Get free updates on the War in Ukraine
Subscribe to our myFT Daily Digest newsletter to receive the latest War in Ukraine news every morning.
The writer is an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs
Many western countries are ambiguous about Ukraine’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty. They prioritize short-term solutions over the stability of a potential ceasefire or peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. They may encourage President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a questionable deal now to avoid a prolonged and costly campaign. Despite not being aligned with Russia, various right-wing and left-wing groups, as well as countries like Hungary and Brazil, have indirectly or directly urged Kyiv to make concessions for the sake of peace.
However, even politicians and governments advocating for compromises on Ukraine’s freedom cannot overlook the broader issues of international stability and security. Despite its geographic, cultural, historical, and political differences, Ukraine’s situation cannot be dismissed as a mere post-Soviet or intra-Slavic dispute.
From 1945 to 1991, Ukraine was a non-sovereign member of the UN, unlike the Russian Soviet republic. After gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine became a regular member of the UN, as well as the Council of Europe, OSCE, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, among other organizations.
Therefore, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 posed a fundamental problem for the international community. Moscow denies Ukraine’s sovereignty, while international law asserts its existence.
Eight years after the takeover of Crimea, Russia further violated international law by officially annexing four more regions in southeastern Ukraine in September 2022. This escalation, along with Moscow’s terror campaign against Ukraine’s population and infrastructure, intensifies the stakes.
While some in the past may have accepted Russia’s arguments regarding Crimea, few today justify its outrageous behavior in Ukraine. Sympathy for Ukraine and its people does not justify compromising its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Countries that legitimize a deal benefiting Russia would not only disregard Ukraine’s rights, but also violate their own obligations by rewarding Moscow’s aggression.
This approach risks encouraging other revisionist countries to disregard borders and territories. If powerful countries can encroach upon their neighbors, other regions around the world may be subject to the same fate as Crimea and “New Russia.”
In light of this danger, weak nations may lose faith in international law’s ability to protect their borders and independence. By signaling a lack of commitment to the international order, Western governments undermine these institutions.
As long as Russia continues its armed aggression against Ukraine, the only response is to meet force with force. This approach aligns with international law, particularly Article 51 of the UN Charter. Compromises and concessions to an aggressor will not lead to lasting peace. Those urging Kyiv to negotiate should consider the implications for Ukraine and vulnerable states beyond its borders.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
