Russia’s continued war in Ukraine has led to persistent calls for a diplomatic settlement from various corners of the policy community, academia, and the extremes of the political spectrum. These calls are each rooted in a limited or constrained understanding of the conflict, the provision of funding and resources, and the logics of peace and war. Calls for peace absent the agency of the Ukrainian people and their government amount to an imperial imposition of outcomes that would likely be neither permanent nor just. Understanding the context of the conflict from the Ukrainian perspective contextualizes the calls for an imperially imposed peace from without.
Ukraine and her people have suffered as much or more than any other country over the last 100 years. From the forced starvation of Holodomor in the 1930s, the colonization of large swaths of Ukraine by Russian settlers, the political repressions, mass-deportations, mass-killings of Ukrainians, Tatars and others groups in the mid-to-late 1930s, to the battlefields of World War II, the resumed political repressions and deportations of the 1940s and 50s, an immense nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, the illegal seizure and conduct of an 8-year war by the Russian Federation in the Donbas, the annexation of Crimea, and now the full-scale war of aggression seeking the complete destruction of the Ukrainian state - millions of its citizens have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been arrested and deported. Its language, culture, religions, and politics have all been subject to intense coordinated and sustained repression. If one extends the timeline back more than 100 years Ukraine been ripped apart by its neighbors repeatedly for nearly 1,000 years. Yet through it all Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and created a robust culture and language distinct from its neighbors.
To date the United States has committed $52.4 Billion or approximately 3.48% of the U.S. Federal budget to support Ukraine over the course of the last year. In response, the U.S. has not only supported an ally, but gained substantial intelligence on the military strategies, operations, tactics, and capabilities, of the Russian Federation. This information has the potential to save the U.S. billions of dollars in future weapon systems acquisition costs and save the lives of U.S. service persons in future conflict. Beyond the direct benefits to the U.S. These funds have enabled Ukraine to fend off what only 9 months ago was considered the second or third most powerful military in the world. Ukraine has proven itself willing and able use the resources it has been provided to defend its people and territory. It has combined these resources with those from other countries and its own blood and treasure. Millions of Ukrainians are involved in the war effort either in active military positions, territorial defense forces, emergency services, production, or any number of affiliated roles.
In contrast to the indiscriminate and escalatory behaviors of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has been extremely judicious in its use of violence. It has focused almost exclusively on military targets within the area of operations. It has done this despite having a clear ability to extend its capacity for violence directly into the Russian state. By all measures Ukraine has not been escalatory in its conduct of military operations. Instead, it has refrained from matching the escalatory activities of the Russian military and instead focused its efforts on targets directly impacting the conduct of the war on internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. Even as evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, looting, rape, torture, and abductions of children have come to light Ukraine has remained constrained in its use of violence. Its requests for peace are not complex, nor are they unreasonable. They simply want Russia to withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. They want to exist as a sovereign, independent state, capable determining its own future.
Calls for peace center on two opposing claims. The first is a claim that peace is always preferable to war and that negotiations can settle the conflict. This logic simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Russia has demonstrated no ability in its interactions with Ukraine to credibly commit to peace. Without a credible commitment any peace would be temporary and allow Russia time to rebuild its military and continue to attack Ukraine as it has done consistently for the last 8 years. Beyond Russia’s inability to commit to peace its relations with Ukraine and its people have been extremely brutal. Ukrainian individuals located within Russian occupied zones will be and are being treated harshly. An imposed peace would condemn millions stuck on the wrong side of the line to a life of misery.
The second claim is that Ukraine’s continued fight for its own territory is escalatory and risks nuclear war. This claim is often presented following Russian rhetoric on nuclear first use. The use of nuclear weapons is of little tactical or strategic benefit. The front line in Ukraine is more than a thousand kilometers long. Tactical nuclear weapons would have a limited impact radius and unless used in large numbers would not dramatically impact the conduct of the war. If a strategic nuclear weapon were used it would irradiate and damage the very territory that Russia wishes to conquer. Both types of use would result in severe international consequences from all parties including China. Acquiescence to nuclear threats would set a precedent that nuclear armed states can invade non-nuclear states and after suffering in conventional conflict can force a settlement by the mere threat of nuclear use. This would result in an increasingly unstable international system defined by more war and more escalatory rhetoric. It would also signal that the only way non-nuclear states could ensure their sovereignty would be to acquire nuclear weapons. The result would be a more conflict prone world in which nuclear weapons proliferation increases.
The U.S. and its allies are doing all the right things. The U.S. is helping Ukraine by providing it with money, resources, and intelligence to defend itself. These resources come with both implicit and explicit requirements to limit the violence to Ukraine’s internationally recognized sovereign territory. The cost and risks of the war will continue. The potential for nuclear escalation remains, but it is a small risk relative to the destabilizing risks of succumbing to nuclear threats. An imperial, externally, imposed peace will be destabilizing for Ukraine.
An imposed peace on the current lines of contact would constrain Ukraine’s economy and access to the black sea for generations. It would place the world’s grain and sunflower oil supplies at the whims of Russian threats. Millions of Ukrainians caught on the wrong side of the lines would suffer under an oppressive Russian rule, millions more would become permanent refugees in Europe, the U.S., or internally displaced persons in Ukraine. It would continue Russia’s oppression of Ukraine and undermine the fundamental principles of sovereignty in the international system. Ukraine’s fight is a fight for freedom. It is a fight for self-determination. Ukrainians ask the U.S. and its allies to be the arsenal of democracy and in return they fight for the stability of the international system against threats of nuclear war, tyranny, autocracy, and oppression. The costs of war are high, but the costs of a forced peace are likely to be higher both for Ukraine and the world. Ukraine, the U.S., and European allies did not start this war, but staying engaged, and helping Ukraine achieve a just and sustainable long-term peace is the best option. This requires the U.S. and her allies to stand firm in the face fear and to undertake short-term costs. Ukraine has demonstrated its willingness to fight for its freedom and we have the means help do so.
Dr. Aaron Brantly, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Tech4Humanity Lab at Virginia Tech. He has written extensively on Ukraine and deterrence dynamics. He is a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (2005-2009) from Kupyansk Region in Ukraine. He has led several research missions on behalf of the U.S. Army to Ukraine.