There has been much talk lately in Western policy making circles as to the most likely/most optimal outcome for the war in Ukraine. Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon and later Secretary of State to both Nixon and Gerald Ford initially suggested a compromise peace whereby Ukraine would accept some loss of territory and forgo joining NATO.
In recent months he appears to have performed a volte-face and decided that it would be appropriate for Ukraine to join NATO in order for future conflict to be avoided once the war in over. However, this comes with the caveat of seemingly leaving Crimea ‘up for negotiation’ and the question of Ukraine’s Eastern provinces not completely settled. Also, as an aside, why the West takes the musings of a known war criminal seriously in 2023 is beyond this author. But this issue has to be looked at from a wider perspective than purely in terms of Russia and Ukraine. Across the world there is now a struggle between the forces that stand for libertarianism, democracy, pluralism and secularism and those that stand for authoritarianism, religious dogmatism, autocracy and mono-cultures. Sadly it is always the former that are in need of re-affirming.
If Russia could be seen to have succeeded in Ukraine; i.e. ‘reclaiming’ the Eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, consolidating Crimea and making Ukraine into a virtual neutral buffer state against the wishes of its people then what signal does that send to countries such as China and North Korea, or Iran? It would suggest that the West is too weak to stand up for the values that it used to champion, one simply has to launch a war of attrition and as soon as the peoples of the West begin to feel ‘uncomfortable’ they will withhold their support. China might feel free to occupy and integrate Taiwan into its empire along with Tibet, North Korea might feel capable of unifying the peninsula with Chinese support.
All of a sudden conflicts that have remained frozen for decades could be thawed by emboldened totalitarian forces who feel that one simply has to threaten the West or make it fear a long and costly conflict in order to get what they desire. One cannot co-exist with these kind of reactionary forces, fortunately neither is it desirable. Therefore, the key battleground state is Ukraine. In the short term it must be supported militarily to the hilt, because of the kind of war we are fighting here. This will give it the means to, with time, reclaim all the territory illegally controlled by Russia including Crimea.
Once Ukrainian forces reach the internationally recognised border with Russia then they must halt their advance and hold the line whilst negotiations can take place. They must not penetrate into Russian territory with any of their ground or air forces, let alone air weapons. If Russia will not negotiate then it is enough to keep it out of Ukrainian soil.
Beyond this, President Vladimir Putin and his cabal of oligarchs and lap dog generals must face trial for the war crimes that they have committed in Ukraine, but also for the crimes that they have committed whilst in power, not only abroad but in their own state as well, against their own people. Not since Saddam Hussein and his crime family were put in the dock have we truly seen tyrants brought to justice. Also, I doubt we will see it anytime soon, but Russia must make a meaningful transition to a full secular democracy, plausibly along the lines of those laid out in the United States; it is the only revolution that carries any weight, that is looked upon as a model, and has survived into the 21st century. Perhaps along these lines we can work towards a longer and prosperous peace.
(Writer is a PhD scholar of Canterbury Christ Church University)
