Appeasement And A Stalemate Is Not An Option
Pressure continues as countries urge Ukraine to take a deal
The world is divided on how this conflict should be dealt with and how it should end. There are those who understand Ukraine’s need to defend itself but don’t want a World War, and prefer them to cede land for a quick end to the war, and there are those who understand appeasement and a ceasefire will only delay the inevitable, and allow future attacks by Russia.
With these options, it is a surprise to read that some people prefer the former option because they don’t want World War III. Well, if you are in Ukraine and live in an occupied area or near one, I doubt that you would be opting for that option. What it boils down to is a society that wants quick results so that they can carry on with their lives. They fail to understand how war works, or how dictators will act or react. The facts that Russia is eager to embrace the death penalty should be enough to concern those who value democracy.
But how did we get here? We go back to Crimea, when in 2014 the region was illegally annexed after the Russians turned a military exercise into an invasion. The same happened in February 2022, even though many knew that Russia would try and invade again at some point. Macron, and other world leaders tried to use diplomacy to prevent the invasion, but they failed. Putin gave assurances that he would not invade, yet weeks later the invasion took place. Obviously Putin was lying, and telling the other world leaders what they wanted to hear, but behind the scenes the plans for the invasion were already in place. Therefore, how can Russia be trusted? Surely someone was wise enough to think that perhaps they should arm Ukraine with some weapons in the event of Russia invading, prior to the actual invasion?
The international measures in place have failed, or have no enforcement powers. The UN Security Council has 5 permanent members; UK, USA, France, China, and Russia. They all have the power to veto resolutions, so basically it has failed because it has no measure in place to protect the world should one of the 5 be the aggressor. This was considered decades ago, but Putin had played the game well as countries began to trust Russia and there didn’t seem to be a need to put precautionary measures in place. I recall posing the question in my democracy class, and was told that it was unlikely that Russia would invade as there were so many safeguards. That was a poor decision, for now the UN Security Council is useless—the US is helping as much as it can but will face domestic pressure on spending, the UK is providing support and aid, France is helping on the side with pledges and calls to Putin, but also wishes to carve out a role as a mediator and sits on the fence, while China sides with Russia, and Russia will veto any action against them.
The system was not perfect by any means, but the failure to have safeguards has led to the UN Security Council being useless, as even if Russia is expelled, China will support Russia and veto action against them. Only UN Security Council resolutions are binding, all the others are symbolic votes.
Ukraine wants all their land back and for Russia to leave Ukraine and pay compensation for the destruction caused. The Russians invaded and caused destructions and committed war crimes, and they need to be punished as a deterrent. That is what basically is going on. What use is appeasement when Russia occupies parts of Ukraine? They will simply plot another invasion from within.
It is unrealistic to hope to turn the clock back. Companies have left Russia losing billions, people have died, millions have lost their homes and all that they own, ancient sites have been destroyed, and Russia has shown the world that they cannot be trusted. Energy supplies have been affected, sanctions against Russia have led to an airspace ban, travel bans, and has also created food shortages. We can’t simply say let’s go back to 23 February with war crimes being investigated and prosecuted either.
The only way Ukraine will be able to rebuild the country in peace is if Russia is defeated, or if they surrender. Then the UN must post permanent peacekeeping forces around the borders and previously occupied areas. However, this is only possible if Ukraine has the right weapons. Then we must factor in if Russia targets any of the convoys that contain weapons from countries assisting Ukraine. Is that a valid target, when say an American truck is transporting aid across into Ukraine? Would Russia dare provoke NATO?
The current focus is on the grain blockade and how to resolve that, and Russia seems eager to use that as a bargaining tool. The conflict has changed the world, and neutral countries are having to reassess their defences, and their responsibilities to neighbouring states. My belief is that Ukraine must fight to defeat Russia, because like a bully who is not reprimanded or expelled, they will return as they did after Crimea. Russia has even admitted that they want the whole of Ukraine back under the Russian Federation, and I doubt that Kyiv is going to be safe until the Russians are defeated once and for all. If a job is worth doing, they may as well do it right because the failure to address Crimea allowed Russia to sneak back in and to take more of Ukraine. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
Day 104 (7 June)
Ukraine is not invited to the talks to be held in Ankara on 8 June, to discuss the Ukrainian freighters of grain leaving the Black Sea. This is out of order as Ukraine should be part of the talks, but Turkey and Russia wish to discuss it alone. I’m unsure what there is to discuss—Russians get out of the way and go back to Russia as you aren’t entitled to block the Ukrainian ports. According to a statement, Turkey said it was working with all sides to resolve the issues. It is quite simple, Russia shouldn’t be there so Turkey should shift them out of the way. Apparently, the 4 sides are; Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the UN and the main issue is who will clear the mines, and who will provide a safe corridor. It isn’t exactly rocket science, so why the delay? Turkey and Russia want something, and this is a negotiating tool.
Russia’s Ambassador (Vassily Nebenzia) stormed out of a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, when European Council President Charles Michel accused Moscow of fuelling a global food crisis with its invasion of Ukraine, and of the war crimes being investigated.
Latvia is to ban Russian television until after the war has ended.
The Russian Orthodox Church has taken control of Ukrainian eparcharies in Crimea. Patriarch Kirill wants direct control of the churches.
Zelenskyy has criticized Macron’s statement that countries should not humiliate Russia. He stated humiliation was not the aim. No one has applauded Macron’s statement publicly at least.
Russia has passed bills to leave the European Court of Human Rights. This means that they are not subject to their jurisdiction, and any rulings after 15 March (the cut off date) should not be implemented. Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe on 15 March (part of the ECHR), yet Russia states they chose to leave the ECHR. In response, they have said this allows them to reinstate the death penalty which the Council of Europe prohibited.
Former leaders of Mariupol have stated that there is a humanitarian crisis under Russian occupation. There is a danger of cholera breaking out due to a lack of sanitation and water supply issues, while dead bodies are left to rot in the street. The UN appears to have failed to prevent such a catastrophe that was on the cards, and are failing to intervene to resolve it as well.
Ukraine have estimated that they need at least 60 of the long-range rocket systems to ensure they can defeat the Russians. Zelenskyy has thanked the UK for giving them the weapons they had requested, and this statement is probably to urge other countries to add to the arsenal.
Your statement, E.L., sums it up completely: "What it boils down to is a society that wants quick results so that they can carry on with their lives." That poor attitude, combined with politicians who have forgotten how to deal with dictators and despots. I despair for Ukraine.
I can understand people fearing a WW111, but how can anyone suggest that Russia shouldn't be 'humiliated' when Russia has committed to human rights agreements, and yet now has decided to: apply the death penalty; demolish a sovereign country by flattening it to rubble while allowing heinous crimes against innocent civilians.