Co-authored with Anastassia Fedyk at UC Berkeley and Ilona Sologoub at VoxUkraine
Bucha, Ukraine after the Russian invasion
Many commentators have actually written in the last couple of weeks that there is no option to the Russia-Ukraine war other than diplomacy. The key concern is what kind of a diplomatic option do we want to reach?
Severe responses to this question are, unfortunately, much rarer than general hand waving about the “diplomatic service.” And the few answers supplied by some commentators tend to indicate forcing Ukraine to make more territorial concessions to Russia in order to “deescalate the war”. We analyze this matter and particularly argue that additional territorial concessions from Ukraine are not just infeasible but will really lead to escalation.
Initially, typically a diplomatic solution suggests some compromise, i.e. one side makes some concessions, the opposite does likewise, and they strike a deal that neither side likes but each guarantees to observe. What do we see when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine war?
Ukraine was compelled by the U.S. and EU to not withstand Russia when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Russia went on to get parts of Ukrainian territories in the East utilizing the Russian secret service, disguised routine army, and local collaborators. The Ukrainian army, despite its dire state at the time, neutralized and effectively liberated a number of cities, including Mariupol and Slovyansk, up until Russia introduced an intrusion with its routine army at the end of the summertime.
In August 2014, Russia guaranteed to let Ukrainian soldiers go out from the surrounded city of Ilovaisk and after that shot dead a number of hundred individuals within the “green passage.” This led to the first Minsk agreement targeted at a ceasefire– which was never ever implemented, because Russians continued to grab Ukrainian lands by force. During the heavy battling in January 2015 near Debaltseve, Minsk II agreement was signed with the intermediation of Chancellor Merkel and President Holland.
Russians continued shooting at Ukrainian positions, and sometimes at civilians. Russian occupants organized concentration camps in the occupied territories, abducted and tortured individuals, and executed extrajudicial killings.
At the same time, Russia was trying to require Ukrainians to acknowledge the so-called “peoples republics of Donbass” and begin direct settlements with them– although these are absolutely nothing more than puppet administrations set up by the Kremlin. The negotiations between Ukraine and Russia moderated by OSCE lasted for the last eight years in Minsk. The only results were a couple of exchanges of prisoners. Political needs of Russia never ever changed– Ukraine needs to arrange elections in the occupied areas, deliver Crimea, and change the Ukrainian Constitution, which would in truth indicate losing Ukrainian sovereignty.
Russias proposition remains the same right now– only in a more harsh kind and with proliferation of genocidal practices to the rest of Ukraine, as demonstrated in Bucha, Mariupol, and lots of other locations. This short evaluation of current history highlights 2 points: (1) Russia desires to remove Ukraine from the map; (2) Russia does not appreciate any agreements it reached in the past (starting with the Budapest memorandum of 1994). Thus, both conditions for diplomacy fail:
If only one side makes concessions, this is not a compromise; this is a capitulation.
There can be no deal if one side does not mean to execute the offer concluded.
And the couple of responses supplied by some analysts tend to suggest requiring Ukraine to make further territorial concessions to Russia in order to “deescalate the war”. Ukraine was compelled by the U.S. and EU to not resist Russia when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Political needs of Russia never ever changed– Ukraine ought to organize elections in the occupied areas, deliver Crimea, and modify the Ukrainian Constitution, which would in reality suggest losing Ukrainian sovereignty.
We previously went over why requiring Ukraine to deliver more territories to Russia will not be a sustainable solution and will only lead to the escalation of the war. To make things clearer, consider the following thought experiment: would you let Russia occupy Bayern (or Breton or Calabria or Bask-Kiskun) if Russia guarantees not to use nuclear weapons?
We formerly discussed why requiring Ukraine to cede more areas to Russia will not be a sustainable service and will only lead to the escalation of the war. In brief, Russia will eliminate or deport individuals from these territories and will use them as a springboard to attack the remainder of the country, in the very same method it used occupied Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk areas. And if Russia inhabits the whole Ukraine, it will threaten other countries.
To make things clearer, consider the following idea experiment: would you let Russia inhabit Bayern (or Breton or Calabria or Bask-Kiskun) if Russia guarantees not to use nuclear weapons? There is absolutely nothing that can prevent Russia from demanding more concessions in the future.
Indeed, if Bayern can be provided, then another province might be given. If Bayern cant be given to calm Russia, why should one compromise Ukrainians? Today, Russia is a fascist state with the population unified around their führer and their hatred of the rest of the world. Russian people want to make lots of sacrifices to enforce their success onto other states and to make others regard (i.e., obey) them. They view any concessions as a weak point and as an invite to escalate.
What can one perform in this case? Military defeat was the diplomatic option for Nazi Germany or Tojo Japan that acted like Russia today if war is simply the continuation of diplomacy with other ways. In this diplomatic solution, the least one can expect is the withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory, payment of reparations, and neutralization of the nuclear hazard. Diplomats dont have to wait until the war is over. They can currently start thinking of a future security architecture without a rogue program that consistently attacks other countries and employs nuclear blackmail.
This is where the diplomatic conversation must be. This would be the ultimate diplomatic option.
