate need to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty with the long-term goal of establishing a sustainable peace, as well as the need to consider the security concerns of the EU’s member states, especially those bordering Russia.
The discussion of potential courses of action also highlights the difficult choices that are always made in the midst of conflict. For example, some suggest actions like severing Russian supply lines or sending troops into Ukraine. These proposals, while perhaps appealing to some, raise profound questions. Would severing supply lines truly halt the aggression, or might it escalate the conflict in unforeseen ways? And the idea of deploying troops raises even graver concerns, risking a direct confrontation with Russia with the potential for catastrophic consequences.
The idea of the U.S.’s role in NATO is also a relevant point. It’s been suggested that the U.S. has deliberately designed NATO to prevent other member states from developing independent military capabilities. That perspective highlights the need for the EU to develop its own independent military capabilities, a move that is already gaining traction. This would allow the EU to take a more proactive and effective role in its own defense, especially as geopolitical situations continue to evolve.
Another critical point is that waiting for Russia to collapse might be a risky, if not unrealistic, strategy. History is full of examples where waiting for an adversary to simply fade away turned out to be wishful thinking. The more practical approach would be to work towards a resolution while building up the capabilities needed to protect one’s own interests and provide a robust defense. This is the “buy time and prepare to be able to defend EU / European NATO states” strategy.
The challenges are significant. It’s not just about military strategy; it’s also about the economy. The pressure on Russia to balance its wartime economy with its peace economy is growing, but it’s also under increasing stress and its population is under enormous strain. A protracted conflict will undoubtedly have an impact on all parties involved.
In conclusion, Kallas’s point that territorial concessions would likely bring more war, not less, is not just a sound strategic assessment; it’s a reflection of the lessons of history. The path to a lasting peace is complicated, full of hard choices, and it requires the continued support of Ukraine. It demands a commitment to deterring aggression and to building the capacity for self-defense, as well as navigating the delicate balance between taking action and avoiding escalation.