Possible Peace in Ukraine

A Problematic Start

UPDATE: As I was writing the post below, the Americans and Ukrainians held what were reported as very productive talks. I don’t think it changes any of my observations below, so I won’t revise. However, it does show us how quickly events can move.

There is a 28 point plan circulating that could bring an end to the war in Ukraine. I say it is “circulating” because it seems to have been leaked to the press rather than released by official channels. There is some ambiguity, last I saw, about whether it is an actual plan or simply the first round of negotiations. Nevertheless, it is as close as we’ve come to an end to what has almost been four years of war (eleven years if you count from 2014 when Russia conquered Crimea).

Rather than going over all 28 points, I want to talk about it in general terms and point out some of the promising and troubling features.

One of the most peculiar things about the proposal is that it is the result of negotiations between American and Russian representatives. Notice that no Ukrainians were in the room, neither were there any representatives of the European Union or the major European states, such as Germany, France, or the United Kingdom. There are several ways to understand this omission.

One way to read it is that the US and Russia are simply playing with other people’s lives. They are the superpowers—or one superpower and a half—and they do what they want. As Thucydides records from the Melian dialogue, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Another way to understand it, but not incompatible with the previous, is to observe that the European powers are not powers at all. Germany, for instance, has systematically destroyed its nuclear power plants, making its electricity prices among the highest in the world and dependent on American imports of natural gas. (Germany depended on Russian gas until the war, a pipeline explosion, and sanctions ended the supply.) All three are also dealing with mass Muslim immigration and restlessness that, although they won’t say it, prevents them from even considering sending soldiers abroad.

The most generous reading of why only the Americans and Russians were in the negotiation room is that the Europeans, but especially the Ukrainians have backed themselves into an impossible position. All of them think that any negotiation is capitulation and entirely illegitimate. Would you negotiate with Hitler?

Consider it from the Ukrainian perspective. Civilian deaths are estimated at around 15,000. Estimates of how many soldiers have died vary wildly, largely because a lower number gives hope for victory and a larger number the opposite. The Ukrainian government estimates somewhere around 30,000 soldier fatalities whereas some intelligence sources put it as high as 100,000. The physical destruction of the land and cities is hard to imagine. Could anyone having suffered through this negotiate with the one man responsible for it all? Putin wasn’t pushed into doing this. It was all his fault.

One other problem with the current peace plan is that it admits that Putin was pushed into this war. In other words, it wasn’t all his fault.

One of the 28 points is an agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which was formed during the Cold War to hold back Soviet Communism). This provision is an admission that the Ukrainian interest in joining was a cause for the war and was (because preventing this is part of the peace plan) a legitimate reason for Russia’s invasion. Those who believe there was not one, single, possible reason for invading will have a hard time accepting this.

The provision not to join NATO is even more complicated. The Ukrainian constitution has this goal as one of its own provisions. Accepting this deal would require a constitutional amendment. Would you let Hitler amend your constitution?

The Hitler analogy is both instructive and not. Should Churchill have negotiated to let him keep, say, half of France and all of Belgium? What about Poland? The world is a better place for having not negotiated with him, but his defeat required a full scale war and the defeat and capitulation of Germany. Is anyone willing to go that far in a war against Russia in 2025?

For all of Vladimir Putin’s crimes, he isn’t Hitler. We might not like what he has done, but Americans and Europeans show no stomach for starting a total war with Russian and fighting for complete surrender. No doubt the prospects of nuclear war hold back our hands. But it is also because Putin is more like a traditional pre-modern potentate who has no care for the suffering of his people or others than he is an apocalyptic ideologue.

The advantage of Putin not being an apocalyptic ideologue is that he is inclined to cut a deal. The disadvantage of cutting a deal is it will mean Ukraine will have to give up some of its land and any hopes of joining NATA. Some isn’t all, but even giving him something means he will have won as a result of his invasion. But that is how the world has always worked.

The strongest and most powerful objection to any negotiations with Putin is that he is not a premodern potentate but a maniac bent on world domination. This is the image put forth by many. They fear any concession to him will help further his plans to invade and conquer all of Europe, even including an invasion of England.

Everything hinges on who and what Vladimir Putin is. Is negotiation possible or impossible? Does he really intend on conquering Europe or does he just want to secure his position in Russia? Everything hinges on the answer to these questions.