In Russia’s ‘blitz’ of Ukraine, the question of appeasement is back

After another week of intense and deadly Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities, a composite image has spread on Ukrainian social media.

Beneath an old black-and-white photo of Londoners queuing at a fruit and vegetable stall surrounded by the ruins of the Blitz, there is a second photo – this time in color – that creates a striking juxtaposition.

The photo, taken on Saturday, shows shoppers gathering in similar stalls in a northern suburb of the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, while a column of black smoke rises ominously in the background.

The caption linking the two images read: “Bombs can’t stop the markets.”

The night before, when the city’s sleep was again interrupted by the now-familiar thunder of missile and drone strikes, two people were killed and nine others wounded.

The meaning is clear. Rather than destroying public morale, Russia’s escalation of attacks on Ukrainian cities invokes a spirit of resilience reminiscent of Britain in the 1940s.

When I visited the market – where black fumes were still rising from the missile attack on a nearby warehouse – this sense of stillness was palpable.

But there was a lot of fear too.

Halina, who sells prunes and mushrooms, told me she saw little reason to be optimistic.

“In my opinion, according to the scriptures, this war has not begun yet.”

“It will get worse,” she added. “Way worse.”

One shopper who told me she felt her house shaking from the force of the explosion was still visibly shaken by the experience.

Inspiring memes about the spirit of blitzkrieg are all very well, but for Ukraine the bigger question is not how to endure this war, but how to stop it.

As President Donald Trump declares his peacemaker powers and pushes this question back to the center of global politics, another term from the same period of history looms once again — “appeasement.”

The question of whether Ukraine should fight or negotiate with an aggressor has lingered since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

But more than three years after launching its full-scale invasion, the war is entering a new phase, and the word is back in the global discussion.

More than three years after Russia launched its comprehensive invasion, the war is entering a new phase.

On the battlefield, the fighting has reached a brutal stalemate, and Russia is now increasingly targeting Ukrainian cities far from the front line.

Its air attacks – using ballistic missiles, explosive-laden drones and slip bombs – have risen from an average of a few dozen each day last year to at night, often reaching several hundred.

What the Kremlin insists are “military and paramilitary” targets now regularly include Ukraine’s civilian railway stations, passenger trains, gas and electricity supplies, homes and businesses.

According to UN figures, nearly 2,000 civilians have been killed this year, bringing the total number since the start of the war to more than 14,000.

In addition to the human toll, the financial burden is rising dramatically, with the cost of air defense systems far outpacing the cost of the waves of cheap drones sent to defeat them.

Just over a week ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went into his meeting in Washington with President Donald Trump in an upbeat mood.

It was believed that the United States’ patience with Russia was running out.

But he was surprised by a surprise phone call between Trump and Putin while he was on his way, and subsequent talk of another summit between the two leaders in Budapest.

Zelensky’s exchange with Trump at the White House was reportedly difficult, with the US president once again repeating his old talking points.

By portraying the conflict as simply a fight between two men who do not like each other, Trump insisted that they needed to settle the war along the current front line.

He warned of the dangers of escalation, and refused to grant Ukraine the right to use long-range Tomahawk missiles to strike deep inside Russia.

Gregory Meeks, a senior Democrat on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, described Trump’s strategy as “weakness through appeasement.”

Meanwhile, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote on X that “appeasement has never been a path to a just and lasting peace.”

Although the Ukrainian president’s comments were a bit more cautious — having learned the hard way not to criticize Trump too harshly — they had the same meaning.

“Ukraine will never give terrorists any reward for their crimes, and we count on our partners to take the same stance,” Zelensky wrote on social media after his return to Kiev.

With Russia making clear it was nowhere near as prepared as the US president had hoped to end the fighting – and instead vowing to advance on more territory – the planned summit was put on hold.

Washington quickly imposed sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies – perhaps a sign of growing impatience in dealing with Putin.

While the economic impact on Russia is likely to be minimal, it represents a major shift in Trump’s foreign policy, after he previously said he would not impose sanctions until European countries stop buying Russian oil.

Even if this is the case, it is clear that a large gap remains between the American and European views on how to end the conflict.

A few days later, Zelensky found himself on firmer ground, meeting with several European leaders in Brussels and later in London.

Further sanctions packages were agreed and progress was made towards using frozen Russian assets to fund war objectives in Ukraine, although no final agreement was ultimately reached.

Speaking alongside Zelensky in Downing Street on Friday, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer promised that he would work with his European partners to help provide more long-range weapons to take the fight to Russian soil.

In hindsight, it is easy to mock Britain’s policy of appeasement during the 1930s. Indeed, some did so even then.

Harold Macmillan, a future Prime Minister and opponent of the policy, once said: “You can always appease the lions by throwing Christians at them.”

“But the Christians had another word for it.”

However, we sometimes forget that the man most associated with this policy, then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, enjoyed significant support from the United States, which shared his deep fear of a repeat of the horrors of World War I.

President Trump appears to hold similar concerns today.

The risk of widening war with a nuclear-armed state should not be underestimated, as Ukraine works to increase the effectiveness and frequency of its strikes on Russian oil depots and, in some cases, on its electricity grid.

The Russian president is aware of this, and recently warned that the use of foreign-supplied Tomahawk missiles could lead to a “serious, if not spectacular” reaction.

But few Ukrainians I spoke to this week had the slightest doubt that the history lesson is true.

“Russia only stops when it is washed in its own blood,” said Yevhen Mahda, a professor at the National Aviation University in Kiev.

“Ukraine has proven that. The sooner the West understands this, the better for all of us.”

In the market, surrounded by pumpkin plants and carrots grown in his private garden, Feder said he woke up startled by the force of the nearby missile attack.

He added: “Putin only understands force.” “We need to destroy their airports and factories that produce these shells, bombs and missiles.”

The greatest danger, he suggested, lay in concessions, negotiations, appeasement – ​​call it what you will – which, no matter how well motivated, only serve to embolden authoritarian power.

He asked, “Does Europe think that it will calm down after Ukraine?” “If he takes over Ukraine, he will continue.”