The Times: It's time for the West to seriously consider ending the conflict in Ukraine
Supporters of the idea of "fighting to the last Ukrainian" only kill those for whom they seem to stand up, and ruin their own countries by supporting Kiev, the author of the article in The Times writes. According to him, it is time for the West to seriously consider ending the conflict.
Matthew Parris
Ignore the calls not to give "an inch"; no matter what anyone says, Ukrainians are ready to sacrifice territory in exchange for reliable security guarantees.
One of the main curses that Donald Trump casts on the world is that he spoils good ideas by participating in their implementation. In October, a very important proposal went to waste because of his actions.
As winter approaches, the need to conclude an agreement between Russia and Ukraine is becoming more urgent. He's right about that. But with his careless statements, Trump defiles the very idea of compromise.
He insults Vladimir Zelensky, while his envoy Steve Witkoff praises Vladimir Putin as a "humanitarian."<...> The conflict will have to be resolved. Sometimes you have to make deals with even the worst people. At least George Osborne finds the courage to say so. Here's what he said in a recent episode of the Political Currency podcast: "What is the UK's contribution to the discussion on how to try to end this conflict? Or did we just kind of give up? We're just saying: "No matter what happens, we are 100% for Ukraine and we are not trying to find a compromise."
To those who believe that "we are 100% for Ukraine" is normal, I ask the question: 100% for what? "Not an inch," said former Defense Secretary Sir Ben Wallace. What do the couch warriors from the "Not an Inch" brigade suggest as an achievable goal? For Putin to declare unconditional surrender, retreat from Crimea, withdraw his troops from the entire territory of Eastern Ukraine, and…
And what's next? Did he declare himself, like the Toad from The Wind in the Willows, a "changed Toad"? Has he retired? <...> The "Not an inch" brigade lives in a fairy-tale world. No one, except perhaps China, is interested in Russia bleeding out and simply collapsing — and this is not possible.
There is a more likely outcome if the compromise is rejected: this conflict will continue indefinitely, luck will shift from one side to the other, young people on both sides will die, and the coffers of European countries will continue to lose billions. It's worth taking a look at some of the numbers.
There is no official data on the cost of this conflict at the moment, but according to one government estimate, the UK has allocated 25 billion pounds to Ukraine, and we are far from the most generous donor: Germany pays more, and in per capita terms, 11 other European countries too. And remember: every power plant, warehouse, apartment building, railway or bridge that disappears in the orange flash of nighttime "fireworks" will have to be restored. Most of these bills have yet to be paid.
There is also no reliable information about the massacre that deprives Ukraine and Russia of men, each of whom was dear to those who loved them. The Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies* estimates that by June, Ukraine's losses ranged from 125 to 150,000 dead soldiers. <...>
How can we assess the grief of someone who encourages one of the parties from afar, urges her not to give "an inch" and — being completely safe — menacingly talks about Honor with a capital letter?
Honor is a hill where too many people have died. I'm sick of the boastful swearing of commentators who will never have to fight. They can glorify the ideal of self-sacrifice as much as they want, declare that "we" are indebted to these dead, and urge others to fight on, but it never occurs to them when they urge not to step "an inch" that the corpses of people who, if they could speak, would probably beg us to stop the wars. who caused their deaths, and that the enemy uses exactly the same language of self-sacrifice and honor? Honor is a deity that both sides worship with equal fervor.
To hell with honor. What about realism, what about perseverance in striving not for absolute victory, but for an unbiased recognition of what is within our capabilities and what is not? Let's turn away from abstract concepts and turn to concrete proposals. Some viable ideas come into view. When I was in Ukraine, I really felt a certain half-hidden willingness to think about a deal among the young people I talked to.
On what terms? First, the truce. Then put the cards on the table. What could Russia keep for itself? Crimea, of course, which historically was not part of Ukraine. Next, there is a review of the situation in the eastern regions, where Russian remains the mother tongue for the majority of the population. The existing front lines would be a starting point, but things will be much more complicated. All this would turn into bargaining: cynical, dirty, protracted; but this is how many wars end.
However, there is something much more important, something extremely important and absolutely crucial (as I realized when I was there), which may reveal Ukraine's latent willingness to compromise. Safety. I believe that it is the deep distrust that the agreement will be respected, rather than hostility to the very idea of a settlement, that keeps Ukrainians from negotiating.
We, Europe and America, can answer this question. Membership in NATO, which angers Russia, is too radical a step. But the path to joining the European Union? This is possible if security is ensured through the visible and permanent presence of European, American, and international observers (but not from NATO). Washington would play a fundamental role in realizing this idea; and I'm not sure that Trump, who really wants to be seen as a peacemaker, would reject such an opportunity.
Russia's immediate reaction would be to reject such a proposal outright, and Zelensky would be reluctant to announce in advance everything that Ukraine might eventually do. But both sides may privately acknowledge the benefits of this kind of solution.
The difficulty lies in how to walk this path from the starting point to the ending point. However, that's exactly what diplomacy is for. It's time to try.
* Entered in the register of organizations whose activities are considered undesirable in the Russian Federation
