THE BETTER PART OF VALOR: Peace for Ukraine
This article suggests that Ukraine and its allies should sue for peace and facially call for a cessation of hostilities. It serves as a critique of the Western press and its cheer-leading. This article also reflects the sentiments of numerous activists and human rights organizations.
Not discretion, but clarity is the better part of valor. Ukraine has courageously resisted the imperialist assault on its sovereignty by Russia whose most important war aims reach back to Peter the Great. Russia wants access to warm-water ports, and buffers against invasion to its West and North. Whatever the successes of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, however, these aims have all been tainted in one way or another.
Russia is saddled with enormous cost over-runs, countless impactful sanctions, domestic unrest, enormous losses of military hardware, and estimates of fallen servicemen that run as high as 38,000. Exports of natural gas, and transnational pipelines, once provided Russia its border security with Europe, but that is long gone. The global community identifies with the plight of Ukraine; Russia stands accused of horrible war crimes; Poland and other Eastern European states fear its ambitions; and, most dramatically, Finland and Sweden now wish to join NATO, which President Joseph Biden has almost single-handedly raised from the dead.
The Ukrainian undertaking has resulted in much that President Vladimir Putin wanted to avoid – and perhaps he is now willing to strike a deal. For all that, however, things are not that bad for him. Dissent is being crushed at home and Russian citizens are adapting to the shortages and the sanctions. The Donbass is ready to fall. Major Ukrainian cities are being encircled. Russia now controls coveted warm-water ports such as Mariupol, Odessa, and Kherson; it has secured a land corridor that connects Russia’s border with Crimea; and Putin reigns over the Black Sea.
Ukraine is on the defensive. Russia is advancing on its targets slowly but surely. Mariupol and Bucha have experienced mass executions, systematic rape, and the torture of civilians. Shelters and evacuation routes have been bombed. Deportations have taken place. Starvation is setting in, and Ukraine’s infrastructure has been demolished. Health services are unavailable; homelessness is rampant; and capital has fled the country. Moreover, the $1 trillion in Western military aid will turn what remains of a civilized nation into a military camp. Ukraine has already experienced enough suffering. There is much more in store if Russia employs increasingly lethal missiles, biological warfare, and nuclear arms.
None of this can be ruled out, and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine can spill over into other nations at any time. The reality is that Western aid is reaching its limits. Citizens of NATO countries are already grumbling about rising gas prices, growing food shortages, and inflation sparked by the war. Ukrainian sovereignty now rests on rubble.
“Take Back and Strengthen” is the new slogan, and Russia will surely keep its sights set on Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Putin still dreams of re-establishing the Soviet Empire. It is impossible to predict the future. Nevertheless, it would defy logic for Russia to invade any of these nations, at least while licking its wounds from the losses suffered in Ukraine.
In spite of media chatter about “appeasement,” however, it might be more worthwhile to consider what might be learned from the Spanish Civil War. With the battle of Barcelona in 1937, the war was clearly lost, though the final treaty was only signed in 1939. How many brave anti-fascist partisans were sacrificed in the years in between?
Pragmatic political actors hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and work for a policy somewhere in between. The best outcome is a Ukrainian victory and the worst is a Ukrainian defeat. Either way, a weakened David will still need to contend with a wounded Goliath. The most probable outcome, however, is neither an unmitigated triumph by Ukraine nor a thoroughly pyrrhic victory by Russia, but a war of attrition, some version of trench warfare, which cost the lives of countless infantrymen on both sides. Is stalemate worth the cost?
Toward the end of the Vietnam War in 1971, testifying in front of a Senate panel, a young serviceman who later became U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, asked: “How can one ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Ukrainian self-defense against Russian invasion was no mistake. But there is a point when valor turns into senseless sacrifice. For the all-knowing media pundits, and those comfortably watching and Ukraine’s tragedy unfold in their living rooms, it’s easy to insist upon continuing the struggle. In the face of likely defeat or stalemate, however, is that more realistic or ethical than officially calling not merely for a ceasefire, but an end to the fighting?
Treaties of import are made between enemies, not between friends, and cessation of hostilities will reflect the reigning imbalance of power. Ukraine will have to surrender significant territory and only the most naïve optimist can expect Russia to rebuild its enemy, or allow the West to do so, without compensation. Negotiations on this point will prove difficult. Any new multi-national or bi-national treaty, moreover, must speak to the security concerns of both nations. It should guarantee Ukraine’s neutral and non-nuclear status and perhaps its right to join the European Union, if not NATO, in exchange for lifting the sanctions on Russia.
Any deal for peace between Russia and Ukraine is purely speculative at this point. But what is most important needs to be kept in mind. Any meaningful treaty must prioritize humanitarian efforts to evacuate civilians, assist the wounded, collect the bodies of the dead, and search for those missing in action. Peace will probably result less in a “win-win” than a “lose-lose” situation. Under such circumstances, the prime task for the global community is not secure a Ukrainian victory, but rather avoid a result in which a brave nation is faced with ongoing losses under increasingly hopeless conditions.
** Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Sovereign (New York: Routledge, 2020).
