Those calling for a 'negotiated settlement' should say what they really mean
Surrendering large swathes of Ukrainian land to Russia would not end the bloodshed
When Russia invaded Ukraine last February something extremely heartening was observable here in Britain: people who had hitherto shown little interest in geopolitics were suddenly hoisting Ukraine flags in their garden, offering to house Ukrainian refugees, organising fetes, triathlons, spinathons, baking cakes and organising various other fundraising activities for Ukraine.
Predictably enough, there were those whose mean-spirited cynicism led them to resent this display of spontaneous solidarity. The British people were, they said, simply falling into line with the ‘current thing’ et cetera. But that was merely a projection of their own emptiness. In reality we saw an outburst of genuine and widespread support for Ukraine because the Russian invasion was so flagrantly criminal, a disgusting violation of sovereignty on Britain’s doorstep and a deeply ominous development that people rightly intuited would set a bad precedent if left unopposed.
How could a country such as Britain, marinated as it is in folk memories of the Second World War, not hear the lessons of Munich ringing out as Putin’s troops crossed the Ukrainian border? Moreover, with a leader such as Vladimir Putin, there is no need to ventriloquise what he wants because it is right there in print. One can make reasonably good sense of contemporary Russian foreign policy simply by looking to the policies of the czars. The strategy of Peter the Great was to dominate through the ‘protection’ of its neighbours. Czar Alexander I, at the Vienna Congress of 1815, argued that the concerns of small nations should be subordinated to those of the Great Powers. And it was the ‘enlightened’ Catherine the Great who brought Ukraine under Russian control in the 1700s and who introduced the Russian serf system (more recently, ‘liberal reformers’ such as Alexander Navalny and Mikhail Gorbachev have both supported the annexation of Crimea). As Volodymyr Vynnychenko, a central figure in the early twentieth century Ukrainian national liberation movement once remarked, ‘Russian democracy ends where the Ukrainian question begins’.
The average person in Britain has a better instinctive grasp of all this than many of our intellectuals, who are so immersed in an Oz-like world of unreality that they are compelled to interpret the war in Ukraine through the prism of their own obsessions. Thus they discount what Putin has actually said - that Russians and Ukrainians are ‘one people’ and that Ukrainian statehood depends on Russian consent - and instead repeat their own theories ad nauseam: it’s really about ‘NATO expansion’; the US are the ‘real imperialists’; and there is ‘this one Ukrainian militia group that is racist actually’.
Many of the same people exhibit similar delusions when it comes to the nature of Hamas and the conflict raging in the Middle East. You do not need to support the Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory (I certainly don’t) to take Hamas’s genocidal intentions seriously. But our intellectuals of course know better, and so we are told that ‘death to the Jews’ is really a cry against poverty and oppression and that Hamas is rather like the armed wing of Amnesty International.
I don’t want to talk more about Israel Palestine - I’ve written about it here and here if you care for my opinion on the matter - but isn’t it astonishing to see people who (rightly in my view) believe that Israel should give back stolen land simultaneously calling for Ukraine to give up its land to the Russians. You either believe in the right to self-determination or you don’t. But then, just as with the bad faith debate around free speech, one is always coming up against people who want to have it both ways: to loftily cite a moral principle for their own pet cause only to disregard it like a snake shedding its skin as soon as it is no longer convenient.
There are mounting calls for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, based on what is frequently described as ‘conflict fatigue’ among Ukraine’s western allies (it’s curious how the people far away from the fighting are more fatigued by the war than the Ukrainians themselves, who resolutely oppose all talk of capitulation).
Such world-weary calls for a settlement can reasonably be interpreted to mean that Ukraine should give up significant portions of its territory in the name of a flimsy ‘peace’. Never mind that the Ukrainians themselves do not want it - which surely ought to factor into the calculations of any democrat; and never mind the terrible precedent this would set - that aggression and nuclear threats will ultimately be rewarded with territorial concessions; and never mind that Russia routinely flouts international agreements, meaning any peace treaty it signed would effectively be worthless. Forget all of that for a moment, and consider the plight of the Ukrainians who would be expected to live under Russian occupation.
