The danger of letting Russia win

As the debate over U.S. policy toward Ukraine continues, positions taken by the Trump Administration have sparked renewed discussion about America’s role in the conflict. Trump’s assertion that he would negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin to “just stop the killing” is, at face value, difficult to argue with. Any effort to bring an end to the war is commendable.

Critics often mischaracterize Trump’s engagement with authoritarian leaders as acquiescence to their misuse of power, but diplomacy—even with adversaries—has always been a necessary component of international relations. Such is Trump’s history of engagement with Vladimir Putin and recent discussions regarding Ukraine.

More concerning, however, are the overt attempts by our Vice President and Secretary of Defense to lower expectations regarding Ukraine’s ability to reclaim its lost territory or join NATO. Those of us who came of age during the Cold War recognize the Russian Federation’s disregard for civil rights and suppression of the press as haunting echoes of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin’s grip on information and its treatment of political dissidents mirror the oppressive tactics of the past.

Members of the Greatest Generation, who witnessed firsthand the consequences of unchecked aggression, recall the dangers of appeasement. Humoring expansionist regimes only invites further conflict.

Students of history remember the Russian Empire’s genocidal pogroms against Jewish communities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Stalinist purges that sent millions to the gulags, and the man-made famines that starved millions.

Russia’s record in Ukraine is particularly brutal. During the Russian Civil War (1917–1921), Ukraine became a battleground, with Bolsheviks, White Army forces, and nationalist militias committing widespread atrocities, including pogroms that killed tens of thousands of Jews. Under Stalin, the Holodomor (1932–1933) deliberately engineered famine to crush Ukrainian resistance, killing an estimated three to five million people. World War II brought further devastation, with Soviet forces deporting entire ethnic groups, including the Crimean Tatars, and massacring thousands, as in the Katyn Massacre (1940). Even after the war, Ukraine remained subject to Soviet repression, with nationalist movements crushed and countless Ukrainians executed or exiled.

This history is essential to consider when evaluating Russia’s ongoing occupation of Ukrainian territory. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the invasion of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, demonstrates Moscow’s long-standing ambition to subjugate Ukraine. When the world allows territorial expansion by force, it sets a dangerous precedent. Capitulation to Russia’s demands not only legitimizes Putin’s aggression but also invites future conflicts, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere. The notion that peace can be achieved by simply accepting Russian occupation ignores the lessons of history.

America and its allies must recognize that appeasement has never secured lasting peace. Rather, it emboldens those who seek to redraw borders by force. A negotiated peace may be necessary, but it must not come at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty. If history has taught us anything, it is that unchecked aggression never stops with a single concession. The world must decide whether it will stand for the principles of national sovereignty and human rights or allow history to repeat itself once again.