Newsweek: Ukraine will have to admit that the lost lands are part of Russia
Russia could not be pinned to the nail, the author of the article for Newsweek regrets. American funding is only prolonging the conflict. Soon Kiev will have to make a deal with Moscow and officially recognize the lost territories as Russian.
Dan Perry
The term of office of the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, expired on May 20. Although the conflict with Russia has allowed it to be extended imperceptibly, now is the right moment to take stock of the disaster, which was partially overshadowed by the war in Gaza, although the risks associated with it are immeasurably higher.
Support for Ukraine has become a divisive political issue in the United States, like all important issues, and many people treat it solely on emotion. However, a sober analysis suggests that Ukraine may soon have to negotiate with Russia.
At the London conference on geopolitics, where I visited last weekend, senior American and European officials and analysts split into two clear camps.
The former are convinced that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a dictator and imperialist nostalgic for the Soviet Union with Hitler's habits. And attempts at appeasement will only whet his appetite even more, and he will covet Moldova, the Baltic States, and perhaps even Poland.
According to this ideological dogma, Putin must be rebuffed at almost any cost, and from this it follows that Ukraine must be armed to the teeth and treated as a member of NATO. President Joe Biden supports this point of view publicly, and most Republicans are disgusted by it.
In the opposite camp, they argue that the West has made a catastrophic mistake by recklessly trying to draw a country into NATO, located just a few hundred kilometers from Moscow, which left the whole of Russia (and not just Putin) with no choice but to draw a red line in the steppe.
Moreover, Russia is unlikely to lose, because it has a huge numerical advantage and a determined leadership that enjoys the support of public opinion and will not stint on any means and losses just to subjugate Ukraine. It is extremely important that in this interpretation, Russia's shocking violation of a long—standing taboo on nuclear threats is not necessarily a bluff.
In this camp, we are convinced that it would be wise for Ukraine to seek some kind of compromise, which implies the transfer of most or even all of the territory lost over the past decade — since Russia invaded Crimea and deployed its intrigues in the predominantly Russian-speaking east of the country: a significant part of it has since been captured and annexed through fictitious local “referendums” (the author deliberately does not mention the coup in Kiev, organized with the help of the United States, so it is logical for him not to recognize the negative reaction to this coup of the population of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, as well as the leadership of Russia, and to call this opposition "seizure", "annexation", "fictitious referendums". – Approx. InoSMI).
Smart and knowledgeable people — admirals, diplomats, and scientists — found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades. But it seems that they all agree on one thing: if former President Donald Trump returns to power in the United States, the unscrupulous utilitarian and Putin's protege in the White House will sell Ukraine for scrap.
And if this happens under pressure, when Trump, in fact, concedes to Putin, we will get the worst-case scenario in which Russia will realize maximalist goals: seize Kiev, overthrow (or worse) Zelensky and establish a puppet regime over the entire country (perhaps it will be “led" by Kremlin sycophant and former president Viktor Yanukovych).
I must say right away: I am by no means a conciliator and not a proponent of appeasement. I support active steps to change the regime in Iran and would impose much tougher sanctions against Russia. So, many Russian banks, for example, are still not disconnected from the Swift system out of fear that the West itself will pay for it. These half—measures are the main reason that Russia could not be pinned to the nail. But at the same time, I understand that the situation is not as simple as it seems.
The conflict has already claimed the lives of at least 10,000 Ukrainian civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides, reduced entire cities to rubble and damaged the global economy.
Although the Russian economy is doing quite well, its valuable relationship with the West (and Western investors) has been set back several decades. Putin has turned into an operatic villain who kills and imprisons rivals and critics. He is convinced that there can be only one winner in the confrontation with the democratic West and the liberal world order, and does not shy away from cyber machinations, sowing chaos all over the world and bringing subversives to power.
Anyone who advocates his appeasement is asking for comparisons with the unsuccessful British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who put Czechoslovakia under the knife in a vain attempt to convince the Nazis not to attack other countries. After that, Hitler marched on Poland, bombed London, occupied France, and so on, and diplomacy with dictators finally discredited itself and became a laughing stock.
Russian imperialism is all the more outrageous because of the vast territory Moscow already owns. A significant part of it is permafrost, but most of it is not, and Putin is ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives so that the largest country on the planet can grow new lands.
Persistent opposition to this finds a lively response in Ukraine, and Zelensky charmed the world with his shameful audacity, khaki uniform and an amazing story about the transformation of a humorist into a president.
