Redefining Ukraine's Path to "Security"
As Ukraine's war nears its third year, Trump and Hegseth push for a shift, downplaying NATO ambitions and territorial defense. This risks undermining Ukraine's sovereignty and rewards Putin.
Setting the Stage
In the heart of Kyiv, a mural depicts a phoenix rising from ashes—a symbol of Ukraine's resilience and rebirth. This image resonates deeply with a nation that has endured the trials of war since 2014, steadfastly holding onto hopes of reclaiming lost territories and securing NATO membership as bulwarks against future aggression. Yet, recent pronouncements from Washington, particularly from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, suggest a shift that could force Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms dictated by Moscow.
The Power at Play
Hegseth’s declaration that Ukraine should abandon efforts to return to its pre-2014 borders and reconsider its NATO ambitions represents a troubling retreat from the principles of international law. More alarmingly, this position directly aligns the United States with Russia’s strategic interests, signaling a willingness to accommodate the Kremlin’s territorial ambitions rather than resisting them. This shift in policy echoes past appeasement strategies that embolden aggressors rather than deter them.
This position aligns uncomfortably with reactionary arguments that prioritize "stability" over justice, implying that Ukraine should simply accept its losses rather than continue to fight for sovereignty. It is a stance that prioritizes appeasement over deterrence, emboldening future territorial aggression not just by Russia but by other authoritarian states watching closely. The argument that Ukraine should accept territorial losses to secure peace is a Motte-and-Bailey tactic, where "realism" is used as a cover for surrendering fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination.
Progressives recognize that Ukraine’s struggle is not just about its own borders—it is about upholding the global order against brute-force revisionism. While urging European nations to take a more active role in Ukraine’s defense is reasonable and even necessary, the real issue lies in any effort to appease Russia by pressuring Ukraine into making territorial concessions. Shifting military burdens among allies should strengthen Ukraine's position, not weaken it through forced compromises that legitimize Russia’s aggression.
Trump’s recent statement that he does not support Ukraine’s NATO membership as part of a "realistic peace plan" further cements this shift. By adopting a position that mirrors Russian interests, Trump reinforces the idea that Ukraine’s sovereignty is negotiable—a notion that plays directly into the Kremlin’s hands. Rather than presenting a viable strategy for peace, this stance signals to aggressors worldwide that territorial expansion through force can be legitimized if framed under the guise of "realism."
A Lens of Justice
This policy shift carries profound implications for Ukraine's sovereignty and the rights of its citizens. The suggestion that Ukraine should forgo aspirations of reclaiming territories annexed by Russia raises serious concerns about the international community's commitment to upholding national borders and the self-determination of peoples. Moreover, the idea that Ukraine should accept neutrality or "alternative security arrangements" echoes the rhetoric used to justify Russian aggression in the first place.
For progressives, the core issue is justice. If Ukraine is forced to relinquish its occupied territories, it sets a precedent that "might makes right"—a direct challenge to the post-World War II international legal framework. The same voices advocating restraint today would have opposed efforts to liberate occupied Europe in the 20th century, preferring "negotiated settlements" over defending fundamental freedoms.
Building the Conversation
Engaging in meaningful dialogue requires reaffirming Ukraine's internationally recognized borders and its right to self-defense. Advocates for Ukraine’s sovereignty must counter efforts to normalize territorial concessions and emphasize the broader consequences of allowing aggressors to dictate the terms of peace. A world where borders are determined by force rather than law sets a dangerous precedent for international stability. Supporters should highlight historical examples where appeasement failed to prevent further aggression—whether in the lead-up to World War II or in Russia’s continued encroachments after Crimea’s annexation in 2014.
Ukraine's aspirations for NATO membership are not only about military protection; they represent a commitment to democratic governance, human rights, and the rule of law. Progressives should stress that Ukraine's security cannot be subject to arbitrary great-power bargaining. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening Ukraine’s military capabilities, ensuring continued Western aid, and holding Russia accountable for war crimes and illegal territorial annexations. Attempts to equate NATO expansion with "provoking Russia" are classic examples of Whataboutism, shifting blame from the aggressor to the victim.
The Counterpoint Trap
Hegseth’s framing—that NATO membership and full territorial restoration are "unrealistic"—is a classic example of a bad-faith argument that benefits the aggressor while shifting the burden of compromise onto the victim. Reactionaries will claim that continued military aid "prolongs the war" while ignoring that Russia could end the conflict immediately by withdrawing its forces. This is a textbook Sealioning strategy, where an unending demand for concessions is placed solely on Ukraine while Russia remains free from scrutiny.
Conservatives may also argue that prioritizing European security means the U.S. should reduce its role in Ukraine. However, this contradicts their long-standing rhetoric about the importance of deterring geopolitical adversaries. A Ukraine left vulnerable today only invites greater instability tomorrow. The progressive response must emphasize that allowing Russia to dictate peace terms now will embolden other authoritarian regimes—whether in Taiwan, the Balkans, or beyond.
By staying the course and ensuring Ukraine has the means to defend itself, the West is not prolonging the war but preventing future wars of aggression. Any "peace deal" that compromises Ukraine’s territorial integrity without its full consent is not peace—it’s submission.
Deeper Dive
For those seeking to deepen their understanding of Ukraine's security dynamics and the broader implications of NATO expansion, the following resources offer valuable insights:
"The Case for Ukraine's NATO Membership" by Taras Kuzio – His comprehensive analysis delves into the historical context and future possibilities of Ukraine's relationship with NATO.
"The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century" by Angela E. Stent - Stent provides a nuanced examination of the complex interplay between U.S. and Russian interests, shedding light on the broader geopolitical considerations influencing Ukraine's security options.
"Appeasement: Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War" by Tim Bouverie – A stark reminder of the dangers of conceding to authoritarian demands under the guise of "realism." This book offers crucial lessons relevant to the current debate.
The Last Laugh
The last time someone tried appeasing an authoritarian aggressor, he came back from Munich waving a piece of paper and promising "peace for our time"—and we all know how that worked out. If history has taught us anything, it’s that dictators interpret negotiation as weakness, not good faith. In redefining its path to security, Ukraine has the opportunity to craft a future that reflects its resilience and ingenuity, but only if its allies remain steadfast in their commitment to justice, sovereignty, and international law. Something Trump and Hegseth don't appear particularly interested in.