In the Russian “blitz” on Ukraine, the question of appeasement returns

After another week of intense and deadly Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities, a composite image is making the rounds on Ukrainian social media.

Beneath an old black-and-white photo of Londoners queuing outside a fruit and vegetable stand surrounded by the bombed-out rubble of the Blitz, a second image – this time in color – creates a striking juxtaposition.

Taken on Saturday, it shows shoppers crowding similar stalls in a northern suburb of the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, as a plume of black smoke rises ominously in the background.

“Bombs can’t stop markets,” reads the caption linking the two images.

The night before, when the city’s slumber was once again interrupted by the all-too-familiar booms of rockets and drone strikes, two people were killed and nine others wounded.

The subtext is clear. Rather than destroying public morale, Russia’s dramatic increase in attacks on Ukrainian cities is evoking a spirit of resilience reminiscent of 1940s Britain.

When I visited the market – with black fumes still rising from the missile strike on a nearby warehouse – that sense of fortitude was evident.

But there was also a lot of fear.

Halina, who sells prunes and mushrooms, told me she doesn’t see much cause for optimism.

“In my opinion, according to the writings of the saints, this war has not even begun yet.

“It’s going to get worse,” she added. “Much worse.”

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

Inspirational blitz-spirit memes are all very well, but for Ukraine, the far bigger question is not how to endure this war, but how to stop it.

And with President Donald Trump declaring his peacemaking powers and thrusting this issue back into the center of global politics, another term from the same period in history is once again looming large — “pacification.”

The question of whether Ukraine should go to war against or negotiate with an aggressor has been on the table since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

But more than three years after it began its full-scale invasion, the war is entering a new phase, and the word has once again entered the global debate.

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

Its airstrikes – using ballistic missiles, explosive-laden drones and glide bombs – have gone from an average of a few dozen each day last year to each night, and often reach many hundreds.

What the Kremlin insists are “military and quasi-military” targets now regularly include Ukrainian civilian railway stations, passenger trains, gas and electricity supplies, as well as homes and businesses.

According to UN figures, almost 2,000 civilians have been killed this year, bringing the total since the start of the war to over 14,000.

In addition to the human toll, the financial burden grows exponentially, with the cost of air defense systems significantly higher than the waves of cheap drones sent to overwhelm them.

A little over a week ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky left for his meeting in Washington with President Donald Trump in an optimistic mood.

According to him, the USA’s patience with Russia is running out.

But he was misled by a surprise phone call between Trump and Putin en route and subsequent talk of another summit between the two leaders in Budapest.

Zelensky’s own conversation with Trump at the White House was reportedly difficult, with the US president rehashing old talking points.

Describing the conflict as little more than a fight between two men who don’t like each other, Trump insisted they should settle the war on the existing front line.

Warning of the risks of escalation, he also refused to grant Ukraine the use of long-range Tomahawk missiles to deliver deep strikes into Russia.

Gregory Meeks, the senior Democrat on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, called Trump’s strategy “weakness by appeasement.”

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

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

“Ukraine will never reward terrorists for their crimes, and we count on our partners to take the same position,” Zelensky wrote on social media after arriving in Kyiv.

After Russia made it clear it was not as ready as the US president had hoped to end the fighting – promising instead to advance even more territory – the planned summit was postponed.

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

While the economic impact on Russia is likely to be minimal, it represents a major shift in foreign policy for Trump, who previously said he would not impose sanctions until European nations stopped buying Russian oil.

Even if that is the case, it is clear that there remains a wide gap between US and European views on how to end the conflict.

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

More sanctions packages were agreed and progress was made toward using Russia’s own frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s military goals, although no final agreement was ultimately reached.

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

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

“You could always appease the lions by throwing them Christians,” Harold Macmillan, future prime minister and opponent of this policy, once said.

“But the Christians had another word for it.”

And yet we sometimes forget that the man most closely associated with politics, then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, enjoyed considerable support from the US, which shared his deep fear of a repeat of the horrors of the First World War.

President Trump appears to harbor similar fears today.

The risk of a widening war with a nuclear-armed state should not be taken lightly as Ukraine increases the effectiveness and frequency of its strikes on Russian oil depots and, in some cases, its power grid.

The Russian leader knows this, recently warning that the use of foreign-supplied Tomahawks could provoke a response that is “serious, if not stunning.”

But few Ukrainians I spoke to this week doubt that history’s lesson holds true.

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

“Ukraine proved that. The sooner the West finds out, the better for all of us.”

At the market, surrounded by gourds and carrots grown in his own garden, Fedir said he was also awakened by the force of a nearby missile strike.

“Putin only understands power,” he said. “We must destroy their airfields and their factories that produce these shells, bombs and missiles.

The greater risk, he suggested, lies in concessions, negotiations, or appeasement—call it what you will—which, however well-intentioned, serve only to further embolden an authoritarian regime.

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