I don’t expect sleek geopolitical ‘realists’ to care about such things, lost as they are in their pseudo-worldly parlour game of ‘state actors’ and ‘spheres of influence’ and barely disguised admiration for thuggish foreign leaders with whom we must ‘do business’. One more or less expects people who think about human beings in this way to hold a cavalier and insensitive attitude toward the people actually forced to live under despotic rulers.
But it behoves anybody who cares about democracy and human rights - not as abstract concepts, but as the right of millions of Europeans to have their self-determination respected - to confront what Russian occupation of Ukrainian land entails. What does it mean for the average Ukrainian to live under Russian rule? What are the conditions like? And would giving Russia the green light to claim this land as its own really mean an ‘end to bloodshed’, as is often claimed? These questions should be addressed by those in the West who feel comfortable asking Ukrainians to tolerate indefinite occupation in the name of ‘peace’.
Of course we don’t need to idly speculate as to what conditions are like in Russian-occupied territory because we have ample evidence already. Where Putin differs from some of the czars (and has more in common with Soviet rulers) is in his insistence upon reproducing the Russian social system in the areas under his control (albeit not to the same extent as the Soviets did in the economic realm). The first thing the Russians have done in occupied areas of Ukraine is to remove the capacity of individual Ukrainians to rebel against their servitude. In Crimea, which has been occupied by Russia since 2014, Ukrainian law has been supplanted by Russian Federation criminal law, making it an offence to (among other things) discredit the Russian armed forces or to call for sanctions against Russia. Politicians, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists or those who have simply been vocal critics of the Russian leadership have been arbitrarily arrested, ill-treated, tortured, deported to Russia or bumped off. Since 2014 Russian authorities in Ukraine have targeted anybody considered capable of resisting Russian occupation or who has merely rejected the imposition of Russian citizenship. As a 2017 UN report documented, the human rights situation in Crimea ‘significantly deteriorated’ under Russian occupation:
‘Grave human rights violations, such as arbitrary arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment and torture, and at least one extra-judicial execution were documented… [Meanwhile] hundreds of prisoners and pre-trial detainees have been transferred to the Russian Federation.’
Occupying powers inevitably end up visiting terrible cruelty on the people they rule over. This is especially true in the case of Russia, which regularly visits ferocious savagery on its own people (and which is jointly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria). According to a 2022 report from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, summary executions of civilians occurred in more than 30 settlements in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Sumy - regions that were occupied by Russian armed forces in February and March of last year. Here is Wayne Jordash, a British Queen’s Counsel who is busy helping Ukraine to investigate Russia’s war crimes:
‘If you look at what happens in Russia-occupied territory, you will see that, depending on the length of the occupation, different progression of the criminal plan. In Kherson, you will see a real illustration of what the Russian political and military leadership planned for Ukraine as a whole.’
Kherson, once home to more than 280,000 people, was the first major Ukrainian city to fall to Russian forces during the February 2022 invasion. During its occupation, Russia set up at least 35 torture chambers where victims were reportedly beaten, waterboarded, electrocuted and raped with foreign objects. Elsewhere in Ukraine, around 6,000 children - some as young as four months old - have been abducted and removed to camps in Russia where they await adoption.
I don’t expect the West’s armchair realists to abandon their calls for a ‘negotiated settlement’ in the face of reports they probably won’t bother to read. However I would like them to say what their preferred solution to the conflict in Ukraine really entails, instead of wrapping their acceptance of permanent Russian occupation in the prophylactic language of ‘peace’, ‘diplomacy’ and ‘dialogue’. When fighting a war it’s important to understand the nature of the enemy. It’s hardly surprising the Ukrainians have a better understand of their Russian neighbour than some of our cloistered highbrows. But the latter have an obligation to spell out the full implications of their preferred course of action. Unlike some of our Ukrainian friends, they can still speak freely about such things.