Oliver Rose is a Conservative Party activist who twice-stood for local election. He is also a public affairs professional.
In politics we have a rather unforgiving habit of having political leaders who fail to learn from history and all it can teach us.
The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict over borders, but a defining struggle over the principles that have underpinned European peace since the end of the Second World War. If aggression is rewarded, it will not end with Ukraine. If sovereign nations can be conquered by force without consequence, then every treaty, every alliance, and every guarantee upon which the Western world depends becomes weaker.
It is for this reason that continued support for Ukraine is not an act of charity, nor an exercise in ideological preference. It is a matter of national interest, European security, and most importantly moral responsibility.
There are some, like those in the White House, who argue that the West should withdraw their support for Ukraine. They contend that the conflict is distant, expensive, and ultimately not ours to fight. Such arguments, while understandable in an age of economic pressure and obsession with public opinion, fail to appreciate a simple truth: the cost of deterring aggression is invariably less than the cost of confronting a victorious aggressor later.
Europe has been down this dark road before. The twentieth century demonstrated with painful clarity that dictators are rarely satisfied by a single conquest. Expansion, once rewarded, tends to invite further expansion. Vladimir Putin has consistently demonstrated that he views military force as a legitimate instrument for reshaping Europe’s borders. His illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the full-scale invasion launched in 2022, represents the greatest assault upon European sovereignty since the Second World War.
Our objective, therefore, cannot simply be an armistice that freezes the conflict and rewards Putin with Ukrainian territory. It must be a peace built upon justice, deterrence, and stability. Ukraine’s victory must be decisive enough to ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup, rearm, and return in another five or ten years.
Yet it is important for us to realise that victory on the battlefield alone will not guarantee lasting peace.
Ukraine itself faces immense challenges once the war finally ends. More than a decade of conflict, beginning with Russia’s seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of fighting in the Donbas region, has inevitably led to the emergence and expansion of numerous volunteer formations and paramilitary organisations fighting alongside or in support of the Ukrainian state. Many of these groups played significant roles in Ukraine’s defence, particularly during periods when the country’s conventional military was under severe strain.
History reminds us, however, that armed groups which emerge during wartime can become sources of instability if not successfully integrated into civilian society or formal state institutions. Following the First World War, Germany’s Freikorps contributed to political violence and instability during the rocky Weimar Republic. While historical comparisons should never be drawn too simplistically, the broader lesson remains relevant: successful post-war reconstruction requires the state to retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The international community should therefore work closely with Kyiv and the Ukrainian Government to support comprehensive demobilisation, reintegration, and security-sector reform where appropriate. Veterans deserve respect, opportunity, and support, but equally Ukraine cannot be permitted to descend into internal factionalism after making such extraordinary sacrifices to preserve its independence.
Alongside reconstruction must come the restoration and strengthening of democratic normality. When conditions allow and security permits, Ukraine should hold free, fair, and internationally observed democratic elections in accordance with its constitution. The legitimacy of democratic institutions will be essential not only for domestic unity but also for Ukraine’s long-term place within the European family of nations.
If Ukraine’s future must be secured through democracy and reconstruction, Russia’s future demands equally serious reflection.
Let us be clear that the responsibility for this war rests squarely with Vladimir Putin and the Russian High Command. The Kremlin chose aggression. It chose the destruction of Ukrainian cities. It chose the systematic violation of international law. This pattern of behaviour did not begin in 2022. It has been evident for many years through the suppression of political opposition, the erosion of democratic freedoms, military interventions beyond Russia’s borders, and operations targeting critics abroad.
The poisoning in Salisbury in 2018, used by Russian military intelligence officers, illustrated the willingness of the Russian state to conduct dangerous operations on foreign soil. Numerous prominent opponents of the Kremlin have also died in suspicious circumstances or faced severe repression similar to the days of Stalin and his NKVD.
