Ukraine Will Not Accept the Peace of the Graveyard
By Volodymyr Dubovyk, Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Suddenly, there is talk of peace in Ukraine. Seemingly well-sourced reports have appeared suggesting something is happening behind the scenes. Ukraine’s ambassador to Turkey says negotiations involving Russia may occur by the year’s end, though on October 10 President Zelenskyy talked down the prospects of a ceasefire.
Is peace possible? What kind of peace? On what conditions? And what is the role of the United States, the world heavyweight and military superpower?
First things first, the easiest path to peace would be for Russia to cease its aggression. It does not appear to be willing to proceed this way. On the contrary, Russia seeks to reap the harvest of the current war of attrition, which, by default, gives an advantage to the party with larger human resources. In June, Putin even demanded more land, meaning land defended by the Ukrainian armed forces, as a precondition.
For Ukraine, the silencing of Russian guns is not enough. There has simply been too much experience of broken promises and covert action after previous agreements. Ukraine seeks the withdrawal of Russian occupying forces from its territory. That is central to Zelenskyy’s “peace formula” or his “10 points.”
This was, and remains, formally the key and is an inevitable part of Ukraine’s thinking. However, it is obvious that the de-occupation of vast terrains of occupied land will not be feasible in the immediate future.
If the Ukrainian position sounds maximalist, then let me say this: no one wants peace more than Ukrainians. The country has been in the crosshairs of the invaders for 32 months now and has been the subject of the Kremlin’s military aggression for 10 years. The financial costs of the war might easily be $1 trillion or more, and the human cost is unknown (the Wall Street Journal reported at least 80,000 Ukrainian service personnel have been killed and 400,000 wounded.)
Public opinion polls show a slow but steady increase in the number of those entertaining the possibility of negotiations with Russia. This does not mean, though, that people are anywhere ready to accept the Russian demand for capitulation, including conceding the enemy’s territorial gains. Since Russia is not slowing down and shows no indication of a willingness for some compromise, there is clearly a chasm between the two sides’ positions.
How to square the circle? Regrettably, some venture ideas about reaching “peace” at Ukraine’s expense, and at the price of accommodating Russia. The spirit of Munich 1938 is in the air. The much-discussed Chinese-Brazilian “peace plan” should be seen in this light. Any suggestion of an unconditional ceasefire implies freezing the conflict along the current lines (for an indefinite time), which essentially endorses Russian land grabs.
In return, Russia would be excused from the vast web of sanctions, which has excluded it from the world economy and massively raised its costs through expensive sanctions-busting schemes. (It’s worth noting that if sanctions made no difference, Russia would hardly make their removal a key element of its demands.)
But of course, Ukrainians would not see this as fair peace, and anyway, question whether the truthless men in the Kremlin would not take a temporary win and subsequently launch further aggression to effectively destroy Ukraine’s sovereignty and continue their colonial project. Remember that Ukraine’s fight is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of national survival.
Yet among some of our Western friends, there is a growing sentiment that Ukraine is doomed to fail and Russia destined to win.
In fact, there is still a real chance for Ukraine if not to fully change the tide of this war, then at the very least to gain significant tactical successes and further complicate the Russian war effort. Yes, Ukraine has suffered terribly, but so has Russia. Behind the impassive façade, Putin and his aides know Russia can’t go on forever. US estimates say it has suffered more than 600,000 casualties, with at least 115,000 dead, although the true number of fatalities may be much higher. It is suffering casualties at a rate of about 1,200 men daily, and has lost at least 10,000 armored combat vehicles, including almost 3,500 tanks.
The truth is that both sides have been badly hurt and could benefit from an end to hostilities. But also that Ukraine cannot accept peace at any price. To encourage a deal, Ukraine would need serious security guarantees of the sort it has never been offered by the West.
It would need the pro-Ukraine coalition to double down on both weapons supply and humanitarian aid.
What might result? A so-called West German solution is much discussed — the entry of Ukrainian-held areas into NATO and the European Union, and an ambiguous status for the occupied areas, with Kyiv making plain that it seeks their ultimate return to the motherland. Most Ukrainians would currently not accept this.
It anyway seems unlikely that this would happen under the presidency of Donald Trump. He asserts that he can bring peace within days, although he’s offered no detail on precisely how he might achieve this. Ukrainians fear a sell-out. Trump’s running mate, Senator J.D. Vance has ventured his broad vision, which would basically be similar to the above-mentioned China-Brazil plan. This is not something that Ukraine would welcome.
The current administration has struggled with its strategic vision for this war all along, including its optimal outcome and potential for peace. It has supported Ukraine in the most meaningful ways, but, perhaps, fell short of formulating an idea of what should come next, and what would be in America’s best interests. Partially it can be explained by the war’s dynamic nature and by the assumption, a fair one, that Ukraine itself should decide its own fate, including how to fight and whether to pursue peace and at what time.
But the first step for any just, long-term settlement is to establish that the Ukrainian people cannot and never will be bullied into submission and dissolution by the Russian imperial state. That its armed forces are strong and capable of fighting for years. And that its allies remain determined and are willing to reimagine a Europe to include brutalized but brave people who have defended its values with their own blood.
(This post is republished from CEPA.)