End-game in the Ukraine war?

According to an article in the FT, [1] which is being widely cited, there is some kind of definite, (and final?), proposal/suggestion on the table to end the Ukraine war. The basic outline seems to be: the conflict is frozen along the current lines, more or less; and the US commits to vetoing Ukraine’s membership of NATO. Some versions of the reporting say that the US would also recognise Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea. I have also seen Ukraine would make some kind of commitment to never trying to take back the occupied territories by force. This would be the “frozen conflict” option with the bonus that some of the main issues; Crimea and Ukraine in NATO, would have been resolved.

Zelensky is already positioning to reject the idea; apparently Ukraine will never give up Crimea. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory – the territory of the people of Ukraine” [2]. This is hardly surprising. In the March 2022 talks all reports suggest that Kiev and Russia were quite close to an agreement on the no-NATO aspect. The accepted wisdom amongst the war critical commentators I read is that the talks then failed because the US and Johnson from the UK rushed to Kiev and offered to back them militarily if they didn’t sign a deal. However; at the time, based purely on following the news quite closely, the impression I got is that the talks fell apart because the best that Kiev was willing to offer on Crimea was a separate 15 year discussion path. This would have meant that Putin would have entered the conflict in effective possession of Crimea and lost that at negotiations. This was obviously not something the Kremlin could accept.

I just don’t understand why Kiev cannot let Crimea go. It is not propaganda; there is a clear majority of ethnic Russians living in the peninsular. [3] The 80% in favour of annexation in the referendum has been confirmed by multiple Western polls. [4] There is no realistic possibility of Kiev recapturing it. Even if they managed to blow up the Kursk bridge, Russia is not simply going to give it up. Even if they captured it how would they rule it? And, how would they defend it from permanent Russian missile attacks? It is a crazy dream. I can see, politically, why Zelensky cannot admit this. His political position would become untenable, (which is probably why Putin has, wisely, suggested that some other government take over in Kiev). But – there must be a block behind him – and what is their motivation? It is almost the definition of beating your head against the wall until it is bloody – and then just continuing. It seems the answer lies in Ukrainian nationalism. Richard Sawka’s excellent book, The Lost Peace – How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War, discusses internal Ukrainian politics. His main thesis is that Ukraine had two options as it emerged from the collapse of the USSR; a pluralistic option, which accepted that Ukraine contained multiple different identifies and traditions, and to establish a pluralistic state. The second was that the nationalists dominated and established a mono vision of Ukraine’s identify. This vision won out, and once that had happened a split was inevitable. I am not an expert on Ukrainian internal politics; but it is apparent that those in power, not just the political centre, but people from all the various “think-tanks” which have sprung up, are all mono-Ukrainian nationalists. These are the people who, presumably, look down on the “pro-Russian” population of Eastern Ukraine, as backward looking people, unable to modernise. In reality they simply never mention them, never acknowledge them; the only answer is the official one that all the trouble in eastern Ukraine comes from Russian destabilisation. (I saw just one, but a rather telling, clip when a Ukrainian soldier was speaking about these people in derogatory terms; this was early on in the conflict before the media editorial level got a grip and excluded such inconvenient snippets from appearing). Even so, I don’t really understand. Why do these people not simply let Crimea and Donbas go, and go off and live their Ukrainian nationalist dream in the other 80% of Ukraine?

There is only one rational reason I can see for this; that there is a silent tug of war going on with Russia; if they allow Russia to take Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine, while allowing Putin to graciously let them join the EU, they will still feel as if they are the second cousins. They have to have this big fight – a messy divorce – to finally break free of Russian dominance. I think that Russia could do more to ease this aspect; though, even here, Putin has made efforts, for example, at one point making it clear that he “respected Ukrainians”. (For example; if I was involved in the negotiations I would advise Russia to offer Kiev compensation for lost businesses in Crimea, and maybe some kind of ‘cross-border bodies’, following the Northern Ireland model). But, even if I am right, and there is this kind of undercurrent of psychological tussle going on; is it worth all the death?

