Recent weeks have seen a significant escalation in Russia’s aerial assaults on Ukraine, with cities becoming increasingly frequent targets. This surge in attacks has brought the complex issue of appeasement back into the forefront of international debate, highlighting a notable divergence in viewpoints between the United States and European nations regarding the path to peace.
Despite the ongoing destruction and a growing civilian toll, a spirit of resilience is evident among Ukrainians. Images circulating on social media juxtapose the ‘Blitz spirit’ of wartime London with the current determination of Ukrainian citizens going about their daily lives, even amidst the smoke of recent missile strikes. However, this resilience is shadowed by palpable fear, as highlighted by a market-goer in Kyiv who recounted feeling her house shake from a nearby blast.
The core question for Ukraine remains not just how to endure the conflict, but how to end it. The recent diplomatic interactions, particularly between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump, have underscored the differing approaches. Trump’s emphasis on a swift resolution based on current front lines and his reluctance to supply longer-range weaponry have drawn criticism, with some US lawmakers and European leaders labeling such strategies as appeasement. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk famously stated, “appeasement never was a road to a just and lasting peace.”
Ukraine’s stance is clear: concessions to aggressors are unacceptable. President Zelensky has reiterated that Ukraine will not reward terrorist actions with impunity, urging partners to maintain a unified front. Meanwhile, Russia shows no signs of de-escalation, vowing to push further into Ukrainian territory, complicating any immediate peace prospects.
The economic consequences are also mounting. While new sanctions on Russian oil companies may have a limited immediate impact, they signal a potential shift in US policy. However, the fundamental disagreement persists: the US appears more inclined towards a swift, albeit potentially compromised, peace, while European nations, alongside Ukraine, advocate for continued pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. The ongoing debate over the supply of advanced weaponry and the potential for escalation, particularly given Russia’s nuclear capabilities, remains a critical element in shaping international strategy.
History offers a cautionary tale, reminding us that appeasement, however well-intentioned, can embolden authoritarian regimes. The sentiment among many Ukrainians is that Russia only understands force, and that lasting peace will only be achieved through decisive action, not through concessions. The path forward remains uncertain, with the need for a unified and robust international response to the ongoing conflict a paramount concern.