Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons should Ukraine attempt to liberate territories Moscow illegally annexed two weeks ago. Putin’s nuclear threats have shifted the narrative about Ukraine, with some now arguing that Kyiv should accept a peace deal even if that means conceding territory.
Those who reside in Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, know that this is myopic — making concessions only increases the chance of nuclear war later on.
Those who believe that Putin can be appeased fundamentally misunderstand Russia. As Putin has alluded to on numerous occasions, including a lengthy essay he published last year, he believes that the Soviet Union’s demise was an unparalleled disaster and that it’s vital for Russia to resurrect its imperial glories. Putin’s conception of regional history is steeped in Russian chauvinism. He ardently believes the false narrative that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation and that Ukrainians are nothing more than errant Russians who were artificially estranged from the motherland through Bolshevik-era policies. For Putin, reassimilating Ukraine is morally necessary — the restoration of historical brotherhood.
CHINA URGES ALL CITIZENS TO EVACUATE UKRAINE
At the same time, expansionist foreign policy is integral to Putin’s regime legitimacy. In the first decade of his rule, Putin secured support by providing Russians with stability and growth after the humiliation of the 1990s. From 2000 to 2013, Russia’s GDP exploded by 800%. But memories of the 1990s faded, and Russians grew tired of trading stability for autocracy, leading to mass anti-government protests from 2011-2013. So, Putin shifted gears. Beginning with his 2014 annexation of Crimea, he made jingoism and territorial expansion the foundation of his appeal.
Many in the West failed to understand these factors and believed that Russia would not grab more territory after Crimea. They didn’t understand that conquest is psychologically and politically necessary for Putin. Meanwhile, Ukraine and other Eastern European states, being more familiar with their own backyard, rang the alarms but were largely ignored. As early as 2006, Poland warned that European reliance on natural gas would be a military liability, and the Germans spent a decade scoffing.
Now, some Western commentators are calling for an unjust peace that would concede territory to Russia, naively believing that this will reduce conflict. But Ukraine and its neighbors know better — they know that, for Putin, concessions will transform the invasion from a disaster to a triumph.
Eastern Europeans understand that any peace deal that cedes territory will be temporary. If Putin sees that annexations and nuclear blackmail pay off, he will use a peace deal to create an operational pause in his wars. After rebuilding his strength for a few years, he will strike again, more powerfully. This pattern of stop-and-go escalation has been happening for years — Western tolerance of Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia set the stage for the 2014 annexation of Crimea and war in Donbas, which then set the stage for today. The next escalation will be dire. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine, by exposing Russia’s weaknesses, has created the blueprint for building a much stronger Russian military. The West was lucky that corruption and incompetence undermined Russia’s advances this year, but luck doesn’t often strike twice.
Eastern European nations do not oppose peace deals because they want war. War would affect their lands more than anyone else. They merely oppose peace deals that would set the stage for greater future conflict. The key to a just and sustainable peace is simple. In the words of Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, “The way out of the conflict is for Russia to leave Ukraine. That’s the way out of the conflict.”