Ukrainian nationalists cannot have it both ways. Given the history and divisions in Ukraine if they wanted Ukraine to stay as one whole the country they needed to adopt a pluralist political vision. If they want a mono vision, that means the country is split. That is the core dynamic, it seems to this writer.

The other reason why a certain elite in Ukraine might want to continue the war is simply the usual one. There will, no doubt, be people benefiting from the war, in terms of power and money. Though; this certainly isn’t the tens of thousands of ordinary folk being killed and maimed on the front lines.

Changing borders by force.

As always the British are making fools of themselves.

This is the Guardian’s Defence Correspondent, but his thinking is the same (of course) as the political circles:

Initial indications are that Russia is willing to trade territory it does not control in Ukraine – in effect fresh air – for a US recognition of its 2014 seizure of Crimea, in other words a formal acknowledgement that it is possible to change borders by force, in effect creating an extraordinary precedent. [5]

The bold is in the original. Dan Sabbagh seems to have a selective memory. Changing borders by force was precisely what NATO did when they bombed Serbia to force Serbia to let Kosovo go its own way, and eventually declare independence, at the end of the 90s. Not to mention the whole history of the British Empire. That aside; I am not quite sure why liberal regime change by bombing (without border change) is white and small border changes are black. On the ‘legal’ point, Lavrov points out that the UN Charter does not simply talk about sovereignty; it also talks about self-determination of peoples. If it is an extraordinary precedent; what other options does Dan Sabbagh suggest for the ethnic Russians and “pro-Russian” population of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine faced with a mono nationalist Ukrainian culture being imposed on them? (Yes, yes, a degree of exaggeration on the Russian side, no doubt; but facts e.g. about Ukraine demoting Russian from its position as an official language remain; [6] minority language rights are important for minority peoples; we know that, Dan Sabbagh knows that, because this is what we do in the UK with Wales and Welsh; why such dignity should be denied to Russians and pro-Russian folk in Eastern Ukraine I am not sure).

Europe is going to go on about “changing borders by force” because they are defending the “international rules-based order” – the liberal world order which they have substituted for the UN Charter and which they pretend is the UN Charter. I don’t see that changing any time soon. Though it is refreshing to see the current US administration being willing to be realistic about border changes.

One final point; if Europe had pushed Kiev to implement Minsk – which was no more than a normal recognition of minority rights, such as happens all over Europe, then one of the two main reasons for the conflict would have been obviated. Again; they are trying to have it both ways. If they weren’t prepared to push Minsk through, what did they actually expect? War; and so, by all logic this is their war. And, they are losing the war which they pushed for.

Update – Kiev confirms no-go

Quoted from the Guardian:

Reuters reports foreign ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi has reaffirmed Kyiv’s negotiating position, saying that at talks in London this week the Ukrainian delegation insisted that Ukraine will not accept:

being forced to recognise any part of Ukrainian territory as Russian

allowing any country to have a veto on what alliances Ukraine can make

imposing any restrictions upon Ukraine’s armed forces

So, that’s a no go.

If the US “passes” on this one as it is, apparently, “not their war” – the key question is, does this mean that all US military and financial aid including intelligence sharing will end? If so – does this not mean that Kiev is just committing Ukraine to a further slow and painful destruction?

(The point about not allowing any country to have a veto on NATO membership seems a bit confused. Kiev has no control over whether the US issues such a veto).

Meanwhile the NATO general Secretary Mark Rutte has been insisting that it is Moscow who needs to move in negotiations! [7] Another European leader living on a different planet.

Notes

Related Posts

When is a terrorist attack just an explosion?When is a terrorist attack just an explosion?

Facts, facts, factsFacts, facts, facts

Nothing to see here… Western leaders bat away Putin’s comments about being at warNothing to see here… Western leaders bat away Putin’s comments about being at war