Monday, 28 April 2025

People are more important than land

 

If Donald Trump were to content himself with annexing the southern part of Ontario Province rather than the whole of Canada (initially at least, always reserving the option to return for more at some future date), he would probably see that as being a major concession to Canada. From such a perspective, Putin only seizing 20% of Ukrainian territory also looks like a huge concession. It may look like a strange definition of ‘concession’ to most of us, but it’s easy enough to see how it would look different to someone who believes that the strong and powerful should be free to exercise their strength to get whatever they want. A bully who settles for less than he could take will always see himself as being generous.

That doesn’t alter the fact that the reality remains that, unless other states are willing to commit their own armed forces on the side of Ukraine (and I really hope that they’re not), sooner or later the country will either be swallowed up by Russia or else a negotiated peace settlement will involve the de facto, if not the de jure, surrender of lands, leaving the world with another of those long term frozen territorial disputes around borders. It’s neither fair nor just, but in the absence of any means of compelling the surrender of conquered territory, it’s a hard fact. Encouraging Ukraine to fight on merely adds to the terrible death toll which has already occurred – one of the few things on which I agree with what Trump says.

It's still somewhat depressing that, even recognising that harsh reality, the debate and negotiation all seems to revolve around what land and territory should be ceded to whom, with little consideration for the people living, whether currently or formerly, in those areas. One of Putin’s demands is for Ukraine to respect the rights of Russian-speakers living in Ukraine. (Being a native Russian speaker in Ukraine doesn’t make someone a Russian of course, any more than being a native English speaker in Wales makes someone English, although it's a distinction lost on Putin.) But what about the equivalent rights of Ukrainian speakers in the occupied territories? Or even those living in those territories whose native tongue is Russian but who nevertheless consider themselves Ukrainian? What about the citizens of those territories who have been forcibly removed to remote regions of Russia – to say nothing of the children who have been abducted, adopted, and who Russia has attempted to indoctrinate into hating their own families and nation?

Land and territory are tangible; people can swap maps with different proposals as to where lines should be drawn. But land and territory have always been moved between states, usually by the exercise of force. They are ultimately less important, however, than the lives and wellbeing of people, and the right of those people to choose their own nationality and identity. I’m far from convinced that that relative importance is receiving due attention in any negotiation process, but then neither Trump nor Putin are individuals who particularly care about people.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

For Russia read Israel, and Ukraine read Palestine.

Anonymous said...

Point 1 let us remember the implications of geographical appeasing to previous dictators.

Point 2 The Chinese will see this as a perfect sign that they can grab Taiwan and get away with it

John Dixon said...

Point 1 - so what's your solution? Fight to the last Ukrainian? Ukraine is in a fight that it cannot 'win' by itself if by 'win' we mean regaining lost territory. Do I believe it right that belligerent and aggressive dictators should be appeased by allowing them to keep territory that they have conquered by dint of military force? No, of course not. But Ukraine and the world are faced with three alternatives, all of them unappealing: (1) accept that the territory is temporarily lost, freeze the conflict and enter a decades long process of attempted and probably unsuccessful negotiation; (2) other countries enter the war on the side of Ukraine, with attendant risks of an even bigger conflagration; or (3) encourage Ukraine to keep fighting to the end with the probability that even more territory will be lost to a numerically superior force to which loss of life counts for nothing. If there's another choice, those advocating against negotiation over territory need to tell us what it is.

Point 2 - China's government have probably already seen enough to know that, if they can amass a sufficiently superior force, the probability that any of Taiwan's allies will support the island militarily is low. And historically, the Chinese claim to Taiwan is rather stronger than the Russian claim to parts of Ukraine.

I don't like any of this. I would wish for a world where the only determinant of state borders is the wishes of the people living in any defined territory (accepting that there are a lot of questions of detail in all that). Sadly, that isn't the world in which we live, even if it's the one we need to strive for. In the meantime, we have to deal with the world as it is, with all the compromises that implies. My priority is the lives and wellbeing of people - what's yours?

Anonymous said...

Whilst I understand there is an argument accepting the de facto loss of territory (which of course also means the homes, livelihoods and heritage of potentially millions of people) might be necessary in order to stop the bloodshed, I am not sure that Ukraine agreeing to this will satisfy Putin or ensure peace in the longer term. Russia already considers 5 provinces of Ukraine as de jure parts of its territory, despite having only partial control over 3 of them. It seems inconceivable to me that Putin will rest until all of these 'parts' of Russia are under its control. And what he really wants is to absorb the whole of Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence by imposing a puppet regime in Kiev. Limited territorial concessions made now seem unlikely to dissuade him or his cronies from pursuing that goal longer term.

John Dixon said...

I don't think there's anything there with which I would significantly disagree. The unaddressed question, though, is how refusing to negotiate the ('temporary') loss of territory does anything more than prolong the bloodshed. Simply saying 'no' to Putin, unless backed up by a degree of enforcement which no-one is willing to countenance, isn't enough. Sadly, we live in a world where - whether internationally or domestically - might is considered right. I don't like it either, but I can't honestly advocate sacrificing ever more lives in a vain attempt to prove that it isn't so.