I should lay out why I think pushing or even making a “negotiated settlement” is inadvisable for us and the West strategically.
- Food security and energy blackmail will be a demonstrated, proven weapon in Putin’s arsenal. We would need to expect that it will be deployed early and often in subsequent clashes as Putin will ALWAYS use weapons he believes works. It is far better to absorb the pain now and build systems that are not subject to Russian manipulation, THEN negotiate.
- If we give the green light to push for concessions, wavering Allies in Europe will go further. They will seek to ease rising inflation by blaming Ukraine for not conceding enough. And they will use Ukraine’s failure to negotiate quickly enough as an excuse to unwind pressure on Russia. This is as much an exercise in keeping Europeans focused as it is an exercise in pressing Russia. It needs to be publicly unthinkable for responsible European leaders to suggest that Ukraine concede because the next logical step is “and if they don’t, they’re being unreasonable and we are justified in dealing with Russia.”
- There is no reason to believe Putin would accept a negotiated settlement as a win he is satisfied with even in the short term. He failed in his primary aims and we should expect him to revisit those in the near future. The Russian experience in Chechnya is illustrative, the Russians got mauled in the first war, negotiated a settlement no one was happy with, then came back with a vengeance under Putin. Any agreement with Putin should be viewed as a pause in the war and it it’s conclusion.
- Ukrainians do not want to surrender or concede and doing so will be a heavy blow for democratic governance in that nation. Whoever signs away Ukrainian land will be disgraced and whomever comes next a likely demagogue, irresponsible populist with a bone to pick with the West. We need to get it through our heads that selling out our friends to placate our enemies usually blows up in our faces.