In their response to
Trump’s support for Putin’s position on Ukraine, the leaders of the UK, France,
Germany, Italy, Poland and Finland, along with the presidents of the European
Council and European Commission, issued a strongly worded statement,
in which they made clear their view that “Russia cannot have a veto against
Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO”, and “International borders must not
be changed by force.” Brave words, but ultimately meaningless. Putin does
not need a direct veto on Ukraine’s membership of Nato when his willing puppet
in the White House has one, and has made it clear that he’s ready to use it.
And the international borders of Ukraine have effectively already been changed
by force. Indeed, the whole history of international borders shows that force
is the most usual way in which they are changed. There are few – if any –
international borders which are not the result of armed conflict at some point
in the past. We might wish that the world had learned better by now, but it
hasn’t, and the fine words of an assorted group of leaders don’t change that.
The situation in Ukraine
remains where it has been for the last three years, with only three potential
outcomes. The first is that Ukraine’s allies provide the resources, both
weaponry and personnel, to defeat Russia and restore previous boundaries. There
is little doubt that the capacity to do this exists, although whether it would ignite
an even bigger problem is an unknown. The second is that Ukraine’s allies
continue to supply just about enough weaponry to keep the war going until one
or both sides – most probably Ukraine, as the smaller of the two – lose the
will and the manpower to continue fighting. The third is that some sort of
accommodation is reached with Putin under which new de facto, if not
necessarily de jure, borders are agreed. None of these is palatable, but only
one offers the hope of an early end to the slaughter.
Leaders like to be
seen to be talking tough, but tough rhetoric solves little. As a statement of
the way the world should be, it’s hard to fault what they say; but as a
recognition of reality it’s a dismal failure. And what’s lacking above all is
any sense of an understanding that the world isn’t as they want it to be – let alone
of the fact that they are some of the key players who should be working to
change the way the world works.
Posts
2 comments:
But is your third option actually an option at all? Why would Putin come to such an accommodation? He's winning the war, very slowly. Yes, many lives are being lost, including many Russian, but there's nothing to suggest that he places any value on those lives. And his control over Russia hasn't been diminished by this war. His power has never been greater. And that's what he cares about more than anything else. Putin won't stop until either a) he no longer believes he can win and fears continuation will undermine his power or b) he gets everything he wants - de jure control over the five territories he has already formally annexed, and de facto control over the rest of Ukraine. I'm assuming that's not the 'accommodation' you are proposing?
You may be right. Perhaps there really is no accommodation which can be reached which does not - whether immediately or at some later date - result in the outcome you suggest. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted.
The issue is that if that option is completely removed, then the only other alternatives are direct involvement by Ukrainian allies in the fighting leading to possible all-out war in Europe, or continuing to stand on the sidelines encouraging Ukraine to sacrifice ever more people while Russia eventually grinds them down by sheer weight of numbers and Putin's complete disregard for Russian lives. As the post said, none of the alternatives is palatable, but - by default, almost - 'the West' is currently choosing to encourage Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian. Sanctions may make us all feel as though we're doing 'something' (and of course there's a chance they'd be marginally more effective if it weren't for Trump's unwillingness to impose more of them), but they're not having sufficient effect to stop Putin. If there's another, less unpalatable, alternative, to an attempted negotiation, I'd like to know what it is.
Post a Comment