In recent months, a growing chorus of commentators, policy analysts, and political cynics have begun to whisper, or in some cases shout, that Europe should seek peace with Russia at any cost. The latest addition to this trend comes from prominent Substack author, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, who, once a defiant critic of EU overreach and financial injustice, now suggests that the European Union should abandon its strategic support for Ukraine and instead sue for peace with Vladimir Putin. His thesis, cloaked in the language of realism and historical analogy, is a damning indictment not of Russia’s aggression, but of Europe’s supposed weakness.
This view is not only morally indefensible, but strategically shortsighted. It is rooted in defeatism masquerading as pragmatism, and it risks betraying the very foundation upon which postwar Europe was built that the freedom and sovereignty of nations are non-negotiable.
Appeasement Rebranded
Yanis Varoufakis evokes Winston Churchill’s famous rebuke of Neville Chamberlain after the 1938 Munich Agreement: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” But in a sleight of intellectual hand, the author inverts this warning to argue that Europe’s refusal to seek peace with Russia is a dangerous escalation akin to the opposite of Chamberlain’s mistake. It is a distortion of both history and logic.
Chamberlain’s decisions, while flawed, were made in the shadow of the First World War, a trauma still raw in the memory of Europe’s leaders. Millions had died in the trenches, and few wanted to believe that history was poised to repeat itself. In that context, appeasement was driven by a profound—and understandable—fear of another global conflagration. But understanding that motivation does not vindicate it. It only makes the lesson clearer: dictators do not stop because you meet them halfway. They stop when they are stopped.
Today, we face a similar moment. Vladimir Putin is not a misunderstood statesman with legitimate grievances. He is a modern autocrat, cloaked in paranoia, consumed by revanchist dreams of empire, and openly contemptuous of the democratic order. His published essays, speeches, and military actions display the same disturbing pattern seen in history’s most dangerous authoritarians: the belief that their nation is destined to dominate others, and that facts, treaties, and human lives are secondary to that vision.
Like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Putin’s pronouncements reveal a worldview detached from reality and driven by grievance and myth. He has dismissed the sovereignty of Ukraine, denied its historical existence as an independent nation, and declared it part of Russia’s rightful territory. He has waged war not only with tanks and artillery but with lies, assassinations, disinformation, and terror.
The Illusion of Rational Dialogue
One of the core assumptions behind Yanis Varoufakis’s argument is that diplomacy can still work, that peace is available, if only Europe had the courage to grasp it. But this assumption collapses under scrutiny. Diplomacy requires that both sides are willing to negotiate in good faith. Putin has shown, repeatedly, that he does not negotiate in good faith.
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, promising to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for the removal of the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. That promise was shattered in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, and again in 2022 with the full-scale invasion. Ceasefires have been violated, peace talks exploited for propaganda, and humanitarian corridors shelled. There is no good-faith partner in the Kremlin—only a thug with imperial ambitions.
Those who propose that Ukraine become a neutral buffer state, like Austria during the Cold War, forget one key point: Ukraine tried neutrality. It stayed out of NATO for decades. It had no ambitions of armed conflict with Russia. And still, it was invaded. Neutrality did not save Ukraine—it invited aggression.
Defending Peace Means Defending Ukraine
War is an abject failure of diplomacy, but peace is not simply the absence of war. True peace must be just, stable, and freely chosen by those who live under it. Any “peace” that involves slicing up Ukraine, ceding territory to an aggressor, or forcing Ukrainians to abandon their Western aspirations is not peace—it is the surrender of principles to fear.
We must not sacrifice Ukraine’s sovereignty because we are afraid. Nor should we pretend that doing so would bring lasting security. If Ukraine falls, the precedent is set, borders can be redrawn by force, treaties mean nothing, and the democratic world will not stand up for its own values if the aggressor appears or is strong enough.
Europe’s Institutional Weakness is Real, But It’s a Call to Action, Not Surrender
Yanis Varoufakis correctly identifies a critical truth, the European Union lacks many of the institutional tools it needs to act decisively on the global stage. It has no unified treasury, no common defence force, no foreign ministry with real authority, and no parliament with the power to dismiss the Council.
But instead of concluding that Europe should remedy these failings, the author throws up his hands and declares that the EU should accept its impotence and retreat. This is a failure of imagination and will.
Europe must recognise, its current weakness is not a justification for surrender, but a motivation for integration. If the EU is to matter in the 21st century, if it is to defend its people, values, and secure its independent future, it must act like a union, not just a market. That means investing in common defence, empowering democratic oversight, and unifying its strategic voice.
This is not a call to militarism. It is a call to self-respect.
The Economic Argument Falls Apart
Yanis Varoufakis also claims that rearming Europe will deepen its economic malaise. But this view is narrow and one-sided. Military investment, when done intelligently, can stimulate economic growth, revitalise industries, and spur technological innovation. The United States emerged from the Great Depression in part through such investment. Postwar Europe rebuilt itself through coordinated state spending, infrastructure renewal, and social reform.
It is true that Europe’s social fabric is strained. But that is precisely why we cannot afford to allow hostile powers to dictate our future. A secure Europe is a prerequisite for a prosperous Europe. And if Europe does not step up now, the long-term costs, military, economic, and human, will have a far more profound impact and be far greater.
What Does “Peace” Look Like, Really?
Let us imagine, for a moment, the peace proposed in the article, Ukraine is pressured into neutrality. It accepts Russian control over Crimea and the Donbas. A demilitarised zone is imposed 500 kilometres wide, on both sides, including NATO territory. Sanctions are relaxed. China is brought into a new security arrangement.
Does this sound like peace, or the terms of surrender imposed by the strong on the weak? Does anyone believe Russia would stop at these terms? That Ukraine, broken and humiliated, would not become a frozen conflict zone, another Chechnya, another Syria? That NATO states near the demilitarised zone would feel more secure, not less?
This is not peace. It is strategic suicide dressed up as realism.
A Path Forward, Peace Through Strength, Unity, and Moral Clarity
There is a better way. Europe must reject both the fantasy of easy victory and the temptation of cowardly peace. It must accept that this is a long struggle, not just over land, but over the principles of sovereignty, democracy, and rule of law.
This means:
- Doubling down on support for Ukraine, military, financial, humanitarian. Not indefinitely, but until Ukraine is in a position to negotiate peace on its terms, from a position of strength.
- Accelerating European defence integration, through joint procurement, shared command structures, and investment in credible deterrence. The EU must move from being a passive actor to a security guarantor.
- Deepening transatlantic cooperation, regardless of who sits in the White House. Europe must prepare for American unpredictability, but it must also nurture the alliance, not abandon it.
- Engaging in strategic diplomacy with China, the Global South, and internal dissidents within authoritarian regimes. But this diplomacy must be grounded in strength, not desperation.
- Strengthening European democracy from within by tackling inequality, restoring trust, and ensuring that far-right forces cannot use war fatigue to seize power.
Europe’s Choice
Yanis Varoufakis warns that Europe will eventually come begging for peace, only to be humiliated by Trump and Putin alike. But this outcome is not inevitable. It is a choice, a choice between standing firm or giving in, between building a stronger union or retreating into fragmentation.
Defeatism is seductive. It offers the illusion of safety. But true peace does not come from surrender. It comes from the courage to defend what matters.
Europe must not abandon Ukraine. Because if we do, we are not just abandoning a nation under siege. We are abandoning our future, our principles, and the fragile peace that generations before us fought to build.
Now is not the time to flinch. Now is the time to rise.