Russia-Ukraine: Peace from now on - A call for realism

Our friend Antoine Dresse has just published an interesting little book on realism in politics. I think this is exactly what we need right now. To look at reality as it is, not as we'd like it to be, and in so doing, to draw the most obvious conclusions in everyone's interest. Especially for us Europeans.

Let's take a look at the facts.

In 2014, Ukrainians wanted to rid themselves of an unbearable Russian tutelage embodied by the highly corrupt President Viktor Yanukovych. Those who claim that the Maïdan events were nothing more than a colorful revolution masterminded by the CIA and German intelligence services are lying, or rather not telling the whole truth.

That secret services acted underhandedly, as in all revolutions, is certain; that this discredits a movement entirely is inadmissible. At the same time, the Russian services were working hard to keep Ukraine in their fold. Whatever the actions of the various parties, it has to be said that a large proportion of Ukrainians wanted to move closer to Europe, and more generally to the West, in order to turn the page on a vassalization that had cost them dearly in history.

As Europeans - and as long as we care about Europe at all - we couldn't remain insensitive to such a desire on the part of a people from our continent to join us, and to be ready to fight for it.

Since the invasion of their territory in February 2022, the Ukrainians have shown their determination to become a nation independent of Russia and more inclined towards the West. No one can take this away from them now: even the most staunchly pro-Russian can no longer deny this fierce Ukrainian will (they might say: "this will of West Ukrainians only", but who cares). Ukrainian military resistance has surprised everyone, Russians and Westerners alike; it has confirmed a nation.

A real nation. An imperfect nation, to be sure, but a nation in arms, and we French know exactly what that means. A nation that wants to join Europe, and a nation that - understandably - wants to be protected by the Atlantic Alliance (NATO), if nothing else.

This is a fact that absolutely nobody can deny. Of course, the pro-Russians may deplore it, but unless they want to crush Ukraine for good, they'll have to live with it. If they have anything to reproach, let them do it to themselves first.

Firstly, while they were so ethnically and culturally close to the Ukrainians, they managed, through their brutal methods of governance, to alienate them. The C.I.A. is powerful, but you can't always blame everything on it to absolve yourself of your own imperialism: no, if the Ukrainians wanted to look to the West, it wasn't just because of diabolical manipulation and insidious propaganda. In reality, the Russians held all the cards to ensure that their former satellites, and even more so their sister nations like Ukraine, remained attached to their former hegemon. Yet many of these countries wanted to break away. The Russians must ask themselves why, and not always hide behind the evil West.

Secondly, if the Russians wanted the Ukrainians to remain their vassals at all costs, all they had to do was subdue them militarily. If they couldn't win them over with their economy and culture, they could resort to war. And that's exactly what they decided to do. But what they thought would be a walk in the park turned out to be a quagmire, a setback. This too is a fact, an implacable fact that even the most obstinate pro-Russians refuse to admit. However, if we assess the Russians' initial objectives in February 2022 (i.e. the rapid collapse of Kiev and a complete rout of the Ukrainian armies), we are forced to admit that the war in Ukraine has been a failure for Russia.

Once all this has been established, however, we must also listen to what the Russians have to say, and above all take account of strategic realities. Unfortunately, the most fanatical pro-Ukrainians and zealous Americanophiles on our continent fail to do this.

For the Russians, as we know, Crimea is essential. The populations living in the Donbass, on the other hand, are predominantly Russophiles, or at least Russian-speaking, and have been bombed for years by the Ukrainians. I know this because I've been in Donbass, and even if our Ukrainian friends deny this or relativize it by arguing that Donbass had no right, legally speaking, to secede, the truth must be told. I heard and saw the bombardments; whether they were legitimate or not is not the issue, or rather it no longer is. The reality is that they helped to drive a wedge between western and eastern Ukraine, in other words, between Ukraine and Russia. This gap quickly became a trench, and it is from this trench that we must now make realistic proposals.

Supported by the West, the Ukrainians have stood up heroically to what was once thought to be the world's second largest army. Not only did they stop the invasion, but they even recaptured territory lost at the start of the conflict. An exceptional feat, achieved at the cost of immense sacrifice. This is just one more fact.

On two occasions, in September 2022 and at the time of the incredible story of the paramilitary group Wagner, Ukraine and its allies even thought it possible that the Russian army would collapse, perhaps followed by a political about-turn in Moscow. This would have made it possible for the Ukrainians to retake the territories lost in 2014-2015, the Donbass and Crimea.

This did not happen. The Russian army held out. Putin was not overthrown. The front has stalled. More facts, nothing but facts.

Let's move on to the analysis.

1. It was unquestionably necessary to support Ukraine economically and militarily. Easily crushed by Russia, the message sent would have been terrible: that Russia could still do whatever it wanted with its former satellites, encouraging it in an imperialism that does exist (only those who don't know Russia - or are paid by it - deny that this imperialism exists), and that the West/Europe willingly abandons its allies, its borders, and even, in my opinion, its future - so much so that I believe that a large part of the future of European civilization lies in the East.

