Ukraine: One Year On and No End in Sight
Courtesy of the Office of The President of Ukraine
In 424 B.C., the Athenian general Thucydides was banished from his home for failing to stop the Spartan capture of Amphipolis. While in exile, and with the benefit of hindsight, he famously concluded that, “It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, that made war inevitable.” History has proved that in his reflections on the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides stumbled upon a cardinal insight into the ruthless nature of international politics. It seems that a military confrontation is almost always unavoidable whenever a declining hegemon feels threatened by a rising power.
The 24th of February marked one year since Mr. Putin began his special military operation to "denazify" a country governed by a democratically elected Jewish president. To achieve his objective, the Russian army was allowed to run rampant across Ukraine, destroying and pillaging hospitals, infrastructure, cultural treasures, private homes and industrial hubs—while its Supreme Commander-in-Chief busied himself with spewing lies, bullying the energy markets and weaponizing famine.
After his shameless conquest of Crimea in 2014 went unpunished, Mr. Putin probably only expected a gentle slap on the wrist for coming back for seconds. However, despite COVID-stricken economies, vulnerable supply chains and vested interests, the free world managed to mobilise unprecedented waves of sanctions and military support. In attempting to divide the “collective West,” the Kremlin revitalised the North Atlantic Alliance. Mr. Putin’s rejection of the post-Cold War order means that there was never peace but only a temporary truce. An unsurprising stance if one considers the mishandled collapse of the Soviet Union, which failed to pair ideological defeat with moral capitulation.
Ahead of the upcoming spring offensive, neither party is interested in peace talks. Both sides are preparing for a costly gamble, hoping that it will tilt the outcome of the war in their favour. Although, last autumn, the loss of territory, machinery and personnel exposed the gross incompetence of the Russian forces, the future of the war remains uncertain. Because despite being re-equipped by the West, Ukraine’s comparatively small army will soon face a tsunami of Russian conscripts. Barely trained and poorly equipped, thousands of innocent men will be deployed as cannon fodder by Russian generals, hoping to overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers. Russia has not succeeded in its original objective, but in the grind of attrition it has a good chance to not fail completely.
After seizing power during the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia was keen to end the war with its western neighbours. Lenin was far more concerned with confronting enemies from within than fighting Germans. However, following a hasty truce, an emboldened Trotsky stunned the Central Powers’ delegates by proclaiming “neither war nor peace!” meaning Russia would stop fighting but would not commit to any territorial or financial concessions. The bemused Central Powers simply responded by ending the armistice and resuming the war. Three weeks later, the Kremlin gave up half of its European territory and agreed to pay six billion marks in reparations
Peace talks have always been tricky business, but they cannot start without a mutual show of goodwill. Ukraine’s current maximalist position of demanding the exclusion of Russian troops from Crimea and the so-called Donbas “republics” suggests that President Zelensky has replaced pragmatism with idealism. During the failed negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv last April, the Ukrainian delegates demonstrated hard-headed realism by implying that a full NATO membership and ownership of Crimea and the Donbas republics were negotiable.
Since then, a potentially alliance fracturing U-turn has taken place. Ukraine now insists that its victory scenario entails the full reclamation of not only the former republics of the Donbas but also of Crimea. Since its illegal annexation by the Russian state in 2014, a decisive demographic shift has taken place on the Crimean Peninsula. The majority of the Crimean population are Russians, who certainly don't want to be Ukrainian. Similarly in the Donbas, Kyiv sympathisers have been terrorised into fleeing, leaving behind a more or less united anti-Ukrainian population. Satisfying current Ukrainian peace requirements would change the nature of the conflict from a war of liberation to one of conquest, which NATO would most likely refuse to support. The Kremlin probably sees through President Zelensky’s shabby smokescreen anyway, so it’s probably best to abandon it before it gets out of hand. The Ukrainian president only needs to look to his opponent to see how slippery the slope of flirting with nationalist fanatics is.
Peace, like war, comes in many different forms. But at this point, a negotiated compromise is unlikely. If the Russians are pushed back to what constituted the post-2014 border, it’s much more probable that a stalemate, à la “neither war nor peace,” will ensue. To ensure any stability in the region, robust mechanisms of deterrence will have to be created. Ukraine will have to be transformed into a “military hedgehog,” a country that is too prickly for anyone to dare invade. Some of its quills should be gifted by NATO, but the rest it would have to grow itself. The awareness of its perilous geography will have to be hard-coded into Ukraine’s post-war constitutional DNA. Following the Israeli model, Ukraine will need to raise taxes, increase military spending, and extend mandatory military service. Perhaps an eastern demilitarized zone could satisfy both parties.
Four months after Germany joined the First World War, Kaiser Wilhelm II agreed with his cabinet that the war was unwinnable. But instead of seeking a diplomatic solution, he prioritised the lifetime of his government over the common good, and the Great War went on for four more years, claiming millions of lives. One can't help but think that Mr. Putin will do the same. With a $650 billion war chest, he will continue to please his turbo patriots, as they remain the only threat to his rule.
If the democratic world truly values freedom, sovereignty and independence, then it will have to match the energy and resources of the Russian aggressor, as alas, this war is far from over.