By Kaspars Ģērmanis
(FPRI) — Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I have encountered questions asking why Ukraine has not ended the war. Those asking believe that ending the war at any cost would benefit Ukraine. However, such a scenario would not be fair or even merciful.
London, Paris, Sevilla, Dakar—The Same Question Comes Up Everywhere
At the end of November 2023 in London, I heard the question—”Why is Ukraine not searching for peace?”—asked by a taxi driver on my way to the airport. He is not alone in his thoughts. It raises another question: “Why, even acknowledging that Russia is an aggressor, do some people question the responsibility of Ukraine?
The taxi driver was an Afghanistan-born Londoner who left his country due to a permanent and never-ending war. He viewed war as the worst thing, to be avoided at all costs. A few weeks later, in Paris, I met a young French man who rhetorically asked why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not attempting to reach peace with Russia. At the end of February 2024, a Spanish man in Sevilla remarked that Ukraine should find peace since Europe has contributed much to it. Finally, in Dakar, Senegal, in January 2025, local professors expressed skepticism about whether Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s aim is the destruction of the state of Ukraine, suggesting that peace is a solution. Here, I must stress that the Senegalese did not insist that Ukraine was responsible for the war.
In these cases, I needed a couple of seconds to understand where to begin. In Latvia, my country of origin, I know how to engage even with those who doubt or deny that Putin is responsible for the war. They tend to blame Ukraine, the United States, or all parties involved, simply sigh and say, “What can we do?” “Nothing is clear,” or “We can have different opinions.” But in these instances, I have met people who agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable, yet they believe the keys to stopping the war lie in the hands of Ukraine. In all cases, we engaged in discussions, and somehow, I “proved” that Ukraine was not responsible for the war and ending the war. Why is “proved” in quotations? Despite the absence of solid arguments from my interlocutors, I sensed that they did not change their minds. Even recently elected US President Donald Trump blames Ukraine for starting the war and for not finding a solution for three years since the “big war” (overall, the war in Ukraine has lasted since 2014). Trump’s accusations could stem from political manipulation or his “business approach,” where he advises, “When negotiating, ask for a lot,” or “Do your own thinking, don’t rely on others’ opinions,” suggesting that the use of unconventional tactics, such as insulting other leaders, is permissible. However, as seen in Rome in November 2022 or Berlin in February 2023—why do some acknowledge Russia’s responsibility for the war but insist that peace depends on Ukraine?
The Country with a History and the Country without One
The superficial response is the convenience of putting pressure on the most threatened and, therefore, the most vulnerable (but not the weakest). In this case, it is Ukraine. The country is under attack. Even cities far from the frontline face missile and drone attacks. Over six million Ukrainians have fled their country as refugees. Unlike Russia, Ukraine depends on financial, humanitarian, and military support from other countries. Ukraine receives help primarily from Western nations and also from countries in Asia and Africa. This assistance makes it easier for the West to influence Ukraine. Russia, meanwhile, receives assistance from such countries as North Korea and Iran.
However, there is something more. I have observed awe and even a hint of admiration towards Russia for years. On the one hand, “everybody knows” that this is not the most prosperous country. It has many social problems, including a dark history of the gulags and other evils of the Soviet Union, countless wars over the centuries, and consequential territorial expansion resulting in the Russification of people in the current territory of Russia and elsewhere, such as Central Asia and Ukraine. At the same time, the awe factor remains. The “Russian bear” is a symbol of nuclear power, the unification of eleven time zones, and an ostensibly world-renowned culture. Anton Chekhov, Lev Tolstoy, Aleksandr Pushkin, and other luminaries of Russian culture are well-known in the West, and some even spent time there. Russia’s reputation appears a bit dangerous but intriguing and, at times, even attractive. Thus, Russia is a universally recognized country.
Opposite Russia is Ukraine, which, despite having lived under various rulers for many years, its people were significantly Russified in the 20th century—so much so that many Ukrainians’ first language is Russian, not Ukrainian. Partly due to the consequences of Russification and Sovietization, Ukraine has long been perceived as part of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Ukrainian legends and cultural stories remain largely unknown in the West and beyond. Do many people worldwide know who Taras Shevchenko or Lesya Ukrainka are? Do many people know what the Holodomor was, one of the most outrageous crimes against humanity (under other names, the Soviets also carried it out in Russia and Kazakhstan)? Thus, there has been a tendency in the West and elsewhere to view Ukraine as part of the “Russian world.” Does Ukraine have its own history? Does Ukraine enjoy the same level of recognition, especially in front of Russia, which has a long and diverse history with citizens who, as Ukraine sometimes ironizes, call themselves the “older brothers”?
The Implications of Unrecognized Colonialism
Many Western countries have examined the colonial era in various contexts for years. The few Western countries that colonized significant parts of the world in previous centuries have apologized and acknowledged their wrongdoings. Western nations do not hesitate to discuss these topics.
In contrast, Russia, particularly under Putin’s leadership, not only refuses to discuss such wrongdoings but glorifies them. Famously, Putin stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Moreover, he describes the Soviet Union as “historical Russia.” It is hard to imagine modern British, French, or Dutch leaders asserting their “historical rights” to African or Asian countries. However, during the Soviet era, many nations lost their homelands for a couple or several generations, and, in some instances, their cultures suffered heavily (for example, the use of Belarusian and Ukrainian languages in Belarus and Ukraine, respectively).
Another aspect reinforcing some Westerners’ lack of criticism of Russia is the incomplete assessment of World War II. While the Holocaust and dark pages of the war led to a “never again” approach in the West and the prosecution of some perpetrators (notably the Nuremberg Trials), the crimes of the Soviet Union—including deportations, torture, and murders, along with the more mundane crimes of a totalitarian state—have been largely ignored. Along with the Western Allies, the Soviet Union also won. In war, winners do not receive judgment. Thus, even though some Western countries perceive the war in Ukraine as a conflict seemingly so far from all of them between countries with a master-servant relationship, they recognize the parallels between Western countries and their colonies from just a few generations ago. Therefore, the ongoing war is not always viewed as a struggle where Ukraine has only two options—independence or loss of identity.
When Calls for Peace Challenge the Right to Self-Defense
The only person who can stop the war is Putin. Zelensky and Ukrainians face a very difficult choice: continue defending themselves or surrender and risk losing their country and potentially their identity. As my conversation partners across several countries mentioned, the peace agreement would, at least in Putin’s version, produce one of those results because the destruction of Ukraine is Russia’s war objective. One of my conversation partners even rhetorically asked: Do I want a war? No, I do not. But sadly, the war has become the means for Ukraine to save itself, its people, culture, language, and state.
I suppose the people demanding a peace agreement from Ukraine are grounded in the same pacifist “never again” idea. The problem is that these demands target the victim and the side that defends, not attacks. Thus, the demand for peace becomes an attempt to ban the right to self-defense, one that is neither honest nor justified.
About the author: Kaspars Ģērmanis is a researcher at the Center for Geopolitical Studies in Riga. He has two decades of experience in journalism, working both for Latvian and foreign media, with a focus on domestic political news, foreign affairs, and economics.
Source: This article was published at FPRI