The fact that Ukraine has resisted has shown the Russians that any belligerence in Europe will cost them dearly. That even victories would only be Pyrrhic. Ukrainian resistance, coupled with Russia's own internal problems (such as demographics at half-mast), may finally have put an end to Russia's imperialist ambitions, to the great benefit of the Europeans... and indeed of the Russians themselves.

2. The Americans played the game in their own interests (and rightly so): if the Russian army collapsed or even ran into immense difficulties without having to fight directly on the spot, this would reassert their unparalleled dominance and send a very serious message to China. On the other hand, since Obama and confirmed by Trump, numerous signals suggest that the Americans want to gradually disengage from Europe in order to deploy themselves more tendentiously in the Pacific. For this to happen, the Russians had to stop scaring the countries of Eastern Europe, the very countries that are clamoring for an ever-greater NATO presence on our continent. A Russian defeat, or at any rate Russian difficulties, were therefore the condition for appeasement on the part of the Eastern Europeans, who are Atlanticists in the extreme. I think this is why the Americans agreed to the Ukrainian war effort (and Trump was the first, by arming the Ukrainian army, which Obama had refused to do): to be able, by proxy, to hit Russia hard, so as to be able to justify a tendentious withdrawal tomorrow, while having convinced the world (and their allies in particular) that their power remained intact.

The Ukrainian resistance has more or less achieved this American objective.

3. Russia will not abandon Crimea or the Donbass. Russian armies are being strengthened by an industry that is increasingly transformed into a war economy. After the failure of the latest Ukrainian counter-offensive, it has to be admitted that the Ukrainians will not be able to fully reconquer their territories in the East. Consequently, to continue this war eternally for an objective that has now become largely illusory - whatever its moral, legal, human and other merits - no longer serves either the Ukraine or its neighbours. - no longer serves either Ukraine or Europe. Only the Americans can possibly benefit from a persistent bogging down of the conflict by separating Europe from Russia for a long time to come. Even so, the conflict is costing them dearly, and it's not certain that the Yankee taxpayer will want to pay for a war so far from home for much longer. Russia itself, whatever it may say, is suffering enormously from the continuation of the "special operation": its economy is in dire straits as a result of the sanctions, and some of its young people are dying tragically in atrocious battles. In any case, this war is now costing everyone a great deal, and the gains to be made on both sides are now so small and uncertain that it's finally time to be realistic and wise, and talk peace.

So, how do we make this peace?

Once again, let's try to be realistic - just realistic.

The Russians cannot militarily subjugate Ukraine.

The Ukrainians cannot take back the Donbass and Crimea.

The Americans have achieved part of their goal by showing the world the weakness of the Russian army and the strength of support for its allies, so there's no point in wanting more - and if they want more, the Europeans will have to have the courage to stand up to them.

Europeans need to be partners and friends with Russia. But a Russia that has renounced all outdated imperialism. There is every reason to believe (and at least to hope) that the war in Ukraine has finally convinced Russia that it can no longer afford its former ambitions, and that non-military solutions will be preferable in the future.

On that basis, I believe we have no choice but to endorse Russia's territorial annexation of Crimea and the Donbass. I know what this means in terms of international law, in terms of the Ukrainians and all their sacrifices, and in terms of the history of the 20th century. I know what it means.

I know, and yet, given the immediate impossibility of a total collapse of the Russian army (which, moreover, would be undesirable, given that the Russian Federation could become a powder keg - particularly for terrorism - in the event of the collapse of its army, which would inevitably lead to the collapse of its state), any continuation of the war is tantamount to the continuation of Ukrainian human sacrifices for next to nothing. Ukraine has already accomplished the feat of resisting invasion. Regaining lost territory is now a challenge, whether we like it or not.

Russia, having secured Crimea and Donbass, could trumpet its victory; its pride needs it to accept peace. As with the Battle of Moskova, Russia will turn what was a failure into a success. Good for her, because secretly, she will know that it is now extremely difficult for her to want more, and that Ukraine's destiny will henceforth be on the side of Europe and the West. It will have won Crimea, but it will have lost Ukraine and, more generally, Eastern Europe. The deal, I believe, is acceptable.

Ukraine will have to be compensated for the loss of its eastern territories. This takes the form of the obvious: it must join Europe and, until such time as it has a genuine military alliance independent of the United States (which is what I believe in and hope for with all my heart), join NATO. The Russians will certainly not be happy, but this will be the price they have to pay for Crimea, the Donbass, the end of sanctions and, above all, the end of war. Since they need to know that Ukraine is not going to surrender, and that in fact it is already practically part of NATO, they too, as great realists, will have to accept this fact for good.

Today, only idealists on both sides imagine, either that Russia will eventually triumph over the West in Ukraine, or that the West will triumph over the evil Russians by reclaiming all Ukrainian territory and, why not, overthrowing Putin. While these idealists on both sides are daydreaming, thousands of young people are dying in a tragic war, and two sister civilizations, Europe and Russia, are violently turning their backs on each other when they have so much to do together.

So I repeat: let's be realistic, nothing but realistic. Realism is the only way to peace, and that's why we need to silence the idealists on both sides.

Be realistic, nothing but realistic: be for peace, as soon as possible.

Julien Rochedy