A negotiated settlement in Ukraine is still an option

There have been a lot of articles coinciding with the anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine discussing how the war might end. The vast majority conclude that the war will only end when Ukraine "wins" (although just how that is defined varies), and that a military victory is the only way that will happen, on the grounds that Putin has burnt all his boats and will never negotiate a face-saving exit from the war. That seems like the obvious and the "right" solution, however hard it might actually be to achieve. This is largely because Russia is so clearly completely in the wrong, and we are all so outraged at their behaviour, and we are all so sympathetic to the plight of the long-suffering Ukrainian people, that any other solution would seem insufficient.

There was a double-page spread of such opinions in the weekend edition of the Globe and Mail. However, one brave article - entitled A negotiated settlement is the only path to peace in Ukraine - stood out as the only one to argue that a military solution is neither possible nor even desirable. The article was by Cesar Jaramillo, leading light of Project Ploughshares, a Canadian peace research institute which focusses on disarmament efforts and international security.

The article recognizes that calling for a peaceful solution has become a fringe position, but it argues, pretty cogently and compellingly, that a negotiated settlement is actually the most realistic endgame, and that doggedly pursuing an ill-defined win for Ukraine (or for Russia) will only prolong the war, and thereby increase human suffering, while also heightening the risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

The war has been characterized by Putin as an existential struggle with the West, and is seen by most observers as a make-or-break element of Putin's perceived legacy. A humiliating and crushing defeat for Russia, well-deserved as it may be, will be perceived as a "fatal blemish" on that legacy, and is just not an option that Putin will countenance. If pushed to that eventuality, the man is mentally unbalanced enough to resort to the ultimate remedy, a nuclear attack, either on Ukraine or on NATO as a whole. We should not minimize that risk, and we should stop and think whether this is a gamble we are willing to take.

It does seem quite likely that further militarization could undermine the prospects for a negotiated settlement, continuing the cycle of violence with no end in sight. Tens of thousands more may perish as a result of the blind pursuit of a military victory. Can we justify this (can Ukraine justify this?) merely in order to protect the integrity of the borders of a nation-state? There are still some points of negotiation, whether you like them or not - the status of Crimea and the Donbas region of Ukraine, Ukraine's prospective membership of NATO, NATO's military presence on Russia's borders, Russia's breaches of international law and war crimes - and some unpleasant compromises may be required. 

Although talk of a negotiated settlement with a bully like Russian might rub us the wrong way, it should not be dismissed out of hand. Kudos to Mr. Jaramillo for being brave enough to remind us.