‘Craven appeasement’: NYT editorial sparks debate by suggesting Ukraine cede territory to end war

The New York Times took heat from all sides after dropping an opinion piece on Thursday that advocated for Ukraine to hand over its sovereignty on a silver platter to Russia because the war is “getting complicated, and America isn’t ready.”

Fox News host Laura Ingraham was one of the very few people who responded in support of the editorial board’s position that it’s “still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions.”

“Even the @nytimes realizes that we’re getting in too deep in Ukraine,” Ingraham tweeted Thursday afternoon.

However, not everyone was as pleased with the Times’ editorial team who declared that “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.”

“Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down,” they argued.

“In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like,” the writers noted, adding, “If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.”

As if anticipating the sharp critics that they seemed to know would blast their solution as “appeasement,” they assured readers that’s not really what they were suggesting.

“Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory ‘win,'” they wrote.

But journalist and author Andrea Chalupa called them out for their take and slammed the board’s argument as “nonsense.”

“If the @nytimes Editorial Board has to insist its argument for Ukraine giving up territory to Russia ‘is not appeasement’ then it’s appeasement. This is Walter Duranty level nonsense. No wonder they still count his award among their Pulitzers,” she wrote on social media.

The absurdity she seemed to be referring to was a recent report that indicated Duranty played a role through his “woefully misleading journalism” to attempt to cover up genocide in the Soviet Union.

Benjamin Wittes, Editor in Chief for Lawfare chimed in on the proposed appeasement tactic, writing that “The New York Times editorial page endorses pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia.

“Really shameful, guys,” he added.

A senior writer and former editor for the Jewish Chronicle was even more critical of the opinion.

“I used to think the main characteristic of ⁦@nytimes⁩ editorials was their pomposity,” Stephen Pollard wrote. “I see they’ve now added craven appeasement and contempt for freedom.”

Many others criticized the writers’ proposed approach to the war in Ukraine that the U.S. Congress recently approved an additional $40 billion in funding to support.

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles