That’s a reference to the proposed security assurances for Kyiv, which Trump’s Ukraine war negotiator, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has described as akin to NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment — even though Trump has consistently opposed Ukraine’s membership in the more dependable Atlantic alliance.
Haran emphasized that “signing a ceasefire agreement or conducting an election without security guarantees would allow Putin to resume aggression immediately.” Such an arrangement, he noted, would “essentially acknowledge Russia’s control over Ukrainian territories indefinitely,” mirroring the errors of 1938, where granting concessions to an aggressor only led to further conflict.
Yaroslav Hrytsak, a historian from the Ukrainian Catholic University, cautioned that the risk extends beyond a repeat of Munich-style betrayal. “It’s reminiscent of the Yalta scenario as well,” he remarked.
The human impact of altered borders should also be considered.
Europe has witnessed similar situations. During World War II, the Germans and Soviets aggressively displaced ethnic groups from occupied regions. By 1945, millions of ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland.
If Ukraine is compelled to cede the entire Donbas to Russia, Hrytsak argued, it would grant Moscow the power to “determine the fate of individuals in former Soviet bloc nations.” This would occur against the wishes of local residents, he added, “through the assertion of a large, powerful state’s authority over smaller, weaker nations.”
Leave a Reply