OPINION: Chasing the Impossible Will Be the West’s Downfall

Foreign Affairs published an article by Richard Haass “The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine.” It describes in detail the strategy of “appeasement of the aggressor,” which is now being actively promoted in Western political circles. In broad outline, this vision echoes many proposals – from J.D. Vance to Mike Pompeo.

But these plans all have one major problem: a complete disregard for the causes and objectives of the war Russia has unleashed. And without understanding this, it is impossible to propose a workable plan to end the war in any form.

For a clearer analysis, we will leave Ukraine’s position out of the brackets. It is crystal clear. Both the Ukrainian authorities and, especially, Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines are not ready to accept defeat and capitulation to Russia in any form. Including in the form of territorial concessions to Russia. And the talk about the war fatigue of Ukrainian society is greatly exaggerated and has nothing to do with reality.

But the rest of the theses stated in the article deserve a separate careful consideration and analysis.

Ukraine’s victory and full return of its territories implies an increase in the risks of nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO (US and EU) and therefore Ukraine’s victory is not acceptable.

The world has already gone through Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons during the Cold War. And, it turned out, they can be quelled by showing determination and resilience.

Russia, like the USSR, is fragile and can threaten only as long as it is allowed to do so. Prigozhin’s revolt proved that just 5,000 fighters can bring a regime to the brink of collapse.

At the time of Wagner’s march on Moscow, the Russian power vertical was close to paralysis and was not ready to make any decisions. The basis of Russia’s political and state elite are ordinary careerists and conformists who are not suicidal.  And the Kursk operation in Ukraine showed the whole world that the notorious “red lines” of nuclear blackmail are just a bluff of the Kremlin.

The West’s main task should be to preserve Ukraine’s independence with the right to choose any alliances and Ukraine’s ability to build up its own military capabilities.

The drafts of the Istanbul Accords 2022, recently published by the New York Times, unambiguously outline Russia’s demands for “peace.” They include restrictions on Ukraine’s freedom of choice of defense alliances, and a de facto ban on its partners providing military assistance to Ukraine in the event of aggression in the form of a “unanimous consensus” procedure.

And most importantly, limiting the potential of the Ukrainian army to the lowest possible level. And Russia has not given up on these demands. In particular, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in an October interview with Newsweek directly states: “The Istanbul agreements could be the basis for a settlement... They provide for Kyiv’s refusal to join NATO.”

And Russian President Vladimir Putin wants even more concessions.

“We are ready for peace talks, but only not on the basis of some ‘wishes,’ the name of which changes from month to month, but on the basis of the realities that are emerging and on the basis of the agreements that were reached in Istanbul.On the basis, but based on the realities of today,” Putin said during his speech at the Valdai Club.

And these demands, including “demilitarization,” are repeated constantly by Kremlin public speakers at every level in all public speeches. Where in these Kremlin demands are the possibilities for preserving Ukraine’s independence in the future?

Ukraine must cede territories to Russia in order to achieve peace.

These proposals were created around Moscow’s territorial claims to Ukraine. Allegedly, if we agree on the territory, the war will end. But Moscow is eager to get control, at least over all the regions of Ukraine already written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but not yet occupied, in particular, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

“The Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics have become part of the Russian Federation, and there can be no talk of violating our state unity,” Putin said at a meeting with Russian Foreign Ministry officials in the summer.

And freezing the situation along the front line will be interpreted by Russia in the future as an encroachment on its territorial integrity. Unless, of course, it falls apart by then.

But this is not even about Ukrainian land. From the Munich Speech in 2007 to his speech at the Valdai Club on Nov. 7, Putin has been literally shouting: this is not a question of territories, but of restoring the Cold War world order with the division of zones of control.

Against this background, 20% of Ukraine’s territories looks like a defeat for Moscow.

The Kremlin is consistently pushing through the concept of expanding its zones of influence without backing down a step. For the last 20 years, the main and only way for Moscow to solve problems has been the strategy of “we will squeeze you, sit tight, push you down, without retreating a step.”

For some reason, Western leaders have forgotten about Moscow’s ultimatum to NATO and the United States in December 2021 with the actual demand to disarm the former Warsaw Pact countries. Let me remind you that “Putin’s ultimatum to NATO” on the eve of the invasion of Ukraine provided for the return of the Alliance to the 1997 borders, which means the exclusion of 14 countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and Northern Macedonia. Not to mention Sweden and Finland, which will join NATO in 2023.

Moreover, in late October in Minsk, Lavrov again reminded the West that no one has given up on this ultimatum and is not going to do so.

