Giving Peace a Chance in Ukraine

Curiouser and curiouser… so said Alice in a moment of great lucidity.

Back in the day, people were out chanting-- Give peace a chance. Nowadays, the same people-- or their progeny-- are exclaiming-- Give war a chance. 

For fear of being considered weak, public intellectuals and even politicians are honing their foreign policy bona fides by cheering on the Ukrainian resistance. They are thrilled to have a war against Russia, and will fight it, as one expert noted, “to the last Ukrainian.”

Anyway, to start our reflections, here are two statements, by two public figures, about the way forward in Ukraine. They both counsel negotiation, even though it will assuredly involve giving Putin some of what he wants. One understands that Biden administration rhetoric, combined with the rhetoric coming out of Europe, makes negotiation more and more unlikely, but, as the saying used to go-- why not give peace a chance, before the country of Ukraine is merely a smoldering heap.

So, two people from different sides of our great political divide, proposing a negotiated way to end the violence in Ukraine. Long time readers of this blog will note that I have been proposing the same path for weeks now. I am glad to have attracted supporters.

So, here is the first comment, from someone who will, as of now, remain unnamed, issued on April 18:

It doesn’t make sense that Russia and Ukraine aren’t sitting down and working out some kind of an agreement. If they don’t do it soon there will be nothing left but death, destruction and carnage. This is a war that never should have happened, but it did. The solution can never be as good as it could have been before the shooting started, but there is a solution, and it should be figured out now-- not later-- when everyone is dead. 

And here is a statement, from commentator No. 2, offering more detail about the prospects for negotiation:

One option is to pursue the policy we are now following… to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. And yes, we can pursue that policy with the possibility of nuclear war. Or we can face the reality that the only alternative is a diplomatic settlement, which will be ugly – it will give Putin and his narrow circle an escape hatch.

We know the basic framework is neutralization of Ukraine, some kind of accommodation for the Donbas region, with a high level of autonomy, maybe within some federal structure in Ukraine, and recognizing that, like it or not, Crimea is not on the table…. You may not like it, you may not like the fact that there’s a hurricane coming tomorrow, but you can’t stop it by saying, ‘I don’t like hurricanes’ or ‘I don’t recognize hurricanes.’”

He added this:

But that’s one option. The other option is to make it explicit and clear to Putin and the small circle of men around him that you have no escape, you’re going to go to a war crimes trial no matter what you do. Boris Johnson just reiterated this: sanctions will go on no matter what you do. What does that mean? It means go ahead and obliterate Ukraine and go on to lay the basis for a terminal war.

Those are the two options: and we’re picking the second and praising ourselves for heroism and doing it: fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Now, to end the mystery. The first statement was issued by one Donald Trump.  The second was offered by one Noam Chomsky, one of America’s most fierce leftists. Somehow or other they have both come to the same conclusion-- namely, that the current fighting will inevitably lead to more and more destruction, and that little will be gained, except in the realm of theatrics.

As for why the Ukrainians keep holding out, they are perhaps reading Bret Stephens in the New York Times. He is hardly alone, and he is hardly the most influential voice here, but he lauds the leaders of Ukraine, making them into world historical heroes. If that is not worth fighting for, what is.

Here is Stephens:

We admire him because, in the face of unequal odds, Ukraine’s president stands his ground. Because he proves the truth of the adage that one man with courage makes a majority. Because he shows that honor and love of country are virtues we forsake at our peril. Because he grasps the power of personal example and physical presence. Because he knows how words can inspire deeds — give shape and purpose to them — so that the deeds may, in turn, vindicate the meaning of words.

We admire Zelensky because he reminds us of how rare these traits have become among our own politicians. Zelensky was an actor who used his celebrity to become a statesman. Western politics is overrun by people who playact as statesmen so that they may ultimately become celebrities. Zelensky has made a point of telling Ukrainians the hard truth that the war is likely to get worse — and of telling off supposed well-wishers that their words are hollow and their support wanting. Our leaders mainly specialize in telling people what they want to hear.

He goes on like this for many more paragraphs. And yet, what has Zelensky really gained, other than a claim to being a world historical leader-- for refusing to fold a losing hand. Surely, the Ukrainians have done better than expected and the Russian Army has been exposed as a less than formidable fighting machine. And yet, you need to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. 

Stephens likes Zelensky because the Ukrainian leader is a fighter. But, unless he is playing rope-a-dope, Zelensky is a fighter who is bound to lose. And once it becomes clear that he is bound to lose, why hold out and invite more destruction.

A military commander would know how to do it. A celebrity comedian seems not to understand when to foster negotiations. One understands that since Zelensky is being cheered on by American and European leaders, he loses the possibility of seeking a negotiated settlement.

And then we have the words of one Nassim Nicholas Taleb, someone for whom I have far more respect than I have for a lot of other people. Taleb is justly famous for having conjured what he called black swan theory. He is also one of the smartest people around. If you do not believe me, just ask him.

He has now offered this analysis of the current situation in Ukraine. By his considerable lights we cannot negotiate because we would be allowing Putin to save face, and we must humiliate him decisively:

If you give Putin even one finger, he will have won the war. Russia’s leadership must therefore be humiliated, and the only way is for it to retreat. We need a repetition of the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. In this case, Putin will be overthrown from the inside, because, historically, people who accept autocracies do not like the weak. A weak Putin is no longer Putin — just as a nice, tactful, and thoughtful Trump would no longer be Trump. For this to continue, it takes a lot of suckers to keep feeding the narrative — and if the suckers begin to doubt the story, it will be the beginning of the end.

One might consider this a pipe dream. As major Ukrainian cities have been turned into rubble, as the population of Ukraine is fleeing to other countries, as the situation looks worse and worse, Taleb holds out the hope that Putin can be humiliated.

He fails to recognize that the Russian people are tending to rally around the flag, and that Putin is not going to allow himself to be humiliated. I do not think that we have to go all Chomsky and fear that Putin will use nuclear weapons, but still, that leaves a lot of options and a lot of destruction. 

One recalls, yet again, that in 1989, in Tiananmen Square, Chinese students took it upon themselves to humiliate the nation’s leaders. They took over the central square of the capital city and even had a single man stop a column of tanks. We even saw a young student, in his pajamas, berating the Chinese premier, one Li Peng. And, let us not forget, the nation’s economy started to shut down with strikes, and, of course, the military had begun to mutiny. 

Would that have counted as sufficient humiliation for the leadership? As it happens, people whose face is threatened also have a say in the matter. And, in China, what happened next was that the government authorities removed the man who was stopping the column of tanks and ordered the tanks to advance on the student encampments in Tiananmen Square. They ran down students with tanks, all the while using snipers to shoot at those the tanks had missed.

Despite the prophecies of people like Nicholas Kristof, about the inhumanity and injustice of it all-- about that there can be no doubt-- things in China quickly reverted to normal. The attack on central authority faded and the nation got back to business. We did not like it, not a bit, but the Chinese leadership did not allow themselves to be humiliated.

So, Taleb joins those who are indulging wishful thinking. I think it better not to fight to the last Ukrainian and still, despite it all, to give peace a chance.