Those who bear responsibility for serious violations of international law should be held individually accountable through appropriate international legal mechanisms that operate according to due process and established evidence. Justice must be based upon law rather than vengeance and it is important that we remember this for if we go down the road of vengeance what difference is there between us?
In pursuing accountability, however, we must distinguish clearly between an authoritarian leadership and the Russian people themselves. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people. Millions of Russians have lived under an increasingly repressive political system with limited freedom to challenge those in power. Many have suffered imprisonment, censorship, or exile for expressing dissent.
Indeed, it is in the interests of Europe and the West that the Russian Federation emerges from this tragedy as a stable, peaceful, and more democratic state. We should avoid approaches that seek to humiliate an entire population or encourage uncontrolled fragmentation. Any future instability within Russia would carry profound humanitarian and security risks, not least given its nuclear arsenal and immense geographic scale. The violent disintegration of Yugoslavia during the 1990s stands as a reminder of how rapidly state collapse can descend into prolonged conflict and intolerable human suffering.
Russia will also inherit profound demographic and economic challenges. Independent analysts and governments alike have noted that the war has imposed significant military losses and considerable economic strain. The long-term consequences may include labour shortages, reduced economic dynamism, significant emigration, and additional pressure on demographic trends that had already posed challenges before the war. Rebuilding prosperity under such conditions will demand responsible governance and meaningful economic reform.
Ultimately, our ambition should not be a permanently weakened Russia but a democratic Russia. Throughout much of its history, political power has been concentrated in remarkably few hands, whether under Tsars, Soviet General Secretaries, or modern presidents exercising extensive executive authority. The Russian people deserve institutions built upon the rule of law, genuine political competition, an independent judiciary, a free press, and accountable government, a wish that many Russian people have wanted for over a century since the February Revolution of 1917. A democratic Russia, participating responsibly within the international community, would represent one of the greatest contributions to European security imaginable.
We must also not fail to recognise the challenges that Britain face during this period of increase geopolitical instability. The renewed importance attached to domestic industrial capacity has rightly prompted serious debate about Britain’s steel industry.
The recent Government intervention to secure the future of British Steel has reopened a wider conversation about industrial resilience. Whatever one’s views on nationalisation may be, the broader strategic lesson is clear: nations cannot indefinitely depend upon fragile global supply chains for materials fundamental to national security.
In an increasingly dangerous world, Britain and its allies must possess the industrial capacity necessary to sustain their own defence. This is not to say that military industrial cooperation is in of itself a bad thing, the new fighter jet project which will be integrated into the R.A.F as the Tempest in the 2030s stands as an example of excellent collaboration with Japan and Italy, two long standing allies.
However, our main source of steel is from China, a nation similar to Russia which sits as a dictatorship and is largely Orwellian. Can we really look at ourselves and say that relying on cheap, low quality Chinese steel is the key to rearming our Armed Forces? A revitalised domestic steel industry could contribute to strengthening sovereign manufacturing capability, supporting infrastructure projects, and underpinning increased defence production. Reducing excessive dependence on imported steel from strategic competitors should form part of a broader strategy of national resilience.
The world has entered a period in which deterrence once again matters. Rearmament is not an admission of failure but recognition of reality. Peace is best preserved when free nations possess both the will and the means to defend themselves and political leaders remember the rule of the bully.
The struggle in Ukraine is therefore about far more than territory. It concerns whether we fight for what the West has believed for decades and that is the rule of law over the rule of force, whether democracies retain the confidence to defend themselves; and whether future generations inherit a Europe that is secure, prosperous, and free.
Victory must therefore mean more than military success. It must mean rebuilding Ukraine as a confident democracy, supporting justice through lawful international institutions, encouraging a more democratic future for Russia, strengthening Europe’s collective security, and ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Only then can this terrible war become not merely the end of one conflict, but the beginning of a more stable and enduring peace that the European continent has seen for 70 years.