“Contrary to the assurances of the Soviet leadership and despite our repeated warnings over the past 20 years, the North Atlantic Alliance has been recklessly expanding eastward...This is the root cause of the crisis, which the leaders of the West today prefer not to recall,” said the Russian Foreign Minister.

And it would be short-sighted to turn a blind eye to these statements. The current pro-Russian policy of Prime Ministers Viktor Orban of Hungary and Robert Fico of Slovakia shows that the restoration of the Warsaw Bloc is quite real.

And the policy of “appeasement of the aggressor” will lead to the fact that there will be more and more such “Orbans” and “Ficos.” And this will be the end of the big European project and the North Atlantic Alliance in its current form.

We can talk about peacekeeping contingents in the demilitarized zone and freezing Ukraine’s accession to NATO for 20 years, as described in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, but even this is not part of Moscow’s plans, which it has been promoting for the past 15 years and will not lead to the desired result.

The examples of a divided Germany, Korea and Cyprus are not relevant here.

Containment of North Korea, with the Soviet Union looming behind it, required first the US entry into the war - “boots on the ground” - and then the formation of impressive military contingents: about 30,000 US soldiers are in South Korea right now.

The US contingent in Germany during the “Cold War” amounted to 200,000 soldiers. And the tranquility of Cyprus is provided by 15,000 British military. The question of sending the US army to Ukraine is not even discussed now because of the risks of a nuclear confrontation. Who will enforce the concept of the demilitarized zone?

Western democracies lack the capacity to increase military production to support Ukraine on the battlefield.

And we are not even talking about global challenges, but about war on a fairly small territory. The Haass article quotes J.D. Vance as saying, “Essentially, we don’t have the capability to produce the amount of weapons Ukraine needs to win the war.”

A very strange statement.

Let’s compare the economies of the parties. The combined gross product of the US and EU in 2023 was $44 trillion.

Russia’s gross product is only $2 trillion. It is believed that, having equal potentials, Western countries defeated the “evil empire” in the “Cold War,” mainly due to the flexibility of liberal economies.

And here it is actually suggested that these victors of the USSR recognize their defeat before the autocratic economy of Russia, which is, moreover, several times smaller. If this is true, then it is necessary to rewrite current economic theories and recognize the advantage of centralized authoritarian economies, since liberal economies are so weak.

To summarize, it should be noted that the very discussion of “appeasement of the aggressor” and related proposals for a “ceasefire” entail disastrous consequences. A careful analysis of Moscow’s public statements makes it clear that its war is not for Ukrainian territories, but for the opportunity to once again become the “gendarme of Europe,” first and foremost, and for influence in other regions of the world.

Putin confirmed this once again in his Valdai speech when he said that “the next twenty years will be not less, but more difficult.” Careful observers at this point should have shuddered and realized - Ukraine is only the beginning.

In addition, a huge number of countries in Africa, Asia, and South America are now taking a neutral stance. They are waiting to see which side the scales of confrontation will swing to in order to be next to the winner.

And statements “about appeasement of the aggressor,” “avoiding escalation,” “not entering the conflict,” “about the weakness of the Western defense industry” only lead to the expansion of potential allies for autocracies, because they confidently incorporate all weak states into their sphere of influence - from Georgia to the countries of Africa and South America.

Only the determination of the West can stop them. How not to recall a quote attributed to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: “If a country chooses shame between war and disgrace, it will get both war and disgrace.”

It is not even the next generations of Europeans and Americans who will pay a much higher price for the weakness and indecision of the current politicians, but the current generation, within the next five years.

The familiar system of world security has been destroyed, as the Kremlin has unceremoniously made sure of. It is no longer possible to restore it, much less preserve it. But this does not mean that one should admit defeat.

It is necessary to build a new system based on regional defense blocs with the transfer of authority, responsibility, and expenditures to local leaders. Naturally, with the active participation of the US as a partner of these regional military alliances. And Ukraine, which has the most powerful and trained army among European countries, could become the leader of such a bloc, uniting the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, which most acutely feel threatened by Russia.

This already now requires the US to be extremely active in the spheres of diplomacy and economics. The era of the “end of history“ is over, and Western democracies are obliged to increase their defense production and military power to counter the new “axis of evil” - Russia, DPRK and Iran. Ukraine will do the rest on its own.

It is possible, of course, to choose a strategy of non-interference and turn a blind eye to the growing threats to world security. But then we must accept the fact that soon, even Mexico will be oriented towards China and Russia.  

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.