If Putin can hold onto most of the territories Russia has occupied, he would become a national hero. One should therefore be skeptical of his professed “reluctance” to stop the war at this stage.
There are many who claim that Putin has failed totally in achieving the goals of the war of aggression against Ukraine. And even more who call for peace, and negotiations to end the war. The newly elected American president has done so on many occasions as well.
Continuing to support Ukraine with the goal of restoring its internationally recognized borders and its sovereignty would involve continued human costs, and costs in terms of resources. 21st century war is incredibly expensive.
It is understandable that some would search for an alternative. Administrations may even think they have choices and can shape events to their liking. But as the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal demonstrated, there are risks in abandoning conflicts you dislike.
In the case of Ukraine, such a choice would come with huge costs. There would be lasting economic and security damage done to the US and its allies. The potential human costs of abandoning millions of people to tyranny and the cost to the reputation of American leadership would be tragic and long-lasting.
Freezing the war through any form of ceasefire overlooks a critical fact. While fierce Ukrainian resistance has indeed kept Putin from his ultimate goal of conquering all of the country, it would undoubtedly been seen in Russia as a major victory. Based on centuries of imperialistic Russian propaganda of Edinnaya i Nedelimaya, or One and Indivisible Russia, Putin would be seen as having returned areas of the so-called imperial core to his possession. No form of words, no refusal by Ukraine to accept this, will change this perception.
While many Russians still pine for the imagined glory of Peter, Catherine the Great, and Stalin, most support the war for another reason. To start with, they believe their own propaganda, that both Ukraine and Belarus, are fundamentally “the same people” and they are therefore not aggressors but liberators (although, ironically, this is because from the 9th to the 13th centuries both Belarus and the Russia of that day, were governed by Kyiv.)
Thus, the gut issue motivating most of Putin’s Russians today is not the full restoration of the tsarist and Soviet empires, but the presumed return and protection of “traditional” Russian lands, their Russian language, and the Russian version of the Orthodox Church. This applies particularly to what were mostly Russian-speaking areas of Southern and Eastern Ukraine, although many have now abandoned the language as a sign of resistance to Russian aggression.
Putin and his imperial-minded inner circle ignore the fact that the Russian language was foisted on Ukrainians over the centuries and is no indicator of loyalty.
Similarly, Putin’s arguments for illegally annexed Crimea and “Novorossia,” are based mostly on propaganda rather than historical fact. One cannot turn back to the maps of lost empires as indicative of anything except power. England does not claim areas of India, or Rome parts of Britain.
One of the key disproved canards of Russian propaganda was the alleged persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in the occupied territories. This unfortunately, remains a key motivating factor for the war among the Russian population. It is evidenced by Moscow’s Patriarch Kirill calling the war of aggression a “holy war” designed to restore “true” Orthodoxy and liberate Ukraine from “Devil worshipers.” This Ukraine’s proven record in protecting minorities and its longstanding tolerance (now ended) of clerical activities on behalf of a hostile power.
The Russian popular belief in regime propaganda factors heavily into Putin’s strategy. If he can keep annexed Crimea and the Ukrainian Cossack lands of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donbas, he will be rewarded with popular acclaim. He will become forever a Russian hero, a man with his place in nationalist history books. That’s something he wants more than anything else.
Russia would also acquire over $26 trillion of titanium, lithium, and other rare earth resources in the occupied Donbas. For most Russians, the negative consequences of all the economic sanctions and military losses would be dwarfed by such a victory.
We in the West tend to believe that conflicts are basically misunderstandings and if we only sit down around the table we can reach a deal benefiting everyone. But dictators are not interested in such outcomes.
Dictators use negotiations cynically and agree only to “I win, you lose” deals. What will happen in the near future with Ukraine will not be limited to Europe, nor of small consequence for the United States. If we choose to allow blatant aggression to be rewarded in the name of peace, it will cost us in blood and treasure in the future, and through an immediate loss of honor, the price of which is hard to calculate.
We must not allow Putin to snatch an end-game victory from his impending defeat.
Dr. Vitalij Garber is a former Assistant Secretary General of NATO (Defense Support/Defense Investment), US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (International Programs and Technology), and Director of Interoperability (Department of Defense).
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
