How wars don’t end: A response to Gerard Toal’s analysis of ceasefire negotiations in Ukraine
回应托尔对乌克兰拒绝俄罗斯和平条件的分析，指出其归因于“承诺问题”和“偏见”过于简化，强调西方需提供安全保障并制定连贯战略，否则转移领土只会助长俄罗斯破坏乌克兰主权和欧洲安全。
Gerard Toal’s analysis of Ukraine and its allies’ hesitation to accept Russia’s peace terms, presented in ‘The Territorial Taboo: Explaining the Public Aversion to Negotiations in the Ukraine War Support Coalition’, attributes this reluctance to ‘commitment problems’ and ‘biases’. However, this explanation oversimplifies the issue. Achieving a stable post-agreement order necessitates Western resolve to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and a cohesive strategy regarding Russia’s role in the new global order. Toal’s suggestion of transferring occupied territories to end the war would enable Russia to further its goal of undermining Ukrainian sovereignty and bolster Putin’s dictatorship. This outcome contradicts NATO’s Strategic Concept, prolongs Ukrainian suffering, and perpetuates European security uncertainty. Furthermore, it would require a post-war narrative in which Ukrainians accept defeat and abandon their European aspirations. The resistance to Russia’s proposed settlement stems not from narrative taboos, but from a rational demand for a better resolution where unprovoked aggressors who want to upend international law through pre-modern lawlessness do not win the day.