The Cost of a "Just Peace"

Recently, the head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, Bruno Kahl, made a revealing statement: if the war in Ukraine continues for several more years—until 2029–2030—it will be safer for Europe. Such bluntness may seem cynical, as European leaders officially insist that the conflict must end only on just terms, with the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The EU’s public stance consistently emphasizes a commitment to a "just peace"—one that respects Ukraine’s borders and international law.

However, a prolonged war inadvertently serves several strategic interests for Europe itself. Russia’s military and economic resources are being severely depleted, weakening its long-term potential. European countries have sharply reduced their previous energy dependence on Moscow—the share of Russian gas in EU imports has dropped from ~42% in 2021 to around 18% in 2024. At the same time, European nations have increased defense spending and demonstrated rare unity within NATO and the EU. In March 2025, EU leaders approved unprecedented plans to jointly invest up to €150 billion in strengthening European military capabilities. Officially, these measures are justified as necessary responses to the Russian threat. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk noted, Europe must rise to the challenge and "win the arms race" since, collectively, it is stronger than Russia. In other words, the continuation of the conflict provides European governments with time and justification to reinforce their own security and geopolitical standing.

Notably, European politicians never openly acknowledge the benefits of a prolonged war. Public rhetoric is dominated by messages of solidarity with Ukraine, a moral duty to support it, and the defense of democratic values. For instance, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stresses that any resolution must be "just and sustainable," meaning it must respect Ukraine’s sovereign rights and ensure reliable security guarantees. No NATO or EU leader will explicitly state that an extended conflict could serve their interests. Such assessments appear only from military analysts or intelligence officials like Bruno Kahl. Nonetheless, behind the facade of noble slogans, a pragmatic calculation is evident: as long as Ukraine holds back the Russian army on its territory, Europe gains time to rearm and sheds its long-standing energy dependence on Russia.

For Ukraine itself, the war—now in its fourth year—has resulted in colossal human losses and daily suffering. According to the UN, between February 2022 and February 2025, at least 12,654 civilians have been killed, and over 29,000 wounded. Millions of people have been forced from their homes: approximately 6.7 million Ukrainians have become refugees abroad, with several million more internally displaced. Civilian infrastructure is shelled almost daily, with casualties and injuries among non-combatants. For Ukrainians, war is not an abstract geopolitical struggle but a harsh reality filled with grief and loss.

Unsurprisingly, over time, Ukrainian society has shown increasing war fatigue. While in the early months of the invasion, an overwhelming majority of citizens were determined to fight until victory (about 73% in polls from spring 2022), the picture has now changed. According to a Gallup poll conducted in late 2024, 52% of Ukrainians now favor transitioning to peace negotiations as soon as possible, while the share of those advocating for continued fighting until Russia’s complete defeat has dropped to 38%. For the first time since the war began, a majority of Ukraine’s population would prefer an immediate ceasefire. This war fatigue is evident across all regions of the country, including areas far from the front lines, as sociologists report a decline in support for prolonged conflict nationwide—from western Ukraine to frontline zones. The prolonged war has exhausted the population, who increasingly feel the daily toll it exacts.

Beyond battlefield losses, the prolonged war has led to an extended period of martial law in Ukraine, imposing extraordinary measures within the country. Since February 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion, no elections have been held in Ukraine. The presidential and parliamentary elections expected in 2024 were postponed indefinitely until martial law is lifted. Additionally, authorities suspended the operations of several political parties suspected of ties to Russia. In the spring of 2022, the National Security Council temporarily banned 11 opposition parties, including the largest pro-Russian faction in parliament. Effectively, political competition in the wartime country has been minimized in the name of national unity.

Freedom of movement has also been significantly restricted. At the start of the war, Ukraine’s government derogated certain rights under international agreements, including the right of men of conscription age to leave the country. Men between the ages of 18 and 60 are prohibited from leaving Ukraine without special authorization—a rule still in effect under the nationwide mobilization effort. As a result, the vast majority of military-eligible men must remain in the country and, if necessary, enlist in the army. Human rights advocates in both Ukraine and abroad have raised concerns over cases of forced conscription and restrictions on civil liberties. Meanwhile, domestic media operate under censorship constraints: in March 2022, all major TV channels were merged into a single state-controlled information broadcast.

These internal challenges rarely become subjects of high-profile discussions in the West. European politicians and major media outlets generally avoid addressing uncomfortable questions about democratic rights in Ukraine during wartime. According to some observers, this silence is driven by pragmatism—to preserve Ukraine’s image as a defender of freedom and democracy. As long as Kyiv remains engaged in a defensive war against Russian aggression, any reports of unconstitutional measures by Ukrainian authorities could dampen public enthusiasm in the West. Yet, public support remains crucial for continued aid to Ukraine. Signs of "Ukraine fatigue" are already evident within Europe itself: surveys indicate that the willingness of Western Europeans to support Kyiv "until victory" has declined over the past year, while more people advocate for a swift peace settlement. In this context, EU leaders focus on highlighting positive aspects—Ukrainians' courage, the need to defend democracy—while avoiding issues that could complicate public perceptions of the war. For instance, repeated cases of corruption or human rights violations in Ukraine are rarely featured in European media, taking a backseat to narratives of heroism and sacrifice.

Despite underlying contradictions, Europe's support for Ukraine remains unprecedented in scale and publicly unwavering. The European Union has taken the lead in financial and military assistance: according to Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s total aid to Kyiv has already exceeded €135 billion, including over $52 billion in military support—comparable to the U.S. contribution. European capitals consistently reaffirm that they will stand with Ukraine "for as long as it takes." In February 2025, on the eve of the third anniversary of the invasion, the UN General Assembly once again overwhelmingly called for the withdrawal of Russian troops and emphasized the necessity of a "just and lasting peace" based on respect for Ukraine’s borders. No influential force in Europe is openly advocating for abandoning Ukraine or pressuring it into concessions to the aggressor.

However, behind the strong declarations of unity, fatigue from the prolonged war is becoming increasingly evident—both in Europe and in Ukraine itself. The front lines are shifting slowly, and the horizon for ending the conflict keeps receding. Ukrainians, who have been promised victory and peace for more than three years, continue to face a worsening quality of life and an uncertain future. Ordinary Ukrainian citizens—those who lose their homes, loved ones, and health—bear the greatest burden of this ongoing struggle. It is they who must pay the true price of the "just peace" that politicians champion on the international stage. This price is measured in human lives and shattered futures, a reality reflected in stark statistics. As the UN has noted, "civilian casualties continue to rise," and the rights of those affected must remain at the heart of any peace negotiations.

Ultimately, the concept of "just peace" remains more of an aspirational principle in the speeches of world leaders than an imminent reality for the people of Ukraine. Europe proclaims its commitment to justice but acts primarily based on pragmatic considerations of its own security. Meanwhile, Ukraine, bleeding from this war, increasingly voices its fundamental desire—to simply live in peace. The current situation is a complex entanglement of lofty ideals and cold strategic interests, and the balance between them will largely determine how soon and on what terms the largest military conflict in Europe in the past 80 years will come to an end.