Why It’s So Hard to End the War in Ukraine

Both sides see more peril in negotiations than continuing the fight.

By
36
A wounded man walks past as emergency service personnel attend to the site of a blast in Kyiv, Ukraine. (Photo by Ed Ram/Getty Images)

Ukrainians’ confidence is growing after a series of battlefield victories culminated with a successful attack on the symbolically and strategically important Kerch Bridge. Yet anxiety lingers over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to his bloody and protracted invasion—and what he might do to turn the tide.

A consensus has developed in Ukraine that winning is the only option. That means repelling Russian forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, taking legal action against Russian war criminals, pursuing reparations and eventually joining the European Union and NATO. The question is whether Ukraine can maintain these ambitious goals if its supporters begin pushing for a less ambitious settlement.

This week leaders of the G-7 issued a statement promising to stand with Kyiv “for as long as it takes.” National leaders have made similar pronouncements for months. Although officially supportive of Ukraine’s goals, many allies have worried publicly about the danger of Putin’s nuclear threats and energy blackmail.

“What is Putin’s off-ramp?” U.S. President Joe Biden asked a gathering of donors in New York City last week. “Where does he find himself in a position that he does not—not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?” Biden also implied that the way to avoid nuclear war may be to strike a deal with Moscow. This echoes statements from some skittish European leaders and even billionaire Elon Musk. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
36
By
Comments (36)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Pohl

    I’m just glad the Polish Debski is not in charge of NATO policy. We are the paymaster and not beholden to Ukrainian bitter-enders. I also support arming them to the teeth, but prefer to do this after an acceptable peace. There’s the rub. They shouldn’t have to surrender territory, but an outright defeat of Russia seems unlikely. What else will Putin accept? I don’t know.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ed P

    The Biden administration, so far, has handled this situation rather admirably.

    Russia is punching itself out. Ukraine suffers, but also is able to defend itself with the support of the free world. The Western alliance remains intact and seems unified against Russia. Even China and India taking steps away from Russia.

    Nukes are scary. But they do not accomplish any of Putin’s objectives here except terror. They cannot capture territory, they cannot end the Ukrainian state or stop perceived threats from the West. If the goal is annexation, why nuke your own turf, particularly with prevailing wind patterns? What it does is guarantee overwhelming international response, likely aimed at regime change. It threatens everyone the whole world over. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

    So let’s stop giving it so much consideration. There is terror invoked constantly bringing it up, whether thats consciously obvious or not. It is.

    And Biden has done a fine job walking that line - acknowledging this situation in a manner to assuage fears without doting on it or giving it undue prominence.

    Collapse
  3. Halvor

    Let's concede that Europeans hate to shiver and Americans must have cheap gasoline. Also, many of our fellow citizens rather like Putin, the strongman determined to congeal gender fluidity and make his country great. We have too many paralyzing squabbles already without another argument over a foreign war. We must learn from the historical ironies that brought us to this impasse. And of course it's worth pausing our lust for victory to ponder the unspeakable daily cost in life & treasure. All these considerations could lead us to stop enabling the Ukrainians, brave as they are, and force them to submit to the bitter, but healing, peace that fate and their location have dealt them.

    What peace deal is that? Do those who are "anti-war" (in contrast to the combatants) even care what the specific terms might be? All deprecate war, still one makes war rather than let the other survive, and the other accepts war rather than perish. So a little help here from the all-seeing would be appreciated, please! What are Ukrainians and Russians going to be left with, and how are they to go about living with it, jointly and severally?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      Well thats it.

      Russians don’t have any say. And Ukrainians are fighting tooth and nail to not suffer that sake fate.

      There is no peace that is not victory for one or the other. Perhaps a cease fire. But there is zero overlap of goals.

      Collapse
    2. Israel.D.Gale

      You mention an "impasse". What "impasse"? The Ukrainians are slowly winning, with our intellingence and weapons supply. Let them keep going.

      Collapse
    3. Tcfoothills

      The Washington Post said it early in a article. USA gives money and weapons to Ukraine but not help the outcome of the war, so says the politicians. If someone gives me money and weapons, would you say they own me or our blindly helping me ? Wake up

      Collapse
      1. Halvor

        Alas, that doesn’t answer my question.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Paul Montagu

    The fundamental issue is that this all goes back to Putin and his quest for control of a territory that he has no right to, and he's been meddling in Ukrainian affairs since at least as far back as 2004, when he poisoned Yushchenko to give his stooge (Yanukovch) an electoral advantage.

    In this current war, Putin made clear that Ukraine has no right to exist and should be absorbed into Russia. In effect, his goal is the cultural genocide of Ukraine, and his "annexations" are basically a cultural genocide one oblast at a time.

    In that vein, it's understandable that Ukraine seeks to reclaim all of its conquered territory. They have the right to defend and retake every square inch, and Putin had no right to invade and occupy it, in 2014 and today. I can see why Ukrainians would rather take their chances fighting this existential war than be forced to cede any of their homeland to a Russian imperialist.

