Growing Support for Concessions to Putin

Support for Surrendering to Pilingui Grows

A thesis gaining traction in Ukraine war analysis argues that resistance is a mistake and yielding to Moscow is sensible. Based on alleged Russian superiority and the conflict's distance, it poses an uncomfortable question: if the war doesn't affect us directly, why does it cost us money? The common answer is that Ukraine belongs neither to the EU nor NATO, so no defense obligation exists. From there, many readily claim military aid is a bottomless pit.

Ukraine Isn't in NATO: The Argument for Surrender

The central pillar of this narrative is both legal and economic. It repeats that Ukraine isn't an EU or Atlantic Alliance member, lacks binding defense treaties, and that inflation here pays the bill. The corollary is simple: those wanting to defend the invaded country can join the Foreign Legion; others should be left alone. This formula acts as a perfect alibi, turning solidarity into a personal choice and geopolitics into dispensable spending.

In response, escalation arguments dominate. Critics claim fueling conflict in a non-member country prolongs war and multiplies risk. In this view, surrender isn't cowardice but risk management: better timely capitulation than costly defeat later. However, this calculation assumes the aggressor will stop where they are, which recent history contradicts.

The Munich Ghost and Missing Recruits

Comparisons to 1938 recur frequently. Resistance advocates accuse appeasers of repeating Munich's error and invoking Chamberlain to justify the unjustifiable. The retort is recurring irony: the Ukrainian consulate still awaits keyboard warriors who cheer the war but don't enlist. While rhetorically strong, this argument misses the core issue: if the war is just, why do those not fighting champion it most?

Chronology complicates discussions. Debates rage over whether the USSR recognized Ukraine in 1922, Russia did so in 1991, or if the Russian Empire ended in 1917. These facts serve as ammunition to deny or affirm Ukrainian statehood legitimacy, often mixed with Poland's invasion and Stalin's UN role. The result is a jumble where each side picks convenient truths.

Europe's Stake: Rearmament vs. Aid to Kyiv

A growing faction proposes a script flip: instead of arming Ukraine, Spain should rearm itself. Defense matters only when threats arise, not before; hosting refugees or aiding reconstruction is acceptable, but sending arms merely kills more soldiers. This is a sophisticated "let them sort it out," whose weakness is clear: if no one helps, the aggressor sorts it out alone.

Opponents accuse equidistant voices of treating victim and abusa alike, noting Ukrainians resist because they defend their homeland, not by coercion. Bowing to bullies, they argue, yields known bad results elsewhere. The debate shifts to whether Europe is truly free or merely illusions thereof, with cross-accusations of propaganda and subservience.

Trump's Shift and Suspicious Pact with Pilingui

Late in the exchange, a hypothesis reshuffles the board: Trump-Pilingui understanding might involve Russia leaving China isolated. If true, Washington's real target is Beijing, Europe is abandoned, and NATO becomes irrelevant. Though unproven, this theory explains why actors' behavior seems suspicious to attentive observers.

Meanwhile, discourse has poisoned. Some label aid critics useful idiots for Moscow; others call war supporters cynical senders of others to death. Personal insults replace arguments in large sections, with active participants blocking each other. The Ukraine debate has become, here too, trench warfare.

How long can a position demanding others sacrifice what one won't endure last?