By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, stated that any peace deal with Russia that involved Ukraine ceding territory would be unacceptable. He emphasized that a “just peace” would necessitate a halt to fighting along current frontlines, followed by negotiations without preconditions. General Syrskyi accused Russia of using peace talks as a strategic cover to seize more Ukrainian land through continued military offensives. He also asserted that Ukraine possesses the resources to continue its military operations and that the outcome of the war would determine the fate of all of Europe.
Read the original article here
Giving up territory would be ‘unjust peace’, says Ukraine’s armed forces chief, and frankly, it’s hard to disagree. The core sentiment here is that any peace achieved by ceding land to Russia is not a real peace. It’s a surrender disguised as a compromise, a reward for aggression, and a recipe for future conflict. The very idea that Ukraine should simply hand over territory to stop the fighting is seen as a betrayal of everything they’ve been fighting for.
Appeasement, we’re told, has a nasty habit of backfiring. Historically, it hasn’t led to lasting peace but instead emboldens those in power, creates resentment among those dispossessed, and ultimately sows the seeds for a more brutal conflict down the road. It’s not just about the injustice of it all, but the practical consequences. Giving up land today essentially gives Russia time to regroup, rearm, and launch another offensive with even greater force. That’s not peace; it’s just losing the war in slow motion.
The situation is, of course, far more nuanced. There’s an acknowledgement that a complete victory for Ukraine is, realistically, a long shot. The emphasis here, however, remains fixed: capitulation, even to save lives in the short term, is unacceptable. Russia could end this conflict today simply by withdrawing, but a settlement that rewards their aggression is not only unjust but also dangerous.
Consider the parallels with other conflicts. Imagine if Texas were Ukraine and Mexico, Russia. Would Texas, having sacrificed so much, give up an inch? The answer is a resounding no, and the same principle applies here. Giving in would essentially validate Russia’s actions, making it more likely they’ll try something similar again, whether against Ukraine or another country.
The proposed idea of a frozen conflict, with European peacekeeping forces, doesn’t offer a lasting solution either. This only perpetuates instability. It’s seen as a short-sighted approach, and the prevailing view is that the only true path to peace is the complete defeat of Russia. Anything less is merely delaying the inevitable, potentially leading to even greater losses down the line.
The fear of a Trump-brokered deal looms large, too. There’s a strong belief that such an outcome would guarantee a future war. The concern is that a deal that acknowledges Russia’s control over Ukrainian territory would simply be a prelude to the next invasion. The only way to deter further Russian aggression, the argument goes, is a massive military buildup across Europe.
The problem, as articulated here, isn’t that ending the war is a bad thing in itself. A prolonged conflict brings suffering and economic instability, and there are obvious benefits to peace. The issue is the terms. The fear is that a deal driven by Trump, for example, could be based on a miscalculation of Russia’s strength and a desire to exploit the situation for personal gain. The primary source of ire is that Europe hasn’t done enough to defend its own interests.
The fundamental point is that appeasing evil legitimizes it. If the United States is unreliable, why don’t the European countries, as a bloc of economic power and commitment, provide the strongest possible guarantees? The absence of such guarantees only encourages further aggression. The idea that 2km or any territory is more important than stopping the killings is seen as shortsighted. The only way to stop the deaths is to defeat Russia.