The position of the leaders of the NATO member countries, like that of President Zelensky and his entourage, is based on the assumption that Ukrainian victory is only a matter of time. In doing so, no diplomatic solution is envisaged, despite all the risks that entails. According to the Chief of Staff of the Norwegian army, there are more than 280,000 dead or wounded in the Russian and Ukrainian armies and 30,000 civilian dead. How many more will die before the hypothetical Ukrainian victory? The strength of the Russian army was certainly overestimated at the time of the invasion, but it would be prudent to avoid underestimating it, military experts being far from unanimous.
On February 16, General Mark Milley, the United States Army Chief of Staff, declared that “it will be almost impossible for the Russians to achieve their political objectives by military means” and that will also be “very, very difficult” for Ukraine to expel all Russian forces from the occupied territory. A war of attrition could go on for a long time. Russia has resources and allies to supply it with weapons. Its population is three times that of Ukraine and has not yet shown any propensity for revolt.
President Zelensky says he wants to chase the Russian army from all Ukrainian territory before starting negotiations. Should we include Crimea, whose population, made up mainly of ethnic Russians, has been seeking since 1992 to join Russia? The cession of Crimea to Ukraine dates from 1954, a gift from Khrushchev within the framework of a dictatorial regime. Not only would the local population not accept his return to Ukraine, but the strategic nature of the peninsula, with the naval base of Sevastopol, would incite the Russian army to fight fiercely, leading to an escalation that could bring us closer to danger. nuclear. Some deny the existence of such a danger. Matthew Bunn, a professor specializing in nuclear policy at Harvard University, saidrecently remembered that if Putin had to choose between crossing the nuclear threshold “and a humiliating defeat that could put him out of power, he may well go to the nuclear button.”
Our camp is demanding an unconditional withdrawal from Russia, which it obviously won’t get. However, there are other means than guns and ineffective economic sanctions. Considering the consequences of this war for the world economy, the environment and, above all, the risk of an extension of the conflict, what is happening in Ukraine concerns everyone. Neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians can be left alone to decide the outcome of this war, how to end it and when to take action. The great powers will have to agree as soon as possible to negotiate a ceasefire. If Russia refuses, it will bear the blame and suffer the consequences, for example by no longer taking advantage of the current divisions which allow it to circumvent sanctions.
Nothing prevents both arming Ukraine and undertaking talks. The pressure on the Putin regime would be stronger, while reassuring the Ukrainians. A ceasefire is not a peace treaty and would in no way recognize Russia’s territorial gains. We must think of Korea, where it has been going on for 70 years. We are far from an ideal situation, but the massacres have stopped. Putin will not stay in power for 70 years. Since 2014, the country’s economic growth has been practically nil. The demographic outlook predicts net losses of at least one million people per year. This long decline will affect political stability. It is hard to see who, in this country, would enjoy a popularity comparable to that of Putin to maintain the balance between the different pillars of power. A change of leadership would likely lead to a withdrawal of troops from Donbass. Such a perspective is certainly hypothetical, but no more than that of the supporters of the military solution who are betting on a Ukrainian victory. And it has the advantage of being infinitely less lethal.
So far, not only has our side not done anything in this direction, but, if we are to believe the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, it has even helped to end the talks already underway in March 2022. The United States is taking advantage of the weakening of Russia in the current context of the restructuring of the international system, whose multipolar nature it refuses to accept with the rise of new powers, including China. This war allows them to consolidate their influence on the European Union. Their cereal producers are benefiting from the rise in export prices, as are the producers of liquefied natural gas, which will replace Russian gas. Current tensions are inflating military budgets around the world, providing their arms suppliers with particularly welcome revenue for the Biden administration.
It should therefore come as no surprise that in all of his interventions, Biden never mentions the possibility of negotiating a ceasefire. For different reasons, Canada’s rhetoric is just as closed to a diplomatic solution. And yet, in its identity construction, our own camp sees itself as that of democracy against authoritarianism. Surprisingly, the only major power currently making (vain) diplomatic moves to end the conflict is authoritarian China, not the democratic West.