Debate: Should the West seek a compromise with Russia over Ukraine?
By Vishal Manve, MALD 2023 Candidate, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
As the U.S. sounded the fresh alarm over the extension of Russian military drills in Belarus amid Ukrainian invasion concerns, foreign policy experts and academics have belligerently cautioned the West to broker a compromise and prevent a potentially catastrophic war in the region. Over the last week, Russia has retained 30,000 troops in Belarus and amassed 150,000 troops on Ukraine’s northern and eastern borders, spiking global concerns.
To explain the intricacies of the escalating conflict between Russia, Ukraine, and the West, Christopher Miller, Assistant Professor of International History at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Anatol Lieven from King’s College, London, participated in a debate with Intelligence Squared.
On July 12, 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin penned an article terming Russians and Ukrainians as “one people – a single whole.” This argument, professor Miller says, has been used to chronicle the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a civil war but Ukrainian public opinion polls differ heavily.
“Multiple opinion polls show that Ukraine wants to be an independent country and civil war simply does not apply in this context,” Miller said.
He further stated that the Russia-Ukraine escalation is an interstate conflict, with Russia “trying to control its neighbors.”
On the issue of Ukraine’s potential foray into NATO, professor Lieven stated both the U.S. and Russia have over the past few decades pursued illegitimate policies and this does specifically make “Russia uniquely evil.” Citing NATO expansion to Ukraine as a ‘terrible idea,’ Lieven supported his normative position by citing George Kennan, the architect of the containment strategy for the Soviet Union in the 1940s.
He further stated that the West, including the European Union, U.S. and NATO, have demonstrated their inability to defend Ukraine. “The offer of future Ukrainian membership of NATO on our part is an irresponsible lie,” Lieven added.
On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin’s in-principle agreement to hold a summit on ‘security and strategic stability in Europe.’
Both Lieven and Miller agreed the West should find ways to compromise with Russia – through diplomatic routes, or through economic sanctions.
“At the outset, compromise is an excellent idea and we should pursue ideas proposed by Western leaders and focus on deals pertaining to intermediate-range missiles, strategic stability talks on cyber-security, and rules governing military exercises,” Miller stated.
From the realist lens, the primary goal of NATO expansion, its conception, and phrasing have been to expel Russia from the European security architecture, Lieven added, stating “Russia is simply too powerful and deeply invested in some of its neighbours” to be expelled from the regional security framework.
With regards to China, Lieven stated the primary focus for the U.S. should be China as a direct competitor, as outlined by every administration since former President Barack Obama. He termed Russia as a second-order threat. Additionally, Miller stated the U.S. had the attention span to deal with European and Asian issues simultaneously.
Prior to the debate, the audience polls showed 43 percent support for the motion (The West should seek a compromise with Russia) and the numbers peaked at 57 percent at the end as Miller and Lieven concluded their arguments.
“Ukraine is a nation that deserves to be able to defend itself and we should not undermine it by throwing Ukrainians under the bus,” Miller concluded.
Listen to the debate on Apple Podcasts.