    The other fundamental issue is that, if Ukraine wants to keep its society, it has no choice but to fight for it. On the other side, Putin's war of aggression is a war of choice. Like the saying goes, it Russia stops fighting, war's over, and if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine's over. Putin can end it with a conference call to his generals, and he has an easy off-ramp, just declare the country "de-nazified" and leave. Will he do it? I doubt it.

    I've seen Putin make no serious overtures toward negotiation, not with the untenable conditions he's made before. And even if he strikes a deal, what assurances are there that he'll abide? He welshed on the Budapest Memorandum, a 1997 treaty, the Minsk agreements and the Geneva Conventions. From what I've seen, things like international law and agreements and treaties mean nothing to the ex-KGB sputnik. Without Putin making any accommodations, it seems to me the best route is to keep sending aid and keep expanding the sanctions, which would allow them to beat the sh-t out of the rashist invaders. That, and hope for an enterprising Russian to end Putin and thus allow an avenue to end this atrocity.

    Collapse
  5. Genny

    Putin did a stupid thing. The world does not owe him an off-ramp. Until Putin decides to give up and go home, or someone in his country decides that for him, Ukraine will rightfully continue to push Russia out. Putin should be working on his propaganda stories about how his retreat is actually a great victory for the Russian people and not keep digging that hole he's digging. Putin is a bully who picked on the wrong person and there is nothing to prevent the continuous thrashing he's taking under he says uncle and gives up.

    Collapse
  6. Mjc1982

    This is good reporting and analysis. It is why despite how terrible the human cost is going to be, this war will go on for a long time. Can't see it wrapping up in a year or even two absent some really dramatic developments.

    Collapse
    1. Israel.D.Gale

      Your comment is not fact-based. If.we.keep supporting them, at the rate Ukraine is currently pushing the Russians back, the Russians will be out within a year.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Wilhelm

      Charlotte does good work. Clear, concise reporting.

      Collapse
  7. Tom Doniphon

    Negotiations are unlikely on the Ukrainian side for a few reasons.

    Firstly, almost any concessions would be a defeat for Ukraine and a victory for Russia; people (Musk included) keep floating the idea of Russia being allowed to retain Crimea and having more referenda decide what other provinces become part of Russia. They also often include a promise that Ukraine would join neither NATO nor the EU. This would, in fact, be a complete victory for Russia, one giving Putin at the negotiating table what he's unable to take on the battlefield. It would leave Ukraine dismembered and without allies, left at the nonexistent mercy of Russia. The only real concession that could possibly be acceptable to Ukraine would be forgoing reparations payments from Russia, which are in most scenarios highly unlikely. But the goals of a complete Russian exit from all Ukrainian lands, including Crimea, and no Russian veto over who Ukraine allies with, who the US allies with, or who NATO or the EU admit, plus the return of all Ukrainian citizens (civilians and soldiers alike) taken into Russian custody - how could these goals be forgone? “Ukrainians have a full right to define their war aims, and they want to put an end to Russian occupation", as Mr. Dębski said; the Ukrainians can concede what they wish to concede, but I doubt they'll make any more concessions than possibly forgoing demands for Russian monetary reparations.

    Secondly, Ukrainians know that anything short of a Russian defeat gives Putin (or a successor) incentive to try again; even if their victory were costly enough that a cost-benefit analysis said the juice wasn't worth the squeeze, even a partial, Pyrrhic victory might convince them to just do it better the second time around. Russia's hand has already been burned in this war, but if they are rewarded for it, they might decide the gains were worth the price paid. Further, it would go some way to restoring Russian self-perception of themselves as a dominant power, at least regionally, able and entitled to dominate at least their neighbors - starting of course with former Soviet republics (including current Baltic NATO member-states) but also eventually including former Warsaw Pact countries. A true defeat might teach them that it's bad enough to grab a wolverine and get your hand mauled, but getting your hand mauled for nothing in return is just a bad idea.

    And thirdly - Ukraine is winning. Why negotiate away that which national sovereignty says must not be negotiated away, especially when winning? As I say, if some concession is required, forgoing any claim on financial reparations is one possibility, but the exit of Russian troops from all Ukrainian lands, the return of all Ukrainians from Russian custody, and no Russian veto over US or Ukrainian alliances, or over NATO or EU membership - these are non-negotiable.

    The only real fears are Putin's threats to European energy and the use of nuclear weapons. Europe can manage without Russian energy, in the long run; the US can and should improve our ability to export LNG and other fuels, and Europe needs to reverse her absurd course of denuclearization of their energy grid. As for nuclear weapons, a strong NATO deterrent should eliminate that threat; inform Putin, publicly and privately both, that any use of any nuclear weapon, no matter how small, and no matter the target (even a demonstration detonation over the sea that harms nobody) will be treated as a threat to the United States and NATO, and we will destroy his nuclear forces ourselves - all of them. Hit his ICBM silos, his sub pens, and his airfields, and sink as much of the Russian Navy as we can manage; every sub especially, but also every surface vessel that doesn't immediately signal surrender and either accept a boarding party or else abandon ship and scuttle.