Oliver Rose is a Conservative Party activist who twice-stood for local election. He is also a public affairs professional.
In politics we have a rather unforgiving habit of having political leaders who fail to learn from history and all it can teach us.
The war in Ukraine is not merely a regional conflict over borders, but a defining struggle over the principles that have underpinned European peace since the end of the Second World War. If aggression is rewarded, it will not end with Ukraine. If sovereign nations can be conquered by force without consequence, then every treaty, every alliance, and every guarantee upon which the Western world depends becomes weaker.
It is for this reason that continued support for Ukraine is not an act of charity, nor an exercise in ideological preference. It is a matter of national interest, European security, and most importantly moral responsibility.
There are some, like those in the White House, who argue that the West should withdraw their support for Ukraine. They contend that the conflict is distant, expensive, and ultimately not ours to fight. Such arguments, while understandable in an age of economic pressure and obsession with public opinion, fail to appreciate a simple truth: the cost of deterring aggression is invariably less than the cost of confronting a victorious aggressor later.
Europe has been down this dark road before. The twentieth century demonstrated with painful clarity that dictators are rarely satisfied by a single conquest. Expansion, once rewarded, tends to invite further expansion. Vladimir Putin has consistently demonstrated that he views military force as a legitimate instrument for reshaping Europe’s borders. His illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the full-scale invasion launched in 2022, represents the greatest assault upon European sovereignty since the Second World War.
Our objective, therefore, cannot simply be an armistice that freezes the conflict and rewards Putin with Ukrainian territory. It must be a peace built upon justice, deterrence, and stability. Ukraine’s victory must be decisive enough to ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup, rearm, and return in another five or ten years.
Yet it is important for us to realise that victory on the battlefield alone will not guarantee lasting peace.
Ukraine itself faces immense challenges once the war finally ends. More than a decade of conflict, beginning with Russia’s seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of fighting in the Donbas region, has inevitably led to the emergence and expansion of numerous volunteer formations and paramilitary organisations fighting alongside or in support of the Ukrainian state. Many of these groups played significant roles in Ukraine’s defence, particularly during periods when the country’s conventional military was under severe strain.
History reminds us, however, that armed groups which emerge during wartime can become sources of instability if not successfully integrated into civilian society or formal state institutions. Following the First World War, Germany’s Freikorps contributed to political violence and instability during the rocky Weimar Republic. While historical comparisons should never be drawn too simplistically, the broader lesson remains relevant: successful post-war reconstruction requires the state to retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The international community should therefore work closely with Kyiv and the Ukrainian Government to support comprehensive demobilisation, reintegration, and security-sector reform where appropriate. Veterans deserve respect, opportunity, and support, but equally Ukraine cannot be permitted to descend into internal factionalism after making such extraordinary sacrifices to preserve its independence.
Alongside reconstruction must come the restoration and strengthening of democratic normality. When conditions allow and security permits, Ukraine should hold free, fair, and internationally observed democratic elections in accordance with its constitution. The legitimacy of democratic institutions will be essential not only for domestic unity but also for Ukraine’s long-term place within the European family of nations.
If Ukraine’s future must be secured through democracy and reconstruction, Russia’s future demands equally serious reflection.
Let us be clear that the responsibility for this war rests squarely with Vladimir Putin and the Russian High Command. The Kremlin chose aggression. It chose the destruction of Ukrainian cities. It chose the systematic violation of international law. This pattern of behaviour did not begin in 2022. It has been evident for many years through the suppression of political opposition, the erosion of democratic freedoms, military interventions beyond Russia’s borders, and operations targeting critics abroad.
The poisoning in Salisbury in 2018, used by Russian military intelligence officers, illustrated the willingness of the Russian state to conduct dangerous operations on foreign soil. Numerous prominent opponents of the Kremlin have also died in suspicious circumstances or faced severe repression similar to the days of Stalin and his NKVD.
