COULD A CHRISTMAS TRUCE BE A FIRST STEP TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT?

24 Dec 2022

COULD A CHRISTMAS TRUCE BE A FIRST STEP TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT?

THE RISKS OF NOT HAVING A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT FAR EXCEED THOSE OF A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT

IF THERE IS TO BE PEACE BOTH SIDES MUST DISAVOW MAXIMALIST GOALS

The words 'truce' and even more so the words 'negotiated settlement' have become something of a swear word in recent weeks. Henry Kissinger no less, was lambasted for suggesting, rightly, that a negotiated settlement, supplemented by properly supervised referenda in Crimea Donbass and Lukhansk to ascertain from those who live in those places which country they actually WANT to be part of, would be a good idea.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-push-for-peace/

The fact is that Kissinger was and is, absolutely right. This author used to love to hate him, so I do not speak from either ideological sympathy nor even from admiration. But everyone can be right at some time and on this matter Kissinger has got it right.

A negotiated settlement is indeed the only way forward. Without it the war effectively goes on forever. The war can ONLY ever be bought to an end via a negotiated settlement. No matter how convincingly Ukraine demonstrates to Russia that it has the ability to throw back Russian troops, and even if Ukraine takes physically ALL of Donbass and Crimea (a highly speculative development that is by no means guaranteed to happen at all and may well result still in escalation to the nuclear level and the destruction of civilisation), absent a negotiated settlement the fighting will continue.

Will Ukraine then march on Moscow? Hardly.

Hardliners seem to have captured the debate on both sides. Putin is saying he will do 'all it takes' to defeat Ukraine. This is most likely impossible. He has indicated he will tolerate up to a million Russian casualties to achieve his goals. It may well be that even an obscene body count as large as this will not achieve anything but Russian defeat. Yet it is all-but impossible to define what a Ukrainian 'victory' would look like in Military terms alone. Russia can occupy Ukraine. Ukraine can hardly occupy Russia.

A Ukrainian march on Moscow? On Tomsk? On Vladivostok?

At some point people have to stop fighting and come to terms.

It is being argued by some that either Putin is incapable of negotiating bona – fide, OR that Ukraine is 'winning' and that the momentum of military victory should not be interrupted in order to negotiate.

None of this takes into account the simple fact that as outlined above, sooner or later unless the fighting is to go on forever or escalate to civilisation- destroying dimensions, there is simply no alternative to negotiation. The idea of peace in any other way is simply nonsensical.

Continuing victory by Ukraine over Russia is by no means guaranteed. Should Ukraine transition (and its unsure how likely this is), via a complete Russian collapse, into actual invasion of Russia, (i.e. a march on Moscow), it is likely (a) that Russia would resort to nuclear weapons (b) that even if Russia had no working nuclear weapons at all, (highly unlikely, though an internal FSB report has cast doubt on the operability of Russian nuclear weapons), Russia would then become Ukraine and throw back the invaders – leading on simply to fresh rounds of fighting.

It has been suggested by various analysts that a complete Russian collapse and disintegration is imminent. This might or might not be the case – Russia could collapse and fall apart into various components, or it might hold together.

Maximalist positions on either side are not based in reality. While Russia MIGHT fall apart, it also might not. Ukraine might or might not be able to take and hold Crimea, Donbass and Lukhansk. It might or might not be able to sustain the military initiative indefinitely, but as time stretches out what might that look like?

The risks of escalation to the nuclear level via use of tactical nukes remain real and would end civilisation. These are stakes far in excess of even the long term health of democracy, important as that is.

Negotiating with Vladimir Putin might be seen as a negotiation with the devil. This is an entirely understandable position. Nonetheless negotiation is an iron necessity, if not now then later.

A christmas truce might well provide a circuit breaker that allows ongoing substantive negotiations to take place, in which compromise, give and take, has to replace maximalist rhetoric on both sides.

John Hallam

Nuclear Disarmament Campaigner

People for Nuclear Disarmament

Human Survival Project

Co-Convenor, Abolition 2000 Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it