Front Burner - The case for a ‘good enough' peace in Ukraine

Episode Date: October 18, 2022

Even though the Kremlin has been pummeling Ukrainian cities and towns with relentless air and missile raids over the past week, many observers say Russia is losing its war with Ukraine. Last month, Ukrainian forces retook a reported 6,000 square kilometres of territory in the south and east of the country, reversing months of Russian gains in a matter of weeks. But given those setbacks for Russia, and given that Ukraine is still facing high civilian death tolls and displacements as the war continues — should we be hearing more right now about the possibility of peace negotiations? Today, Gerard Toal — a political geographer and a professor of government and international affairs at Virginia Tech — makes the case for an imperfect peace deal with Russia.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. Last week, Russia launched what are believed to be its largest coordinated air and missile raids on Ukraine since the invasion began back in February. On Monday alone, four civilians, including a pregnant woman, were killed in Kiev after Russia pummeled the Ukrainian capital with so-called kamikaze drones. Four people also died the same day after a rocket attack in the northeastern Sumy region, according to authorities

there. Electricity has been cut in hundreds of towns and villages across the country. But attacks like these aren't generally seen as a sign that Russia is gaining ground in this war. In fact, they're widely viewed as a desperate response to recent Russian losses. In September, Ukraine reportedly retook some 6,000 square kilometers in the south and east of the country, reversing months of Russian gains in a matter of weeks. Given those recent losses by Russia and given the continued deaths of both soldiers and Ukrainian civilians, as well as the displacement of millions of people, why aren't we hearing more about peace negotiations? Today, I'm going to talk about that with Gerard Toole. He's a political geographer and professor of government and international affairs at Virginia Tech.

Hi, Gerard. Thank you very much for coming on to FrontBurner. Hi. Happy to join you. Can you just briefly bring us up to speed here on what kinds of attempts at peace talks have happened so far between Russia and Ukraine? Well, really, from the outset, there have been negotiation attempts. There were initial attempts in Belarus on the 28th of February, there were some others in Istanbul in March. And there were offers by both Turkey and Israel to help, along with Belarus, to help lead these negotiations. But things have become extremely radicalized by the horrific violence that we have seen from the Russian side, the war crimes, and then subsequently the annexation. The declaration, made in the cavernous St. George Hall in the Kremlin Palace, follows a process portrayed as referendums in the Donetsk,

Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia. The Russian-appointed heads of those four annexed regions signed documents confirming that they were joining the Russian Federation. And so when the annexations happened at the end of September, the Ukrainian government actually said that negotiations are outlawed and where previously President Zelensky said that he was going to, was open to meeting with Putin and having direct talks at the end of February. Now he says negotiations are impossible while Russia is headed by Putin. So that's where Ukraine is. Now, Russia is in a different place.

Foreign Minister Lavrov last week said we're ready for negotiations. And the reason why the parties are in different places is that Russia knows it's losing the war, has seized territory, and wants to freeze the conflict. territory and wants to freeze the conflict, whereas Ukraine knows that it is winning the war and therefore wants to continue to realize its advantage and to expel Russia from Ukraine. And it puts victory before peace. I know you have concerns about the potential consequences of Ukraine not wanting to negotiate, right? Like about them continuing to fight until they won back Crimea and Donetsk and other parts along the border regions. And like, what are your concerns about that plan? Well, I think that Ukraine is perfectly justified in seeking to defeat the Russian invasion of its country. And this is something that has been going on since 2014, and it has dramatically changed the security landscape in Europe, but of course, the lives

of millions of Ukrainians. And so there is a real hunger for justice on the part of Ukrainians. The issue is that since 2014, there are certain parts of Ukraine that have effectively been converted into parts of Russia. And the main, real, very difficult sticking place is Crimea. Crimea is a place that was seized by Russian invading forces in March of 2014 with barely a shot. The Ukrainians decided they weren't going to fight and actually a number of the people that were in the Ukrainian army defected. Since then, of course, there was a referendum, which was essentially an exercise in sort of fake democracy. But since then, the area has been incorporated into Russia.