Those who bear responsibility for serious violations of international law should be held individually accountable through appropriate international legal mechanisms that operate according to due process and established evidence. Justice must be based upon law rather than vengeance and it is important that we remember this for if we go down the road of vengeance what difference is there between us?
In pursuing accountability, however, we must distinguish clearly between an authoritarian leadership and the Russian people themselves. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people. Millions of Russians have lived under an increasingly repressive political system with limited freedom to challenge those in power. Many have suffered imprisonment, censorship, or exile for expressing dissent.
Indeed, it is in the interests of Europe and the West that the Russian Federation emerges from this tragedy as a stable, peaceful, and more democratic state. We should avoid approaches that seek to humiliate an entire population or encourage uncontrolled fragmentation. Any future instability within Russia would carry profound humanitarian and security risks, not least given its nuclear arsenal and immense geographic scale. The violent disintegration of Yugoslavia during the 1990s stands as a reminder of how rapidly state collapse can descend into prolonged conflict and intolerable human suffering.
Russia will also inherit profound demographic and economic challenges. Independent analysts and governments alike have noted that the war has imposed significant military losses and considerable economic strain. The long-term consequences may include labour shortages, reduced economic dynamism, significant emigration, and additional pressure on demographic trends that had already posed challenges before the war. Rebuilding prosperity under such conditions will demand responsible governance and meaningful economic reform.
Ultimately, our ambition should not be a permanently weakened Russia but a democratic Russia. Throughout much of its history, political power has been concentrated in remarkably few hands, whether under Tsars, Soviet General Secretaries, or modern presidents exercising extensive executive authority. The Russian people deserve institutions built upon the rule of law, genuine political competition, an independent judiciary, a free press, and accountable government, a wish that many Russian people have wanted for over a century since the February Revolution of 1917. A democratic Russia, participating responsibly within the international community, would represent one of the greatest contributions to European security imaginable.
We must also not fail to recognise the challenges that Britain face during this period of increase geopolitical instability. The renewed importance attached to domestic industrial capacity has rightly prompted serious debate about Britain’s steel industry.
The recent Government intervention to secure the future of British Steel has reopened a wider conversation about industrial resilience. Whatever one’s views on nationalisation may be, the broader strategic lesson is clear: nations cannot indefinitely depend upon fragile global supply chains for materials fundamental to national security.
In an increasingly dangerous world, Britain and its allies must possess the industrial capacity necessary to sustain their own defence. This is not to say that military industrial cooperation is in of itself a bad thing, the new fighter jet project which will be integrated into the R.A.F as the Tempest in the 2030s stands as an example of excellent collaboration with Japan and Italy, two long standing allies.
However, our main source of steel is from China, a nation similar to Russia which sits as a dictatorship and is largely Orwellian. Can we really look at ourselves and say that relying on cheap, low quality Chinese steel is the key to rearming our Armed Forces? A revitalised domestic steel industry could contribute to strengthening sovereign manufacturing capability, supporting infrastructure projects, and underpinning increased defence production. Reducing excessive dependence on imported steel from strategic competitors should form part of a broader strategy of national resilience.
The world has entered a period in which deterrence once again matters. Rearmament is not an admission of failure but recognition of reality. Peace is best preserved when free nations possess both the will and the means to defend themselves and political leaders remember the rule of the bully.
The struggle in Ukraine is therefore about far more than territory. It concerns whether we fight for what the West has believed for decades and that is the rule of law over the rule of force, whether democracies retain the confidence to defend themselves; and whether future generations inherit a Europe that is secure, prosperous, and free.
Victory must therefore mean more than military success. It must mean rebuilding Ukraine as a confident democracy, supporting justice through lawful international institutions, encouraging a more democratic future for Russia, strengthening Europe’s collective security, and ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Only then can this terrible war become not merely the end of one conflict, but the beginning of a more stable and enduring peace that the European continent has seen for 70 years.