No war can last forever. But no war ends until the aggressor either gets what they want or is pushed back by the victim. A just and lasting peace is only achieved when the root causes of war—the motives for aggression—are eliminated.

Russia's war against Ukraine began in February 2014 with a covert invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. Efforts for peace have been ongoing ever since. More than 20 ceasefires have been established between Russia and Ukraine. But where are we today? Hundreds of thousands of people have died, one-fifth of Ukraine's territory is occupied, and Russia shows no sign of willingness to even agree to a new ceasefire.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy became president of Ukraine in 2019 with a decisive election victory, offering hope for peace and a fair agreement with Russia. He even voluntarily ceded areas in Donbas to meet Russia's demands. What was the result? Instead of peace, an even greater war followed.

Emmanuel Macron became President of France in 2017. Among current Western leaders, even President Donald Trump's record of contact with Russia's dictator Putin pales compared to Macron's. Macron's kind words, diplomatic dialogue, and the Normandy Format have all failed to stop Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Donald Trump promised to end Russian aggression in 24 hours. That message worked for his voters, but it created a false illusion—that this is a trivial conflict easily resolved from a distance. Only this week, while hosting the Ukrainian president and European allies at the White House, Trump admitted he is not sure whether Russia can be stopped at all.

Since taking office, President Trump has been consistent and predictable regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. He has tried to remain as neutral as possible, framing it as "Biden's war." Ukraine has felt most of the pressure, with Russia only lightly touched. But Trump has had no real impact on ending the war or even establishing a ceasefire. In fact, in the first months of his second term, Russia has intensified its airstrikes and continues capturing Ukrainian territory despite heavy losses.

Putin has been emboldened by the fact that peace-seeking Trump has helped legitimize an internationally wanted war criminal and allowed him to partially break out of the isolation imposed by the West. The red carpet in Alaska was symbolic in this sense. Red is also the color of blood—Ukrainian blood.

Did the meetings in Alaska and the White House bring us closer to peace? They did not. Instead of addressing the root cause of the war—Russian imperialism—Western leaders, under the banner of peace, are trying to appease the aggressor. Even when speaking of security guarantees, everyone understands that the only truly effective deterrent against Russia would be Ukraine's membership in NATO.

A meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy—if it even happens—will change nothing. The aggressor believes he is winning. The victim is not willing to surrender. At best, they might agree on a prisoner exchange or a partial ceasefire. Moreover, it's not even clear whether Putin wants to legitimize Zelenskyy, whom he labels a mandate-less Nazi and an illegitimate usurper.

Macron is right when he says that Putin wants Ukraine's surrender and the destruction of a sovereign democratic power. But what is Macron's goal? What is the goal of us, the West? Ending the war and establishing peace is, of course, a desirable aim—but how do we get there?

Trump's idea of "peace at any cost" is not a solution; it's a concession to the aggressor. Even discussing security guarantees without including NATO membership is not a deterrent to Russia. History has shown that security guarantees work only when those providing them are politically willing to respond with force. The security assurances given to Ukraine in 1994 through the Budapest Memorandum, after it gave up its nuclear weapons, turned out to be a massive bluff.

Naturally, it is easier to talk about peace and diplomacy than about war and the inevitable losses that come with it. In times of peace, democratic leaders are primarily focused on their own voters and national interests. To defend others, to be willing to fight and die for freedom—for their own and others'—is the true measure of a leader in difficult times, the image of a genuine leader of the free world.

Russia, a fundamentally fascist nuclear state, is a frightening force for many. Especially when Kremlin propagandists and "useful idiots" have helped embed a deep-seated myth of Russia's invincibility. This kind of mindset is paralyzing and effectively eliminates the only real strategic option: stopping and repelling Russian imperial wars. One must not forget that nuclear Russia has already been defeated in wars of aggression—in Afghanistan and in Chechnya.

Putin has about a decade left of active and rational life. There is no doubt he wants to go down in history as the unifier of Russian lands, the longest-serving leader, and, as the cherry on top, the destroyer of Western unity—Russia's main adversary. Therefore, Putin's continued rule means continuous war, and the continuation of Russia's aggression. Only a credible force will stop it—not submissiveness or the false hope of achieving lasting peace through diplomacy.

Stalin's—or Putin's—Russia is not fundamentally interested in peace, because its essence is to be a borderless empire. Globally, Russia sees no other way to play a role except by selling raw materials and asserting itself through military power, and by weakening its greatest adversary—the West, especially the United States.

If we are unwilling to accept Ukraine into NATO because of Russian pressure, what makes the Kremlin believe that NATO will defend every square inch of its territory in the face of a Russian attack? If we are unwilling to deliver modern offensive weapons to Ukraine, what would make the Kremlin believe that an attack on NATO would not be met with the same hesitation?

Realpolitik oriented toward strength is harsh, especially from the viewpoint of a small country. But that should not scare us Estonians or force us to abandon our principles. In recent years, Estonia has successfully shown that principled leadership can encourage allies to unite and stand more firmly against Russian aggression. We remember how, back in 2015, we were looked at askance in the EU when we initiated the creation of a unit to counter Russian information warfare within the European External Action Service. We recall how much resistance we faced in 2021 when trying to include the promise of a European perspective for Ukraine and Moldova in EU documents.

We don't complain that Estonia and the other Baltic states weren't listened to years ago. The best way forward now is to continue principled and proactive diplomacy. Estonia's task is to foster the understanding among allies that the best defense is credible deterrence. Our role is to help our allies realize that redrawing borders in Europe will not bring peace. Even if it creates the illusion of stability, this world will still fall apart sooner or later. That is why we must seize this unique opportunity now and help Ukraine stop the imperialist wars of Russia, push back the aggressor for the sake of real peace, and hold them accountable for the crimes committed.

The comment was originally published in Estonian in the EDASI magazine.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!