As negotiations between Ukraine and Russia maybe move past ultimatums, I've seen discussions of what a settlement might ultimately look like.
One position is that any concession by Ukraine is a complete loss, given that Russia was the aggressor and Putin will have emerged with a victory.
That's an understandable reaction, but I think it's inaccurate.
Let’s say the terms are:
- Ukraine formally recognizes Russian control of Crimea and Donbas;
- Ukraine agrees to neutrality.
Does that suck? Yes. Russia was the aggressor, and this settlement means they got something out of launching an unprovoked war.
But it’s just not true to say it’s a complete loss.
Russia controls Crimea and Donbas now. Recognizing those facts on the ground as a concession to end the fighting isn’t good in that it rewards horrific behavior, but it doesn’t change any reality of who controls what.
Ukraine isn’t in NATO now and wasn’t on track to be for another 5 to 10 years. Saying explicitly, “We’ll be neutral” and thus taking away some freedom of action of the Ukrainian state isn’t good in that it rewards horrific behavior, but for the next 5 or 10 years Ukraine wouldn’t have been in NATO anyway.
What did Putin want?
He wanted Zelenskyy gone.
He wanted a pluralistic, relatively open system in Ukraine replaced by a government subservient to Russia.
He wanted to show what a badass Russia was, and its military.
If Ukraine and Russia end up settling on something like the deal I outlined up top, Putin gets none of that.
On top of that, he’s revealed his military to be weak and ineffective for its size when up against certain kinds of opposition.
So he gets formal recognition of things that were already true de facto, in exchange for thousands of war dead (so far), thousands of pieces of equipment lost (so far), crippling economic sanctions, a spur to Europe to wean themselves from dependence on Russian energy supplies, and the revelation to the world that he is militarily much weaker than everyone assumed.
That’s not a total loss for Putin, but it is still a very bad outcome.
Is it worse for Ukraine?
In many ways yes, of course.
2 million refugees.
Large numbers of civilian dead (one city reported 1,500, but they know that’s an incomplete count, so maybe we’re at 10,000 already; Putin’s probably not done bombing cities, so the total will likely be in the 10’s of thousands).
Apparently fewer military deaths than Russian military deaths, but maybe similar as a share of their army.
Massive damage to infrastructure.
But all of that is already true.
The deal I outlined up top stops those losses from accumulating.
And at the end of it, Ukraine has the support of much of the rest of the world to rebuild, and likely entree to some kind of economic arrangement with the EU, even while they stay out of NATO.
Is this outcome unjust?
Absolutely.
Something that approximated justice would have Russia returning control of Crimea and the Donbas, and paying for full reconstruction of physical damage in Ukraine, plus some kind of war indemnity.
But you only get to impose that kind of deal if you have the military might to force the other party to accept it.
Ukraine certainly doesn’t have that military might.
NATO maybe does, but then you have to ask whether something resembling justice for Ukraine is worth the likelihood of World War III.
Stalin invaded Finland in 1939. The Finns fought back much harder than the Soviets expected, and they used winter to full advantage. But eventually the sheer might of Soviet military power, however clumsily applied, carried the day.
Finland lost a war that had been unjustly waged against them. And they lost some territory. And as part of the ultimate settlement after World War II, they accepted neutrality.
Did that suck? In some ways, yes.
Was it unjust? Sure.
But they preserved the ability to manage their own affairs at home, and became one of those Nordic social democracies that many of us Americans look at longingly.
They escaped the fate of their Baltic neighbors who were fully incorporated into the Soviet Union, saw large numbers of their people exiled to other parts of the USSR, saw an influx of Russians, and saw their economies hobbled by 40 years of Soviet-style economic management.
If Ukraine can fight its way to a Finnish-style settlement, that will be unfair and emotionally unsatisfying.
But the only likely alternatives I see are:
- Complete subjugation to Russia
- A wider war, possibly World War III
If I’m right about that, then a Finnish solution for Ukraine is the least-bad outcome at this point.
