The answers to Pacifist position on Ukraine have shown that pacifist politicians seem to at least somewhat in favor of Ukraine continuing to fight against Russia, though they urge both sides to hold peace talks. Are there any prominent politicians in the West who take the "pacifist" position a step further towards defeatism and encourage Ukraine to just give up and officially surrender Crimea/Donbass to Russian control in order to end the war?

NB: I am not saying surrendering would be a wise move. I'm just asking if any Western politicians think its the right move.

  • 5
    I'm voting to close this question because it seems like misrepresentation. As an old saying goes, we can always find someone who supports whatever ridiculous position. But exploring such thinking isn't really an improvement to human understanding. I mean, yes: I'm sure we could find someone who thinks this, with enough effort. But seriously, who cares? Jul 15 at 4:48
  • As Ukraine didn't have control of those areas for several years before the invasion, I highly doubt surrendering them would end the war. The only type of surrender that will end the war according to Russian politicians (e.g. Putin) is complete capitulation. Obviously, there are many ways to end the war without surrender by Ukraine.
    – uberhaxed
    Jul 15 at 5:28
  • 1
    The question is based on misinterpreting the meaning of pacifism. In view of the discussions that followed the question linked, I think it is particularly troubling that such misrepresentations come from high-profile users - either through their ignorance or as deliberate smear efforts. Jul 18 at 12:08
  • 1
    @RogerVadim there is no single definition of “pacifism”. You’re pretending that there is one but you’re wrong. Jul 18 at 16:24
  • 1
    @RogerVadim I specifically said take the "pacifist" position a step further. "Pacifism" is a spectrum, not a rigid philosophy. If not "pacifism", what would be the name for a philosophy that would support surrendering to Russia to avoid the war? Jul 18 at 21:09

2 Answers 2


There are plenty of people in "the West" who support immediate negotiations to stop the fighting, which is either a tacit acknowledgement of territorial loss or completely naive. The prominence of these people is a judgement question. A small list of examples:

  • Gerhard Schröder is a former chancellor of Germany, now employed as a Russian gas lobbyist. Less prominent than he was two decades ago, but still well known, and in support of negotiations. He blamed Ukraine for the failure of talks.
  • For instance, Sahra Wagenknecht supported such talks, and she is a member of the German parliament for The Left, a post-communist party. I would not hesitate to call her a prominent member of the opposition.
  • Likewise, Tino Chrupalla supported immediate talks. He is a member of the German parliament for the AfD, a nazi party (regarding this characterization and those who question it, see the chat). Also a prominent member of the opposition.

In "the West" people can be prominent critics of the government position, and not be jailed for that.

  • 3
    It would be useful to add some quotes of what these persons said exactly. The English wiki page on Wagenknecht (that you linked to) says nothing about what she might have said about (ending) the war. Only says "Wagenknecht was a prominent defender of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin, arguing on February 20, 2022 that while the United States was trying to "conjure up" an invasion of Ukraine, "“Russia has in fact no interest to march into Ukraine.” After Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Wagenknecht admitted that her judgment had been wrong."
    – Fizz
    Jul 15 at 6:33
  • 1
    The similar page on Chrupalla says nothing about the war whatsoever.
    – Fizz
    Jul 15 at 6:38
  • 3
    Calling AfD a nazi party is arguable.
    – convert
    Jul 15 at 9:49
  • 3
    @JonathanReez, the court said that "nazi" was an unacceptable insult under normal circumstances, but that the political statements by the AfD leader made it acceptable in this case. And I consider an "ultimatum" to edit my answer bad style. You can write your own, different answer where you talk about a prominent conservative politician, if you want to call him that. (When it comes to edit, would be be satisfied with "fascist" or "neo-nazi" rather than "nazi"?)
    – o.m.
    Jul 19 at 16:02
  • 3
    ... So the very nature of the party makes it legal to use the term "nazi," which would not be acceptable under normal conditions.
    – o.m.
    Jul 19 at 18:18

The previous israeli PM Bennett gave Zelensky an advice to agree to russian condition and gave up some territory as can be read in this article.

As mentioned in my other answer to Pacifist position on Ukraine, Kissinger would be the most prominent polititian tallking about posibility for Ukraine to give up some territory for peace deal.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .