At the moment, the hope of Ukraine lies with the younger generations now fighting for their country. Their world view is west of centre: a European Ukraine that is liberal- or social-democratic, a nation where the rule of law and transparency are more than slogans. Some of them are from the west of the country, their identities secure in their Ukrainian language and culture.
Surrendering land is not the same as defeat – if a stronger Ukraine emerges from the ruins.
Ukraine, outside Nato, has no “guarantee” of anything. There are three ways this war could end: Russia driven back to the pre-2014 line; Ukraine defeated and partitioned; or (the most likely at present) a stalemate along a fragile ceasefire line.
That would leave Russia occupying some territory claimed by Ukraine while peace negotiations dragged on. International arbiters will be tempted to push some obvious compromise: Russia keeps Crimea, while Donbas is partitioned under UN auspices.
It is impossible for Ukraine to accept any of Russia’s ultimatums. Not the recognition of the so-called “republics” within the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, not the annexation of Crimea, and not the demilitarisation of Ukraine.
Kyiv understands that these concessions will not bring any security and in no way will they guarantee the withdrawal of Russian troops. Moreover, these “compromises” will not prevent a new Russian attack. To the contrary, they can only provoke a new Russian offensive against Ukraine.
The only issue that can be debated between the West and Ukraine is security guarantees in the form of a treaty, if Ukraine does not join NATO in the near future. Any agreement would have to include terms about how military support will be provided in the event of a new invasion. This military support should include concrete forms of collective response, including using troops.
