Hi Owen, happy to engage on the merits of her statement here. Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine. I’ve actually disagreed with the government’s decision to sanction her, and I’ve been critical of the Zelenskyy government in the past. There are legitimate concerns about silencing critics, and I know people who have been sent to the front because of believed or perceived actions against the government. That is bad. It erodes trust and confidence and should be called out. But acting as though she is some lone, brave truth-teller exposing corruption no one else will discuss is deeply disingenuous. Western media has covered corruption in Ukraine extensively, across the ideological spectrum. Ukrainian journalists and independent outlets do the same every day. A simple search makes that obvious. Of course defense companies profit from war and lobby for defense spending. That is not evidence of some grand conspiracy keeping Ukraine at war. The war continues because Russia invaded Ukraine and continues fighting while demanding additional Ukrainian territory it has not been able to conquer militarily. If Yulia is advocating for Ukraine to give up territory Russia has been unable to take by force, then she needs to say that plainly. Don’t hide behind vague appeals to “peace.” Say what the proposed peace actually requires: Putin retains control of roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, and Ukraine is then expected to hand over additional territory in Donetsk that Russia could not seize on the battlefield. That is not peace as some abstract moral good. That is a specific territorial concession to an aggressor, and it has consequences far beyond Ukraine. If your principle is that a sovereign nation should be compelled to surrender its territory because another country invaded it and the war became costly, then you are hollowing out the very concept of sovereignty. By that same logic, it becomes difficult to explain why borders should be sacrosanct anywhere. You cannot spend years arguing that borders define nations and then suddenly decide that another country’s borders are negotiable because defending them has become inconvenient. And we should be very careful about the precedent that creates. There are striking historical similarities here. History does not repeat itself exactly, but it certainly rhymes. Chamberlain also believed territorial concessions could satisfy an aggressor and purchase peace. The lesson of Munich is not that every negotiation is appeasement. It is that concessions made without changing the aggressor’s underlying calculation can simply buy time for the next act of aggression. And frankly, I would rather hear a serious argument for that position than endless boo-hooing about “world peace” like we are answering a question in a beauty pageant. Everyone wants peace. That tells us nothing. Tell me what you are actually advocating. Are you arguing that Putin should retain the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukraine should surrender the remainder of Donetsk that Russia has failed to conquer? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukrainians who fought and died defending those communities should now watch them handed to the country that invaded them? Say so. Then defend that argument on its merits. And conservatives should be especially careful here. We cannot profess belief in national sovereignty, secure borders, deterrence, territorial integrity, and the nation-state and then abandon every one of those principles the moment they become inconvenient overseas. Those values either mean something or they do not. Peace may ultimately require painful compromises chosen by Ukrainians themselves. But advocating a sovereign country surrender land to an invading power is not some morally superior position simply because you attach the word “peace” to it. Surrender is not peace. And we will have become profoundly morally confused if we start pretending those two things are synonymous.