So for all intents and purposes, for two and a half million people, roughly two and a half million people, they're Russian. They see themselves as Russian. And so Ukraine going into Crimea and taking back Crimea has significant unknowns. Crimea in one sense is the crown in the jewel of late Putinism. It's how he legitimates, it's his rule, which is that this, I have returned this territory that was part of the motherland. It's returned that I did it. I am sure that the year 2014 will go into its chronicle as a year when the nations living here strongly decided to be with Russia. And with that, they confirm their loyalty to the historical truth and the memory of our ancestors. loyalty to the historical truth and the memory of our ancestors. So if that becomes undone,

if Russia is losing, then that's an extremely existential issue that, you know, Putin, his hold on power in Russia is seriously threatened, and it's very likely that he would turn to nuclear weapons. Yeah. And I mean, that's just to be clear, that's the ultimate fear here, right? And so why would Ukraine want to take that kind of risk for a region that really hasn't been in their hands since 2014? Well, Ukrainians feel a sense of injustice. Ukrainians, you know, see the situation as one that is a land grab, that is against international law, and it is against international law. And they argue that they have some support in Crimea, but that Crimean population is repressed and brainwashed by Russian propaganda. And that once Ukraine is able to expel the Russians, that the population there can be reintegrated into Ukraine. That's their particular vision. And,

you know, I'm skeptical of that. So I want to zoom out a bit and talk about what we're hearing from some of Ukraine's allies in this war. And maybe we could start with the United States. Obviously, so much of the conversation between the U.S. and Ukraine is happening behind closed doors. But what do we know about what the U.S. might be advising President Zelensky to do here? Like, are there any signs they might be willing to encourage Ukraine to negotiate? Like, they might be saying, hey, why don't we just leave Crimea as it was? Well, I think you have to realize, first of all, that the sort of rhetoric surrounding this war is very toxic and very, very polarized. And so what tends to

dominate are very simple slogans, such as liberating all of Ukraine, getting Russia out of Ukraine. And Ukraine is understood as an internationally recognized Ukraine from 1991 onwards. So to have a nuanced position, to have a position, especially in this climate where there are war crimes against Ukrainians, is not something that you're going to see the White House put out in public. put out in public. What the White House and officials in Washington say is that our job is to help Ukraine defeat Russian invasion and to negotiate from a position of strength so that it can be victorious in the end. Now, there are, when you push beyond that, in the end. Now, there are, when you push beyond that, there are divisions. There are those who are very supportive of Ukraine and extremely hostile to Putin's Russia, and they see this as a chance to get rid of Putin and to really provoke regime change in Russia. And then there are those that are much more skeptical of that

goal. You know, where Biden is, I don't know, because we don't know what exactly is going on Tell me a little bit. Ukraine too. And that is that Ukraine can never be safe if Vladimir Putin is in power, because Vladimir Putin represents this agenda of crushing Ukrainian independence, crushing Ukrainian sovereignty. And so therefore, the only way you're going to have peace is if you have full victory of the Ukrainian military on the territory, right, internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including the Donbass and Crimea. You have regime change within Russia. You have Putin at the Hague and you have reparations. So that's the comprehensive victory. And that's what a lot of people argue for, both within Ukraine and in Poland. And there's a strong camp for that within Washington, D.C. on Congress and in the think tanks and the like. The alternative is that you would have a victory in Ukraine, but a victory that is, it could be full in that

Ukraine gets all of its lands, but it's independent of whether Vladimir Putin is overthrown. Then you have a victory, which is Ukraine gets all of its lands except Crimea or except the Donbass. I think that's probably not acceptable to Ukraine anymore. But that is what Russia is sort of seeking. It's sort of seeking to freeze the conflict. Ukraine is pushing for more. And right now, there's no prospect really of the Ukrainians coming to the negotiating table when they feel that they have moral authority on their side and when they feel that they have momentum on the battlefield. against, you know, trying to broker some sort of peace is that people say that the Ukrainians shouldn't give in to what they call atomic blackmail, like Putin is threatening nuclear war. And if Ukraine concedes to them, then basically he gives incentive to Russia and other nuclear armed states to just threaten nukes every time they want something. So is that a fair argument as well? It's a fair argument. It's just what a gamble.

