This Is What Diplomacy Is For

At this rate, someone should choose Matthew Parris on Great Lives:

Not least among the curses Donald Trump lays upon the world is to poison good ideas by associating himself with them. This month a needed proposition recoils from the presidential kiss. The case for a deal between Ukraine and Russia grows more pressing as winter approaches. He’s right about that. But, with his loose talk, Trump befouls the whole idea of compromise. He insults Volodymyr Zelensky while his envoy, Steve Witkoff, praises Vladimir Putin as (the word sticks in the throat) “humanitarian”. Grotesquely skewed by his admiration for Putin, the deal Trump appears to envisage has sensible people turning away in disgust. Thus is the rug pulled from beneath the feet of those who don’t think Putin is humanitarian, do admire Zelensky, but do also want to see an end to this war. 

The conflict will have to be settled. Deals must sometimes be made with the worst of men. George Osborne, at least, has the courage to say so. This, from the former chancellor’s recent Political Currency podcast: “What is Britain’s contribution to the discussion of how you might try and bring this conflict to an end? Or have we just sort of given up? We’re just like, ‘Whatever we are, we’re 100 per cent for Ukraine and we’re not trying to find the landing zone’.” To those who think that “we’re 100 per cent for Ukraine” is a policy, I ask this: 100 per cent for what?

“Not an inch,” said ex-defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace. What, then, do the “not-an-inch” brigade of armchair warriors hold out as achievable? That Putin declares an absolute surrender, retreats from Crimea, pulls his forces out of all eastern Ukrainian territory, and … And what? Commits suicide? Declares himself, like Toad of Toad Hall, to be an altered Toad? Resigns? Or is overthrown in a Kremlin putsch and replaced by some nicey-nicey liberal democrat, whereupon Russia declares that the war was all a dreadful mistake and commits trillions from its struggling economy as reparation? Offer the Kremlin no ladder to climb down and smash a humiliated Russia to smithereens?

The not-an-inch brigade are living in fairyland. It is neither within the realms of possibility nor in anyone’s interests, except those of China, that Russia bleeds to death and simply collapses. There is, however, a more likely outcome if compromise is spurned: that this war continues indefinitely, the fortunes of both sides ebbing and flowing, the youth of both sides being killed in their hundreds of thousands, while the coffers of contributing European nations continue to haemorrhage billions. It’s worth glancing at some of the numbers. No official figures exist for the cost of this war so far but according to one government estimate Britain has committed £25bn for Ukraine, and we’re not the most generous contributor: Germany pays more and, on a per capita basis, 11 other European countries do too. And remember that every power station, warehouse, mansion block, railway or bridge that we see disappear in an orange flash in nightly firework displays will have to be rebuilt. Most of these bills have still to land.

No reliable figures exist, either, for the slaughter that is robbing Ukraine and Russia of hundreds of thousands of men, each precious to those who loved them. The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests that by June, Ukraine had suffered between 125,000 and 150,000 military deaths and Russia up to 450,000. This is more than half a million men, discounting the far larger number of grievously wounded and permanently disabled. Each is a mother’s son, each a colossal family tragedy. How do we cost grief, we who from afar cheer one side on, urge them to give not an inch and — safe from harm — growl about Honour with a capital H?

Honour is a hill on which too many have died. I’m sickened by this huffing and puffing from commentators who will never be called on to fight. Well may they glorify the ideal of sacrifice, declare that “we” owe it to the dead and urge others to fight on, but does it not occur to them as they enlist to their “not-an-inch” argument that the corpses of men, who if they could speak might beg us to desist from the wars that killed them, that the enemy is using exactly the same language of sacrifice and honour? Honour is a deity at whose feet both sides worship with equal fervour.

To hell with honour. How about realism, how about steadfastness in the pursuit not of absolute victory but a dispassionate acknowledgement of what is and what is not within our grasp? Let’s turn away from abstract nouns and turn instead towards concrete proposals. Some viable ideas swim into vision. When I was in Ukraine I did sense among the young people to whom I talked a half-furtive willingness to think about a deal. On what terms? First, a ceasefire. Then bring out the maps. What might Russia keep? Crimea, surely, which was not historically part of Ukraine. Next, a review of the eastern lands where Russian is the first language of most. Existing front lines would be a starting point but it would be more complicated than that. All this would be horse-trading: cynical, messy, protracted; but that is how many wars end.

There’s something much bigger though, something of supreme importance and absolutely the key (as I learnt when I was there) to unlock a buried Ukrainian willingness to compromise. Security. Why give away a third of what you claim, only to find that after a few years Vladimir Putin comes back for another bite? A deep distrust that a settlement would hold, rather than hostility to the very idea of settling, is what I believe discourages Ukrainians from negotiation. We — Europe and America — can answer that. Membership of Nato, incendiary to Russia, is a step too far. But a path to joining the European Union? This is possible, with security backing by some visible and permanent presence of European, American and international (but not Nato) observers.

The US would be foundational to this idea; and I’m not sure that Trump, who really does want to be seen as a peacemaker, would rule it out. Russia’s immediate response will be to reject such a proposal out of hand, while Zelensky will feel reluctant to give advance notice of everything Ukraine might finally concede. But sensible opinion in the Kremlin must be seeking ways of claiming victory while drawing a line under the conflict. Both sides may already, privately, see merit in something shaped like this. It’s getting from here to there that’s the challenge. That, however, is what diplomacy is for. It’s time to try it.