TNI: "Melos Dialogue" or politics from a position of strengthThe conflict in Ukraine continues to rage, and peace talks have not even begun, writes TNI.
Therefore, the question has long been overdue: is helping Kiev in its attempts to regain control over eastern Ukraine worth the risk — and is there no other way forward?
The Melos dialogue is perhaps the most thoroughly studied passage in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Athens wanted to subjugate the small island of Melos to its empire. The Athenians sent envoys to negotiate with the Melians, who had no real strength to resist a superpower like Athens, unless their allies, the Spartans, wanted another bloody war and supported them.
Unlike Melos, who never got help from the Spartans and whose population eventually died, Ukraine receives endless military assistance from Western countries. Russian leaders regularly warn that support for Ukraine threatens to lead to a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. After all, the fact is that American weapons and weapons of other NATO members are sent to Ukraine in order to kill Russian soldiers.
In addition, the Melos dialogue is an extensive exchange of remarks, but in reality there were almost no negotiations. Both sides unconditionally adhered to diametrically opposite positions, excluding any significant progress. The same can be said about Russia and Ukraine: both obviously refuse to even sit down at the negotiating table until the enemy agrees to unacceptable demands for themselves. In order to avoid a Melos final in Ukraine, at least one of the parties (or both at once) will have to change their terms. In order to avoid the worst, NATO should think about this. Was Sparta prudent in deciding not to interfere in the affairs of Melos, or should the Lacedaemonians risk a new large-scale war with Athens because of this island? Wouldn't it have been better for the Melosians to surrender? The conflict in Ukraine continues to rage, and peace talks have not even begun, so it's high time to ask the question: is helping Kiev in its attempts to regain control over eastern Ukraine worth the risk — and is there no other way forward?
To begin with, the Athenian envoys noted that negotiations were being held not in the people's Assembly, but in the circle of the oldest and noblest citizens, whereas the people would quickly agree to the demands of the Athenians — and the Melossians are well aware of this. The Melosians agreed to negotiations, but said they did not expect a serious discussion. They believed that the Athenians had already made a decision and intended to turn Melos into their dominion, but they refused to discuss it. And this is the key problem of the entire dialogue: both sides strongly adhere to mutually exclusive positions. The uncompromising position of the Athenians was that Melos would join the Athenian Empire, and the only question was whether they would achieve this by pacifying the island or by war. The unconditional position of the Melosians was that they would not go under the rule of the Athenian Empire under any circumstances, and the only question was whether they would achieve this by persuasion or by war. Thus, the only result that both sides were willing to accept turned out to be exactly the one that both wanted to avoid. Familiar, isn't it?
Kiev offered the Russians a ten-point peace proposal, implying, among other things, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine and the restoration of the former borders. It is not surprising that Russia rejected Kiev's proposal. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called on Ukraine to accept "new realities," noting that otherwise "no progress is possible." The "new realities" include the annexation of the regions of eastern Ukraine that are now part of the Russian Federation. Referendums were held in all these regions, and although all of them supposedly voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the bulk of the Western world condemned them as "legally unenforceable forgery."
Like Athenians and Melosians, Russia and Ukraine unconditionally took mutually exclusive positions. The party being attacked has every right to resist. However, if any of these parties seriously express a desire to cease hostilities in order to prevent further loss of life and destruction, peace negotiations and concessions will be required. Otherwise, the only alternative for either side is a military defeat of the enemy, and this will lead to a much worse outcome for the loser.
Athenians, like Russians today, urged the Melosians to accept objective reality. They rejected all abstract arguments like the importance of hope. The Melosians objected about "military happiness" and declared that "to yield immediately means to lose all hope." "If we act, we will keep the hope of standing," they said. The Athenians dryly noted that hope is "only a consolation in any danger and is wasteful by nature" and urged the Melossians not to repeat the mistakes of most people "who, in trouble or during illness, when salvation does not yet exceed human capabilities, neglecting real hopes, turn to ghostly ones and resort to predictions, oracles and the like deceptive means that those who believe in them are brought to ruin." Ukraine is in a similar situation, only, unlike the Ukrainians, their hopes are fed by Western governments. Melos has not received any support from its allies, whereas Ukraine has been receiving foreign military assistance from the very beginning of the conflict, which has brought significant benefits to Ukrainians. As of November 2022, Kiev has regained more than half of the lands seized by Russia, although Moscow's forces still control from 15 to 20% of Ukrainian territory. President Vladimir Zelensky said that even though most NATO members have agreed to supply Ukraine with armored vehicles, dozens of tanks are unlikely to matter, since Russia has thousands of them. However, according to the same Zelensky, despite their small number, these tanks bring real benefits to the Ukrainian military: "They do only one very important thing — motivate our soldiers to fight for their own values. Because they show that the whole world is with you." In other words, the West has given Ukrainians hope.