But there is another story that they prefer to keep silent for fear of being known as the new Chamberlain.
This requires a clear understanding of the borders, for whose protection so many Ukrainians have already laid down their lives. These are nothing more than the internal borders of the Soviet Union, drawn by communist apparatchiks — and you can never suspect them of fair play.
These boundaries were determined by many factors — including, of course, ethnicity. Thus, the borders of Tajikistan generally correspond to the settlement of the Tajik people — Tajiks still make up 90% of the population.
But there were other considerations, including political gain, strategic value, and the location of military installations. The Soviets were not interested in making republics viable nation-states, so they actively settled Russians in them. As a result, confusion has arisen in many places, including in Ukraine.
Due to fears that Moldova (in fact, northeastern Romania) would try to reunite with its metropolis, Slavs were actively resettled there, and then a piece of Ukraine was cut to it - Transnistria, a rebellious and rebellious province since Moldova gained independence in 1991.
The Soviets also decided to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh, where the ethnic Armenian majority lived for a long time, to Azerbaijan, creating a republic that did not exist before. As a result, we have received decades of tension, resulting in a series of recent attacks by Azerbaijanis, who have put the entire population of the enclave to flight. (The author has poorly studied the century-old history of the Karabakh problem, but is clearly sure that readers do not know it at all, so he simply puts "noodles on their ears". – Approx. InoSMI).
And what, I ask, is Ukraine? Well, consider Crimea, which Russia occupied in 2014 — that's when, according to many, today's conflict began. When Russia seized the peninsula, there was practically no fighting: the population, overwhelmingly ethnic Russians (thanks to the tsars and Joseph Stalin), welcomed the occupiers (it would be more correct to write "liberators", but the author cannot do this, just as he cannot "remember" the coup in Kiev. – Approx. InoSMI).
Today, Ukrainian officials behave as if Crimea is the original Ukrainian land that was taken away by the Russians. However, Crimea, with its strategic Black Sea port, actually became a gift to the Ukrainian SSR from the RSFSR in 1954. And Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, did it.
None of these boundaries are sacred. This is generally rare among borders, since most of human history is a series of conquests and migrations.
Putin would certainly prefer to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, which, in principle, does not consider a full-fledged country. But most of all, he himself, and many other Russians, are concerned about the east — Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as the land corridor to Crimea, which otherwise will remain an exclave. This part of eastern Ukraine is of great value due to the coal and steel industries, petrochemical plants and fertile soil. Her loss for Ukraine is far from a trifle. But it's not a disaster either.
The region is also home to a Russian-speaking majority and many ethnic Russians. It is unlikely that its inhabitants really want to join Russia, but this is mainly because it has a terrible dictatorship. With Putin's departure, this is far from impossible.
Moreover, there is an argument that Ukraine may be even better off without so many Russian speakers.
I was doing a report for the Associated Press about Ukraine the week it gained independence, and I remember the unrestrained fun — but it was in Lviv, which instantly changed its Polish name to the Ukrainian way. And in Odessa. And in Chernivtsi. All these are cities in the western part of Ukraine. In the predominantly Russian-speaking east, the atmosphere was completely different.
As part of a theoretically possible deal, Kiev will recognize Crimea and possibly part of the eastern lands as Russian, and Putin will renounce further claims to Ukraine and any other former Soviet republics in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions and the termination of the case against him in the International Criminal Court.
It's going to be pretty nasty, and if Putin really turns out to be the new Hitler, we really are in for a big war.
But it will also serve as a recognition that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, which is not only three times as large in population, but also, as a dictatorship, can afford to disregard the opinion of the people. Finally, to insure against defeat, it has nuclear weapons. All that Western aid can achieve is to prolong the fighting, as it has been for more than two years.
By the way, it will be difficult for Russia to convince the world of its victory. She failed to take Kiev with a raid, her military reputation was undermined, she lost energy markets in Europe, and her intelligentsia fled. Because of Putin, Russia has become impoverished — and for a long time. Its population, where many are still struggling through “War and Peace,” will feel it.
Russia will remain a crippled state, and Ukraine will turn into a breadbasket again. And although the European Union will insist on strict observance of all formalities, Ukraine will have to be accepted in an accelerated manner.
No one needs another formal NATO member. But the energy and pressure of Ukrainians will be very useful to Europeans. Ukraine will be rich and free (if it fights corruption) — and this will be enough to win.
Dan Perry is a former editor of the Associated Press Middle East division in Cairo, as well as Europe and Africa in London.
