Pope Francis’s suggestion that Ukraine’s leaders should admit defeat, find “the courage to raise the white flag” and negotiate a halt to the war with Russia provoked justified fury in Kyiv and eastern Europe. He was wrong to say Ukraine is beaten, and gravely remiss in failing to condemn Moscow’s illegal aggression and war crimes. Yet Francis is not alone in wondering how this conflict ends.
Two years on, there’s no sign of a winner. Maybe that’s just as well, in the sense that outright victory for either side could be disastrous for all. Does this unheroic consideration tacitly influence the cautious approach of Kyiv’s two biggest western backers, the US and Germany? If so, it makes the absence of a credible peace process all the more regrettable – and potentially very dangerous.
Vladimir Putin again threatened to use nuclear weapons last week after France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, said Nato should consider sending troops to ensure Ukraine prevails. Much of what Putin says is posturing or brinkmanship, for he believes time is on his side. He is letting the war simmer while he mounts a repeat coup this weekend disguised as an election.
But Putin was not so complacent 18 months ago when advancing Ukrainian forces threatened to retake Crimea and expel the invaders. It was revealed last week that US officials rushed radiation detectors and potassium iodide tablets to Kyiv, acting on intelligence estimates indicating a 50-50 chance of a Russian tactical nuclear strike to prevent Crimea falling.
So great was the concern that the White House asked a group of experts to devise a new nuclear “playbook” of contingency plans, optional American military responses and escalation scenarios, the New York Times reported. All this was based on the calculation that a nuclear strike was more likely than at any time since the end of the cold war. Though the risk has diminished since 2022, it’s still high.
The “Russia loses” scenario is especially hazardous in that Putin characterises Ukraine as a war against the US and Nato – and polling suggests that most Russians believe him. For him, defeat is unacceptable, since it would imply Russia’s wider defeat by America and could result in his overthrow. If cornered, this cowardly skunk would blame the west and take everyone down with him.
The prospect of Ukraine losing the war is similarly alarming, for different reasons. The human consequences would be terrifying, with millions more refugees fleeing westwards. If Bucha and Mariupol are any guide, atrocities, war crimes and abductions would proliferate. A victorious Putin might try to seize the entire country – or impose a settlement and a puppet regime. In any event, Ukraine’s independent existence as a free nation would cease. Its democracy and EU aspirations would be extinguished.
The impact on Europe would be dire. A Russian success would certainly be viewed in Poland and the three Baltic states as a prelude to new expansionist wars of aggression. Pro-western Moldova, on Ukraine’s southern border, is a likely target. Huge economic disruption and an arms race would ensue as Nato and the EU scrambled to boost Europe’s defences. Far-right and pro-Russia populist parties would be emboldened.
Ukraine’s defeat would have lasting global repercussions, setting a dreadful precedent of seizing territory by force and targeting civilians. Would this encourage China to attack Taiwan? Or others to do likewise? It’s entirely plausible. The UN charter would be trashed and, with it, the most basic tenets of the Geneva conventions and humanitarian law.
US international leadership – and Nato – would suffer irreparable setbacks, too. This is particularly true if Washington’s withholding of military aid, as is the case now, contributed to Ukraine’s defeat. Who then would trust the US to keep its word, especially if Donald Trump succeeds Joe Biden? Putin-friendly Trump reportedly says he “will not give a penny” to Ukraine.
The US defense secretary Lloyd Austin warned last month that “if Putin is successful, he will not stop” at Ukraine. And the knock-on effect would be devastating. “Other leaders around the world, other autocrats, will be encouraged [that] we failed to support a democracy… Quite frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe Nato will be in a fight with Russia.”
Unless the western democracies can unite around the aim of ensuring a comprehensive Russian defeat, regardless of the inherent risks, negotiations – though not as framed by Pope Francis – appear the only way through. Yet, typically, Turkey’s latest proposal for a two-way peace summit has been rejected by Kyiv. Other would-be mediators have got nowhere. And Ukraine’s 10-point plan is scorned by Moscow. No peace process, no peace.
There is a middle way, say the American foreign policy gurus Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan. Ukraine should negotiate a ceasefire with Russia, they argue. “Kyiv would not give up on restoring territorial integrity or holding Russia economically and legally accountable for its aggression, but it would acknowledge its near-term priorities need to shift from attempting to liberate more territory to defending and repairing the more than 80% of the country that is still under its control.”
A western-backed ceasefire might stop the death and destruction and create breathing space for diplomacy without sacrificing Ukraine’s broader objectives. The trouble is, Putin, who thinks he’s winning, must agree. And one or both sides could simply use a pause to rearm and regroup, ready to go at it again if and when talks break down.
A ceasefire is tempting but, at best, would be a temporary stop-gap. And as Macron said, in a rebuke to the pope, peace in Ukraine cannot mean “capitulation”. The only sure way to permanently end this war on just terms is to remove from power, by whatever legitimate means available, the messianic mass murderer who started it: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. There will be no peace until the tyrant falls.
• Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s foreign affairs commentator
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
