Last week, a text published in these pages raised serious doubts about the future of Western support vis-à-vis Ukraine. According to independent researcher Jocelyn Coulon, the pro-Ukraine Western consensus that has prevailed so far is indeed waning as Europe and the United States realize the magnitude of the political and economic burden. imposed by the continuing fighting.
The author is particularly critical of President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose “absolutist” approach of defending Ukrainian territory at all costs would constitute proof that emotions prevail over reason in Kyiv. “Intoxicated by a few military successes”, Zelensky would indeed have chosen to lead his country into an endless struggle instead of considering a dialogue with the Russian invader. Faced with the inevitable, Ukraine would now have no choice but to “make a difficult decision”.
This difficult decision suggested by the author is never formally defined.
However, we can easily read between the lines: Ukraine should negotiate with Russia, that is to say concede part of the territories that have been stolen from it since 2014.
The argument rests on several dubious premises, however. On the one hand, that a Ukrainian concession would minimize the extent of the destruction, and on the other hand, that these territorial concessions would bring the conflict closer to its outcome, which would benefit ultimately to the West. We think it’s a mirage.
The cost of a Ukrainian defeat
Accepting some of Russia’s demands by ceding part of Ukrainian territory to it would in no way guarantee a return to peace or an improvement in the lot of Ukrainian civilians. At this point, there is no reason to believe that Russia would respect a signed agreement with Ukraine and not take advantage of an armistice to rebuild its forces and attempt a new assault on the capital. The occupation of Crimea did not effectively prevent Russia from invading Ukraine last February and it quickly became clear that the previously launched negotiation process only served to conceal Russian military preparations.
These territorial concessions would also place thousands of Ukrainian civilians under Russian control, making them vulnerable to the abuses and human rights crimes that Russia has demonstrated in recent months. The indiscriminate bombings, the nuclear escalation and the destruction of energy installations show that Russia’s current position leaves very little room for the opening of a dialogue.
On the contrary, it is Vladimir Putin’s demands that are “hardly reasonable”.
The Kremlin’s objective indeed goes beyond the invasion of Ukraine: Vladimir Putin wishes, on the one hand, to reconnect with Russia’s status as a great power and, on the other hand, to challenge the liberal international order which dominates since the end of World War II.
Hasty negotiations unfavorable to Ukraine would thus have major consequences on the future of international relations and the norms that govern them.
Finally, Western chancelleries very clearly reiterated their support for Ukraine at the last G7 Summit. Western leaders thus seem to understand that it was largely the lack of a firm reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea that led Moscow to consider a full invasion of Ukraine and that the mistake should not be repeated. a second time.
The question that arises rather concerns the most opportune moment to try to negotiate the end of the war, that is to say the moment when Ukraine will be in the most advantageous position to impose its own terms. In any case, the difficult decision concerning peace and the future of the country will have to respect the will of the Ukrainian people who will continue to express themselves, in particular, through the voice of their president.