010: Scenario 1: The Peace Treaty

Great statesmen should always focus on peace and diplomacy, if the choice is between war and principles. Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelensky could have prevented the war. Both failed.

 

Putin, for all his faults, has been exceedingly transparent about his demands. As far as Ukraine is concerned, they are: (a) Ukraine becomes neutral, meaning not part of any alliance. (b) Written guarantees Ukraine will never join NATO. (c) demilitarization of Ukraine (d) De-Nazification of Ukraine (e) Clarity on the status of the two Eastern separatist states and (f) Crimea belongs to Russia.

 

Of course, the demands include rhetoric like de-Nazification. Putin has called Ukraine’s Jew president a Nazi, which if a war was not going on, would have been termed as his sense of humour.

 

Before the invasion, and even today, it is realistic to meet these demands through negotiations.

George W. Bush had suggested NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. Fourteen years have passed since, and Ukraine has no idea what needs to be done to become a member. (It needs unanimous consent from all thirty NATO members. In 2008 itself, Germany and France were reluctant to admit Ukraine). Zelensky has finally understood the fiction and has accepted Ukraine will not join NATO. Crimea is already gone; all its residents have Russian passports. By making Russian an official language in addition to Ukrainian, Russia-Ukraine peace stands a good chance. President Zelensky’s first language is Russian, not Ukrainian.

*****

 

But Putin is fighting two wars. The main war is against the USA, Ukraine is just the battlefield.

 

Since 2009, Russia has been issuing draft treaties for the USA and NATO to look at. The latest two treaties were issued in December 2021. Russia’s stated grievance is that Mikhail Gorbachev was assured by the USA (James Baker) that NATO would not expand after the dissolution of the USSR. If the enemy didn’t exist anymore, why should NATO even exist? Russians (before Putin), being simple people, trusted the Americans and didn’t get anything in writing. Before Russia could blink, NATO had expanded to Eastern Europe and had military bases, weapons, and troops in countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Romania.

 

I have some sympathy for the Russian viewpoint. Putin has been complaining about this for years and has been systematically ignored. Europe has cleverly outsourced its defence to an overseas mercenary. This helps the American hawks employ their military hardware and people in Europe. It allows European nations to have low defence budgets. Europeans also preserve their lives; NATO troops are mainly made of Americans and Turks. Hiring an overseas mercenary is clearly a belligerent move.

 

The problem with America, the overseas mercenary, is that its words and actions don’t match. Joe Biden, the oldest president in American history, is particularly reckless. If you call Putin a killer, thug and war criminal, you should be willing and capable of issuing counter-threats to him. Economic sanctions may squeeze Russia, but why should Ukrainians die in thousands and flee in millions to achieve that squeeze? Promotion of democracy is laudable, but America’s inaction has offered Ukraine not freedom, but martyrdom.

 

The thousands of lives lost, and devastation of Ukrainian cities could have been avoided by America trying to work out security arrangements with Russia.

 

What does Russia want from the USA/NATO? Mainly: (a) Reverse the NATO expansion to Eastern Europe, go back to 1997. (b) Countries like Poland should not have NATO troops or weapons. (c) No NATO short-range missiles that can reach Russia. (d) Georgia, Ukraine and ex-Soviet states should never be part of NATO (e) nuclear weapons stored only in their own countries. Meaning American nuclear weapons only in the USA, and Russian nuclear weapons only in Russia.

*****

 

Why should America, Europe or anybody else negotiate with a killer and a thug? Because if you don’t have the ability or willingness to militarily outfight him, pragmatism and diplomacy are the only solution. What meaning do freedom and sovereignty have for Ukraine if it is destroyed? And would you rather withdraw the NATO troops from Poland and Hungary or have a Third World War?

 

I will offer a parallel from history. Usama Bin Laden, like many Saudis, was unhappy that US had military bases in Saudi Arabia. This was sacrilege, and Laden issued a fatwa threatening the USA with loss of American lives unless American bases were removed. Laden was as crystal clear as Putin is now. America refused. 11 September happened. In a single day, America lost 3,000 lives.

 

Donald Rumsfeld was the US secretary of defence, a disagreeable hawk. In April 2003, when nobody was looking, Rumsfeld withdrew all American troops from Saudi Arabia. It is possible USA could have saved those 3,000 lives, if this action was taken two years earlier.

*****

 

America, if it wants, can negotiate peace based on Russia’s draft treaties. Putin simply needs to show to Russians he has managed to extract some concessions from America. Allowing mutual inspections of bases and weapons can help. Any concessions are better than WWIII and much better than a nuclear war. But they are unlikely to happen.

 

Because it is a clash between individual and national egos. If peace was the objective, USA could have easily conducted negotiations in good faith, addressed Putin’s concerns instead of calling him a killer. Joe Biden has not given any indication he wants to give peace a chance. Letting Ukrainians die for USA’s hatred towards Russia is immoral and cruel. Even if a NATO-Russia war were to start, the battlefield is likely to be Europe, not North America. Nor is America reliant on Russian gas like Europe is. Joe Biden has no incentive to make concessions to end the war.

 

Therefore, the option of a peace treaty, however desirable, is virtually non-existent.

 

Ravi