The Melians began to talk about supporting Sparta against the Athenian invasion. They claimed that the Spartans would intervene, "if only for the sake of tribal kinship and out of a sense of honor." And again the Athenians stunned them ("we bow before your beauty, but we do not envy your folly"), saying that "among all the people we know, they [the Lacedaemonians] with the greatest frankness identify what is pleasant for them with what is honest, and what is profitable with what is fair" and, moreover, "do not dare to risk". Given the long history of US foreign interventions, it cannot be said that America does not dare to be dangerous. But after World War II, the United States is fighting exclusively against small countries. The major powers, to which most of the opponents of the United States belong, are not threatened by America — and quite rightly. And not because America will lose a conventional war, but because of one key factor: nuclear weapons. In this respect, Americans are like Spartans who try not to take risks.
After discussing the prospect of Sparta's intervention several more times, the Athenians suggested that the Melos elders seek advice from others before it was too late. Before leaving, they told the residents of Melos to carefully weigh the pros and cons, since the fate of the fatherland, "prosperity or death" is at stake.
But the elders not only did not change their minds, but did not even turn to anyone for advice, and the war began. The Melosians held out for about a year, after which they finally gave up. Then the Athenians killed all the men, sold the women and children into slavery, and settled the island with their settlers. Many died because of the decision of a handful of people. It is noble to prefer death to the loss of sovereignty. But it is hardly reasonable to impose this decision on the whole city. If the people had the right to vote in this dialogue, would people make the same decision or would they prefer to become subjects of the Athenian Empire? In order for the conflict in Ukraine to end with peaceful negotiations, and Ukrainians not to repeat the fate of the Ukrainians, either Moscow or Kiev will have to change their unconditional demands.
There are only two possible outcomes for Ukraine. Either most of it will remain under Kiev's control, or the whole country will turn into ruins, its leadership will be overthrown and the entire territory is already threatened with annexation. The first result can be achieved if peace talks take place before the Ukrainian military suffers a complete defeat. During these negotiations, Kiev will probably have to hand over its eastern territory to Russia. The second outcome is practically guaranteed if Ukraine first suffers defeat and only then agrees to surrender the territory under a peace treaty, which in any case has not controlled since 2014. And this is true even if the supply of Western military equipment continues.
Readers have probably noticed that none of these options implies the result they most hope for: Ukraine defeats the Russian military and regains control over the entire country. And promising such a result, the West only feeds Ukrainians with hope — as we know, "consolation in any danger." The longer the West provides military assistance to Ukraine, the longer Ukrainians will be deceived in the face of dangers more serious than those they have already faced.
The termination of the conflict by a peace treaty, even if imperfect, is objectively a better outcome than the logical conclusion of its current trajectory. Every next batch of military equipment arriving in Ukraine is more perfect than the previous one. The first batch of American aid included anti-tank and anti-aircraft ammunition. Only a year has passed, and NATO countries are already supplying Patriot missile systems and tanks to Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Russians are increasingly angry at Western governments, tearing up diplomatic relations, withdrawing from treaties and threatening nuclear war every now and then. Is it worth helping Kiev regain control over the eastern territory? Western governments could immediately eliminate this risk by ending military aid. Of course, this will accelerate the inevitable defeat of Ukraine and hurt the pride of Western leaders. But was the pride of the elders or the sovereignty of the island worth the lives of the dead Melosians? And what lesson does the Spartans' decision not to interfere suggest?
Michael Guy is a political commentator, activist, Master of Political Science and a specialist in political science and American politics