What an enormous gamble. And to me, it's not persuasive at all. Ever since the nuclear age, from before we were born, the world has been sentenced to the fact that it has to have some kind of restraints on how it fights wars when there are nuclear weapons involved. So we absolutely have to have restraint. And so this idea that we are weak because we're giving into nuclear blackmail and the like, and because Vladimir Putin is threatening nuclear weapons, is, I think, you know, it's panders to our worst instincts. We need to be very, very aware of the restraints of the nuclear age. And those restraints are that we have to negotiate. You negotiate even with your worst enemy because there are nuclear weapons involved.

And those are weapons which are, they just wreak havoc on thousands of people and on the earth. They're indiscriminate. on thousands of people and on the earth. They're indiscriminate. Many have described them as genocidal weapons in terms of the damage they do to kids and to future generations. This is something we just have to accept as part of the material reality of the world. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I want to talk a little more about the really polarized culture around the war.

So to give you one example, yesterday, our producer Ali spoke to David Vondrely, a columnist for The Washington Post. And he's written about the case for negotiating with Russia. And he said there's been this huge backlash to his writings. That it's selling out to the modern day Hitler that I'm arguing a sort of Neville Chamberlain position as Chamberlain tried to appease the Nazis in 1938. You know, talk to me a little bit more about the ferocity of this backlash and how

this might make attempts at what you say is necessary to just to talk with your enemy even more difficult. Yeah, I've seen it multiple times, really thoughtful people in Washington, D.C., who know the region very, very well and write with nuance, get absolutely pummeled because people want it to be just black and white. And so that's extremely dangerous. And that's part of what we have to fight against. While recognizing that, and this is where it's difficult, in a just world, you know, Vladimir Putin would be in The Hague on trial for crimes against Ukrainians, for crimes against civilians. That is something that we can aspire to. But we also recognize that we don't live in a world which delivers us perfect justice. And let's not get trapped into the idea that in this one place, there's going to be perfect justice when there's so many other things that really deserve our attention, like climate change, like racial injustice, and so on and so forth. This is part of living in a democracy and sorting all of those things out. in this war towards moral absolutism, which is extremely dangerous. And you mentioned the 1930s analogies, which come up again and again. Yeah, and I've seen them elsewhere too, not just in response to this guy's writing.

Yeah, and we need 1960s analogies. We need to talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis. We need to recognize that from 1945 onwards, with the advent of nuclear weapons, we're in a different world. And so, therefore, there are major dangers to going back to the sort of Manichean world of the 1930s, the sort of Manichean world of the 1930s where a dictator is rising and you have to stand up and be manly in front of the dictator and not be sort of a weak-willed like Neville Chamberlain. There's a whole gender dimension to this that I think is worth questioning and interrogating. We need courage to pursue negotiations and pursue imperfect peace. It's going to be a good enough peace in order for us to generally take the nuclear threat off the table and de-escalate. And that's going to help Ukraine and Ukrainians, Ukrainian civilians. It's going to allow enough peace so that infrastructure can be rebuilt.

And let me just say one last thing. I believe that this is going to be good for Ukraine because time is on Ukraine's side. Time is not on the side of Putin's dictatorship. Ukraine has suffered tremendously from community and has done amazing things in terms of accommodating all of the displaced persons and refugees from Ukraine. We need to continue to do that. But, you know, we also need to try to have negotiations to create this, you know, good enough peace. Gerard, thank you so much. It was really such a pleasure listening to you today. OK, thank you. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner.

See you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.