    Nobody wants that level of force used - even though Russian ICBM silos and strategic bomber airfields are far from mass human habitation, we still don't want to drop nukes at all. But if it's the only way to keep a lid on the use of nuclear force by tyrants like Putin in the future, that price has to be paid.

    Make all of that clear, and perhaps Putin, or a successor, will come to the negotiating table.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    "A wounded man walks past as emergency service personnel attend to the site of a blast in Kyiv, Ukraine."

    75%. Just include the date next time, and you'll earn a gold star!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Wilhelm

      The Dispatch cutlines oftentimes leave something to be desired. IMHO, cutlines should be at least as valuable as a deck hed to draw the reader into the story. But that's just me.

      Collapse
  9. Dtruitt96

    It's ridiculous to even discuss "negotiation". When asked by a reporter the other day on a video how to end the war, Finland's prime minister replied simply, "Russia leaves Ukraine." Then she laughed as if this was the dumbest question ever put to her.

    There is no exit ramp for Putin except his death. Eventually someone or group in Russia will take that step. The exit ramp for Russia is for Putin to die and for Russian forces to leave Ukraine, and become a peaceable non-threatening neighbor to all her neighbors. There is zero point in considering any other outcome.

    Collapse
    1. Kroneborge

      "There is no exit ramp for Putin except his death".

      If that's the case then Putin might figure why not use nuclear weapons.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        So he’s willing to destroy the world just because he’s threatened? I doubt it.

        And I don’t think the other Russians necessary in the chain of command would abide

        Collapse
      2. David R

        To be clear, it's entirely Putin's fault there's no real off ramp for him; if he were okay with only getting 55% of the vote then he could have been holding real elections in Russia and then he'd just resign or lose the next one (or decline to seek re-election) and retire from politics. Instead he decided that the smart thing to do was have his political enemies mysteriously fall out windows or develop poisoning.

        Collapse
    2. Tom Doniphon

      I don't really care if Putin dies; I don't even care if he leaves office. I just want him out of Ukraine and to know that he has no say in who Ukraine, the US, or NATO allies with. And to leave his hands off his European neighbors.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed P

        I don’t see how he could be trusted to respect international borders again after this. Putin leaves Russia an international pariah not quite as bad a N Korea, but looking on their way there, including being dominated by China.

        Its really better for everyone but Putin and China for Putin to get axed

        Collapse
      2. DTruitt

        Putin cannot remain ... he's an unreconstructed Soviet Empire wannabe czar.

        Personnel IS policy.

        Collapse
        1. Tom Doniphon

          That ignores power as a factor. Putin can desire all the policy he chooses, but if he doesn't have the power to implement it, then he doesn't have the power to implement it.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      Like.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Annette Collins

      I think this is right. Unfortunately, the pre-conditions for Putin's fall and Russian withdrawal are extreme and extended Russian bleeding. In the short term, that leads to a less-stable Europe. Maybe longer-term we get a larger NATO alliance and Marshall Plan for Ukraine that re-shapes Western power. I'm not smart enough to contemplate China's strategy response to events.

      Collapse
      1. Tom Doniphon

        I unfortunately can't say what we could do to contain China as far as preventing them taking part of eastern Russia. Absent a more extreme situation where we actually occupied Russia for a time (which is entirely out of the question outside of the unlikely scenario where Putin used a small nuke and we in return wiped out his entire nuclear arsenal, and unlikely even then) there's little we could do. I suppose if Putin were removed by genuine reformers, we could, in theory, and in time, see a situation where Russia did (as was once predicted) become a NATO member, but this seems unlikely. Unlikely in the medium term (the long term being unknowable) and of course out of the question in the short term, no matter how promising a reform government looked.

        But of course there's no assurance any reform government will come to power; their organized crime cartel has a strong grip on governmental power, and is unlikely to be shattered soon by any liberal means. The military could remove them by force, but this is unlikely to lead in a liberal direction; their military is staffed by corrupt plutocrats, not professionals dedicated to their homeland. Even if the topmost generals were removed from the equation and power was seized by a cartel of, let's say, colonels, the corruption system has deep roots in the Russian military, and is not restricted to the very top of the chain of command.

        All of this could weaken Russia sufficiently for China to steal some resource-right eastern provinces, and there would be little we could do about it beyond sanctions.

        Collapse
  10. Dmoelling

    Part of the problem is that US Presidents have been unable to conceive of someone with Stalin or Hitler type territorial ambitions. Bush, Obama and Trump all thought they could talk with Putin and work things out. (Trump could only see it as a personal problem with Ukraine). No one knows what Biden's conception was.
    Putin was good at the "seize the airport and radio station" type missions to maintain the ex-Soviet republics allegiance. That is falling apart with only tepid support from Belarus, Kazakhstan and others. All of their strongmen are pretty weak and have to not anger the populous. The West may need to telegraph what a new Post-Putin arrangement might be to force the change in power

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Normb1442

      Biden is the one said to Putin's face "I don't think you have a soul." A direct rebuttal to Dubya saying he looked into Putin's soul. Everything Biden has done since the invasion began in February is consistent with that view.

      The man has many shortcomings but in this crisis he has been the realist from day one.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      Like.

      Collapse
Load More