The front of those who call themselves "pacifists"-as if the others were all "belligerents and warmongers"-has produced no clear idea, no concrete hypothesis for peace that would end Russian aggression in Ukraine. Only generic proclamations and a single pressing demand: stop arms in Kyiv.
The declamatory vagueness of the "pacifists" clashes with two hard irrefutable facts. The first: there are not two countries that have declared war on each other, but there is one country that has attacked another.
The second: Putin's imperialist appetite comes with eating, the more territories he is granted the more he convinces himself that he can take more with his methods.
These two facts the "pacifists" do not seem to want to take into account. They thus remain prisoners of a dangerous contradiction they do not realize: a call for peace correlated with a stop to military aid to Ukraine means unconditional peace, that is, a surrender by Kyiv to Moscow's demands.
What are the preconditions for a lasting peace agreement? First, that it is not humiliating for either side, and second, that those responsible for illegally unleashing the war take responsibility for the damage caused and give up persisting in their aggressive designs.
For an aggressed country, honorable peace consists in the cessation of aggression, the return of territories that were illegally taken from it. So far Putin has not given any signals in this direction; on the contrary, he has confirmed that he wants to keep what he has taken and that he does not intend to give up his plan to "bring home" the territories that had been under Moscow's yoke until 1991.
In practice, the czar does not deflect from his imperialist project and dreams of occupying, sooner or later meanwhile all of Ukraine, then the rest will be seen. Can "pacifists" in all conscience believe that such a character wants a peace worthy of the name? Can they without coming into conflict with the moral values to which they appeal think that Ukraine should give up its territories in favor of the aggressor?
An unconditional peace must be opposed by conditions for an equitable peace. And the first condition is for the aggressor to withdraw from the illegally occupied territories. This is an insurmountable line. A special status for Crimea , annexed now for 10 years, may be discussed. Relative autonomy for the Donbass and guarantees for the Russian-speaking populations may be discussed. But all the other territories that were Ukraine's and must return to the Ukrainians. Do the "pacifists" have the courage to state this? If they don't feel up to it, let them stop preaching and standing on moral chairs true nobodies. Nothing is worse than hairy, hypocritical, inconsistent and cowardly ethics.
Italian 
Albanian 
English