As the eyes of the world have turned to the conflict in Gaza over the last few weeks, it seems the Ukraine has lost its place at the centre of international discourse. When our attention eventually returns to that region, perhaps we might come back to it with a new and more nuanced perspective on the situation. Both in terms of how best to resolve the problem and what role we in the west play in that resolution.
And I fully accept that the Ukrainian nation has a right to defend itself. Yet for the last few months I have become more sceptical about the approach our government, and seemingly every other western government, has taken regarding the war. That being a completely uncritical support of the Ukrainian government and the sending of billions upon billions worth of arms to prop up their military.
At a time when our roads are full of potholes, crime is on the rise and many thousands of private and public buildings are unsafe or decayed, where did the government find the money for the 14 Challenger 2 tanks we sent to Ukraine? Of course, this has nothing to do with the influence of arms manufacturers in the business of parliament. When we look at the state of conflict now, it is very diff erent to how it was in the first year or so.
Kiev is no longer at risk of capture and the battlefront, despite Ukraine’s best efforts remains static. Both sides lack a strategic edge on the battlefront, making a complete victory impossible. And with some historical literacy about the nature of conflicts with Russia, something our ruling class seem to lack, you begin to realise the futility of trying to fi ght a protracted land war against them.
A country which has successfully resisted the likes of Hitler and Napoleon. Of course, the state has collapsed a few times like in 1917. But I would rather avoid a civil war in a country with over 5000 nuclear bombs.
For the west, a diplomatic resolution to war should now be our main objective given the futility of further armed conflict. This would mean getting off our moral pedestal, but would that be so hard given we support the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia? A treaty with Russia, even if it meant concessions of land in eastern Ukraine, would have several advantages.
Not least the ending of a conflict which has claimed the lives of thousands and displaced millions. In addition, if a land transfer was to occur perhaps this could provide some resolution to the cultural and linguistic divides which are in part responsible for the conflict. The reality is that many people in the east of Ukraine don’t speak Ukrainian and identify wholly or partly as Russians.
I don’t think it's likely that these same people who overthrew the authorities in that region back in 2014 are going to be eager to come back under Ukrainian control. A redrawn Ukraine would likely be more politically united and able to move closer to the EU, something always opposed by the pro- Russian eastern regions. In a treaty with Russia, Ukraine might be able to negotiate a guarantee from Putin to respect this direction and their eventual EU membership.
The truth is that until the conflict is resolved in this way, no progress will be made on further EU integration. Some people will be appalled by this suggestion, but sometimes doing a deal with the devil is the only way. The regime in the Kremlin has been weakened by the war and no doubt wants to return to the fold of the global market.
As a nation under heavy sanctions the ruling classes in St Petersburg and Moscow are no doubt feeling the impact of sanctions on their previously global lives. This class of people might be the key to future success in negotiations, and I think that their discontent will motivate the return of some of the captured territory. Perhaps in exchange for some amount of economic reintegration.
Russia may also want to be rid of some of its newly acquired territory, given it will have to deal with a hostile populace in areas further west, such as those around Mariupol. Instead of seeing Russia from a western perspective, as one great scary monolith, we should be prepared to understand and negotiate with them. To bring back stability to eastern Europe.
Eastern Europe has been reshaped many times and will continue to be redrawn until the end of time. Looking at a map of the region from 100 years ago reveals just how much has changed. For example, Lviv in western Ukraine was a Polish city until 1945.
Fluidity and change have always defi ned eastern Europe from the division of Poland-Lithuania to Potsdam and the fall of the USSR. And so, I find it hard to say that Ukraine has an absolute right to retake areas such as the Donetsk region. When given its place at the crossroads of Europe and the Caucuses, so many people groups have laid claim to it.
We see in Gaza how a dangerous mixture of binary ideological thinking, too many weapons and a lack of resolution have created decades of suffering. We can avoid the same in Ukraine, if only we have the confidence to take another path. One which doesn’t prioritize an imaginary victory on the battlefield but instead seeks to end the suffering of the people caught in the violence.
I hold out little hope for this given the lack of imagination among our leaders. But if it could be done, then maybe Ukraine would be spared decades of suffering.