Author: Sharofiddin Gadoev
President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy in Central Asia
If dictators are allowed to win a war, they will start new ones.
During the latest Munich Security Conference, held from February 14 to 16, 2025, world leaders and experts discussed ways to achieve peace in Ukraine and end Russian aggression. However, the key question that emerged during the debates was the conditions under which this peace could be achieved. If a peace agreement is concluded on terms favorable to Russia, it could lead to global destabilization and the strengthening of authoritarian regimes worldwide.
The United States seeks to reach a peace agreement to stop the war in Ukraine and end Russian aggression—an undoubtedly important task, as peace is needed by all. However, the key issue is the terms under which this peace will be established. If the peace agreement does not ensure the full territorial integrity of Ukraine, it will create an even greater threat than the war itself. Such an outcome would be a victory for Putin and his allies—China, Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian regimes—who will perceive this as a signal for even more aggressive actions against the West. This is not just a temporary respite for Russia but a fundamental shift in the global balance of power in favor of authoritarian states, which will unite their efforts to undermine the liberal democracies of Europe and the United States.
Autocracies, emboldened by Russia’s victory, will further consolidate to challenge Western democracies. This will lead to the weakening of democratic institutions in Europe and the U.S., the rise of anti-democratic trends globally, and the formation of a new bloc of autocracies actively opposing the West. Ukraine’s defeat will serve as a powerful catalyst for strengthening dictatorial regimes, which will gain proof that military aggression and territorial conquest remain effective methods of expanding power. This will create global chaos, where authoritarian regimes will begin coordinating their actions to weaken the West.
Iran, supported by Russia, China, and North Korea, will intensify its destabilization of the Middle East, using resources, technology, and weapons provided by its allies. This could lead to escalating conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, and even a new phase of war against Israel, posing a global threat to energy and political stability. Seeing Western weakness, China may resort to military action to seize Taiwan, which would become the largest geopolitical challenge of the 21st century. North Korea, relying on support from Moscow and Beijing, may escalate tensions against South Korea and Japan, creating a crisis on the Korean Peninsula.
Peace must be just, and the aggressor must bear full responsibility for crimes against civilians. Putin is a war criminal, and negotiations with him should not be conducted as with a legitimate state leader but as with a criminal responsible for aggression, mass killings, genocide, and the destruction of international order.
Historical examples show that compromises with aggressors do not lead to long-term peace. The 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, only accelerated the onset of World War II. Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014–2015, concluded to “peacefully resolve” the conflict in Donbas, did not stop Russia but instead gave it time to prepare for a larger-scale invasion in 2022.
Any negotiations with Russia must take into account the positions of Ukraine and the EU, as ignoring their perspectives could create divisions within NATO, weaken Western unity, and provide Russia with new opportunities for manipulation. The only strong negotiating position is the joint pressure from the U.S., the EU, and Ukraine, forcing Putin to negotiate on terms of defeat rather than dictating his own. Western unity remains the key factor in countering Russian aggression. Any disagreements within the West play into the Kremlin’s hands, as it exploits democratic weaknesses and indecisiveness to prolong the conflict and weaken cohesion.
Negotiations with Russia can only make sense if they lead to the restoration of international order, not the legitimization of aggression, which would set a precedent for further expansion. The legalization of territorial seizures will reinforce Moscow’s confidence in its impunity and push it toward further attacks on neighboring countries. The Baltic states are already facing large-scale hybrid attacks, from cyberattacks and disinformation to artificially induced migration crises. In Moldova, Russian troops in Transnistria remain a tool of blackmail, threatening the country’s sovereignty. Georgia, which has endured occupation since 2008, risks facing a new wave of Kremlin subversion. Poland, as a strategic NATO stronghold and Ukraine’s key ally, is becoming a target for Russian provocations and destabilization. Any concession to the aggressor will only whet its appetite and bring a new war closer.
To prevent this, the United States must not merely engage in negotiations but also strengthen its coalition with the European Union, intensify military support for Ukraine, and avoid making concessions to Russia. Any display of weakness or compromise with Putin will dismantle the international security system and trigger a wave of new wars and conflicts. It is crucial that the West remains united and engages with Putin solely from a position of strength, rather than seeking ways to “save face” for a dictator who has launched the largest war of the 21st century.
With the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the world entered a new phase of geopolitical confrontation, where state sovereignty, international law, and global stability have been placed under direct threat. The Kremlin’s invasion was not merely a localized conflict but rather the beginning of the destruction of the international order based on the inviolability of borders.
Within Western countries, voices advocating for a diplomatic resolution—including potential territorial concessions to Russia—are growing louder. Some political circles perceive such a compromise as a way to end the war, prevent escalation, and mitigate economic costs. However, this scenario will not lead to peace but rather to global chaos.
The core issue with compromising with Russia is that it would set a dangerous precedent, demonstrating that aggression can be rewarded. This would not only legitimize the violent redrawing of borders but also expose the inability of international law to protect state sovereignty. As a result, China, Iran, North Korea, and other autocracies would gain new incentives for aggressive actions, knowing that the West is willing to make concessions to brute force.
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 serves as a clear example that Russia exploits “frozen conflicts” as a tool for regrouping, strengthening its military capabilities, and preparing for new offensives. Any territorial concessions made today will serve as a temporary pause before the next wave of aggression.
Central Asia is emerging as the next vulnerable zone where Russia may seek to expand its influence. The economic and military dependence of regional states on Moscow makes them potential victims of new expansionist efforts, further enlarging the zone of instability. If Russia secures its territorial gains in Ukraine, it will shift its focus to other regions, employing economic, political, and military pressure mechanisms.
Central Asia holds a key strategic position that enables Russia to extend its geopolitical influence not only within the post-Soviet space but also beyond. Control over the region’s resources—particularly oil, gas, and uranium—would provide the Kremlin with new levers of economic coercion against Europe and neighboring states. Furthermore, full control over the Silk Road transportation routes would enhance Russia’s dominance in global trade, enabling new forms of economic and political blackmail.
The West must recognize that compromising with Russia will not reinforce global security—it will destroy it. Any concessions to Russia will serve as a signal for further wars and conflicts. NATO, the EU, and the United States must adopt a firm stance that excludes territorial concessions.
Ukraine must receive the maximum level of military and economic support, NATO must strengthen its eastern flank, and sanctions against Russia must be as severe as possible. Moscow must bear the highest possible costs for its aggression; otherwise, the global order will be dismantled, and future wars will become inevitable.
History has proven that an aggressor cannot be appeased—it can only be stopped. The West must act decisively, ruling out any concessions to the Kremlin. This is the only path to long-term security and stability.
If a peace agreement is concluded on Putin’s terms, without ensuring lasting security, it will not bring lasting peace but will instead create new threats, instability, and the onset of global chaos. Russia is not the only one watching the world’s reaction—China, Iran, North Korea, and other autocracies are already drawing their conclusions. A compromise with Moscow would signal that aggression is an effective tool of foreign policy. In this scenario, Taiwan, the Baltic states, the Middle East, and even Central Asia will become the next targets of aggressive regimes.
A world built on the fear of escalation cannot be stable. It merely postpones an inevitable conflict, making it even more devastating.
Therefore, the key question is not how to secure peace quickly, but rather what kind of peace must be established. The only acceptable answer is a peace in which the aggressor has paid the full price for its war.
Foundation for the Defense of Democracy in Central Asia
Vilnius, Lithuania
February 18, 2025