Pax Lucifera

One must always seek compromise, even with the devil, said Budimir Lončar, the last Yugoslav foreign minister, in a recent interview with Delo about the war in Ukraine. Always? I can almost picture a young Lončar, twice-wounded partisan, quoting Jože P. Damijan by the campfire in a quiet forest: "Comrades, fighting against aggression is a fundamental right. But we must be pragmatic and ask ourselves whether we can win this war."

I believe that Budimir Lončar, and many who think like him, genuinely want the war in Ukraine to end as soon as possible, and for the horrific destruction of Ukraine and the bloodshed on both sides to stop. I wholeheartedly support and share that desire. But I do not agree with his interpretation of the circumstances that led to the war, and even less with his suggestions for how to achieve peace.

According to the logic of self-proclaimed exclusive defenders of peace, Ukraine will be forced to negotiate if we stop supporting it—yet they never explain how they intend to bring the other side, the one that started the war and could end it the fastest, to the negotiating table.

Those advocating deals with the devil are aware of the shaky ethical ground they stand on. Hence the need to balance the moral equation: blame the Americans, claim the Russians were humiliated and threatened, portray NATO as the villain, say the Ukrainians brought it on themselves, that Russia cannot be defeated, etc. Ergo, let’s give them half of Ukraine and shake hands.

Lončar’s interview offers a kind of "greatest hits" of superficial or outright false claims about the war being remote-controlled, about Russia being threatened by NATO, and about the West humiliating the Kremlin into a corner, leaving it no choice but to restore a just balance with weapons against the evil American bogeyman.

To be clear, I agree with much of Mr. Lončar’s criticism of the United States. Through double standards, ruthless pursuit of its interests, and breaches of international law, the collective West has, in many ways, weakened the rule-based international order—something the Kremlin revisionists now exploit. When this bloody aggression ends, we must look in the mirror and ask why so much of the world is so critical of the West and its position on Ukraine. It’s easy to understand why, for example, Palestinians or Iraqis, among many others, might be ambivalent about Western foreign policy. The U.S. and the West have plenty to answer for, but the worst possible answer to their past sins is a new world order dictated by an autocrat in the Kremlin under Beijing’s command. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

As for the claim that Russia is threatened by NATO, it’s been refuted so thoroughly that it’s astounding anyone can repeat it without blushing. It’s like accusing someone of threatening an armed psychopath just by putting on a bulletproof vest—especially after the aggressor already drew their gun and opened fire.

Before Putin, NATO-Russia relations were moving in a completely different direction. In the late 1990s, both parties signed an agreement of friendship and cooperation, explicitly stating NATO would continue expanding—a "historic process," as both NATO and Russia called it. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, there were no NATO troops or bases in NATO-member countries bordering Russia. NATO responded only after Russia seized Crimea—just as Finland and Sweden only sought NATO membership once it became clear that neutrality was no protection against a rampaging Russian bear. Without Putin, NATO wouldn't have been raising the Finnish flag in Brussels a few days ago.

Even more absurd is the claim that Russia was "humiliated" by the West, supposedly justifying its aggression. Whatever one thinks of the chaos of the Yeltsin era, the fact is that Russia recovered significantly thanks to Europe’s (short-sighted) dependence on Russian energy. This fuelled not only the Kremlin’s economic comeback but also its geopolitical resurgence. The Russian economy—and especially the prosperity of its citizens—could have been even greater if profits from natural resources hadn’t been funnelled into the pockets of a few oligarchs, who now fund and support Putin's regime from their yachts and villas on the French Riviera, all while nodding along to his rhetoric about defending Russia's purity from Western decadence.

Against this backdrop, it seems astonishing how many people don’t assign responsibility for aggression to the aggressor. On Easter Sunday, thousands marched in German cities carrying banners declaring, "The aggressor is not Russia, but NATO." Recent polls suggest nearly half of Slovenians now share this view. I suspect most don’t truly believe this nonsense, but rather express accumulated frustration, anger, and distrust toward the elites.

Europe has seen this before. In the years before World War II, similar popular and political responses were evident. Then, as now, many European nations were gripped by public disillusionment and fury at the incompetence, hypocrisy, and detachment of democratically elected "liberal" elites. Back then, too, the economic crisis caused by the U.S. stock market crash led to high inflation, unemployment, even hunger—pushing people into the arms of aggressive, populist demagogues.

At the time, many Europeans, including politicians, saw Fascist Italy and especially Hitler’s Germany as a rough but effective solution to economic and societal crises and a path toward a fairer world. Even in June 1940, after German troops marched into Paris, Jewish-American writer Rosie Waldeck, then Newsweek’s Bucharest correspondent, described the mood in Europe as follows: "The fall of France represents the culmination of twenty years of unfulfilled democratic promises to resolve unemployment, inflation, deflation, labor unrest, party selfishness, and more. A Europe disillusioned with itself, doubting its guiding principles, almost feels relieved. Hitler is a clever man, Europeans think—unpleasant, but clever. He succeeded in making his country strong. Why not try his way?"

Denmark’s prime minister, Social Democrat Thorvald Stauning, said something similar: "I have the impression that Germany has certain plans to establish a lasting new order in Europe, with clear advantages over liberal egoism. It is in our interest to cooperate calmly and voluntarily and to adapt."

And most importantly, many European politicians and citizens then, as now, viewed Hitler's increasing military preparations as a response to Germany’s humiliation at Versailles.

Back then, just like today, many tried to convince themselves and others that to achieve peace, it was enough to turn a blind eye and strike a deal with the devil. Let him move a few borders—and things will settle down. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently ended all speculation about why Russia invaded its neighbour: the goal is to establish a "new world order."

If you want to know what life will be like under that order, look at how Russians live today and how Ukrainians suffer and die because of Russian aggression. I say this to those who wish to compromise with the aggressor. The devil isn’t just in the details. He reveals himself in every act of violence that brought and kept Putin in power. In every murdered or jailed journalist, activist, and political opponent. In the persecution of civil society and minorities. In weaponized homophobia. In Orwellian surveillance. In every breach of international law during Putin’s twenty-three-year rule. In the wars in Georgia, the devastation of Syria, the annexation of Crimea, the atrocities in Bucha and elsewhere under Russian occupation. In the abduction of Ukrainian children. In the psychopathic indifference with which Putin sends thousands of Russian soldiers to their deaths and the deliberate bombing of civilian targets and infrastructure aimed at breaking Ukraine’s resistance through terror.

I respect Budimir Lončar's experience, and like him, I truly wish for a swift end to the war. I, too, am alarmed by the nuclear sabre-rattling. That is why Putin must be stopped. If he achieves his goals in Ukraine, he won’t stop—just like Hitler didn’t stop after taking Poland and Czechoslovakia. That is what history tells us about the consequences of "pragmatic" tolerance of "minor adjustments" for past injustices and humiliations. See you in the next war.

So we must not abandon Ukraine.

This war, too, will likely end at the negotiating table. I hope soon. But real negotiations will only begin when the Kremlin leader, charged with war crimes, realizes he has more to gain at the table than through force. As long as pragmatic peacemakers keep offering him a neatly wrapped victory disguised as compromise, there will be no peace.

And that should scare the hell out of us.