Throughout history, it has been shown that trying to appease an aggressor is often futile. Although it may seem like it brings about temporary peace, it usually leads to armed conflicts and countless casualties in the long run. Unfortunately, even in the 21st century, the international community has continued to make the same mistakes as before. It resulted in the deadliest armed conflict since World War II \u2013 the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The events of 2014 showed that the Euro-Atlantic community was unable to respond effectively to Russia’s aggressive behavior. Ukraine’s security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum turned out to be a fiction – a mechanism that couldn’t be implemented and didn’t work in the face of aggression by one of the guarantors. In addition, Russia has manipulated the concept of “collective security” as defined in the UN Charter, and their veto power has allowed them to act with impunity as one of the five “guardians” of international security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the international community didn’t recognize the change of borders resulting from Russia’s annexation of part of Ukraine, they prioritized normalizing relations with Russia in exchange for freezing the conflict. In 2018, France initiated a new regional security and defense architecture with Russia, and in 2019, Russia returned to full participation in PACE, while the US proposed renewing Russia’s membership in the G7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite sanctions imposed on Russia, some EU member states continued exporting weapons to Russia, citing contracts made before August 1, 2014. Russia used these weapons to commit international crimes against Ukrainians, and took the international community’s lack of action as a “green light” for a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the severe consequences of Russian aggression, some prominent political figures insist on negotiating with Putin and preserving his regime’s reputation. They suggest making concessions to Russia, even if it means using a sovereign state’s territory as a bargaining chip. This position is justified by their belief that Putin’s imperial ambitions are legitimate security concerns due to a “feeling of threat” from neighboring countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine has surpassed their borders and gained a regional significance. Its negative consequences have impacted various aspects of the international community’s existence, from world trade to nuclear deterrence, collective security, and even defining a civilizational paradigm for further development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
_______________________________________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This report has been prepared by the experts of the Regional Center for Human Rights with the support of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. Foundation Office Ukraine. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the Regional Center for Human Rights and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. Foundation Office Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n