Good vs. Evil
“Never again,” they said.
It was a straightforward good-vs.-evil situation: the civilized world stood together after World War II and trumpeted the idea that, should another Adolf Hitler or Nazi Germany appear somewhere at any point in the future, it would now be clear as to where the “red line” of acceptable geopolitical and military behaviour is and that the world would not allow another such odious regime or political actor to gain a foothold ever again.
And yet, here we are, with Vladimir Putin and the “Russian Federation” (Russia is a “federation” in the same way that North Korea is a “democratic people’s republic”) stepping into those same roles quite handily, while the West wrings its hands and asks, “Where is that red line again?” It is exactly because the West dithered in the past that Putin saw weakness and decided to take full advantage, whether it be in Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, or Syria in 2015 and, because of Russia’s great skill in manipulating how much of the world sees Eastern Europe, the possibility strongly exists that the kid-glove approach may well continue in how the West and indeed the rest of the world handles the situation in Ukraine.
The call for "Peace"
This is an existential war for Ukraine
Many, for example, are calling for “peace” in Ukraine, which Russia sees as just more of the same kind of Western weakness because any kind of “peace” negotiation that results in Russia being rewarded for taking even one square metre of Ukraine’s sovereign territory by force suits it just fine. Internally, it makes Putin’s ultimately stupid strategic decision to launch a full-scale invasion look like it has had at least some justification and success while, externally, it sends the message that aggressive territorial incursion can and will be rewarded. Russia is selling its invasion as a territorial or ideological dispute (instead of the Ukrainian existential war that it is), which simple negotiations could easily solve. This is untrue at every level.
Putin must hurt himself smiling when he hears the likes of Donald Trump, when speaking about the invasion, saying things like “People need to stop dying” or “I would end this in a day”, knowing full well that the type of frozen conflict “peace” that Donald Trump and his myopic fellow travellers espouse would play right into Russia’s hands. Peace without the justice of restoring Ukraine’s 1991 territorial integrity (see map image at the head of this post) or of Russia and Putin answering for war crimes in Ukraine would be no peace at all, as Russia as it is constituted will never alter its centuries-old design of wanting to subsume Ukraine and erase all vestiges of Ukrainian national identity. You cannot negotiate with someone who does not accept that you have the right to exist.
"Peace in our time"
All of this, of course, hearkens back to the late 1930s, when many were all too willing to give Adolf Hitler some territory in the hope that this would satiate his geopolitical appetite. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” pronouncement after his negotiating away Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement of 1938 (without Czechoslovakia actually being present at the negotiations) is well known to many, and it is also well known how that eventually turned out.
Chamberlain was far from the only one advocating for such a position or clamouring for “dialogue” and “peace” above all else, as Canada’s own Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King certainly fell into that camp himself. Most of the world remains thankful that Winston Churchill, who saw Hitler exactly for who he was, entered into his leadership position at the time he did, or WW II might have turned out very differently. However, knowing this has not precluded certain European (mostly former) leaders from thinking that playing ball with Russia, as they did with Germany, might still be a good idea.
“Never again” indeed.
The "Incremental" camp
Why the hesitation?
Then there is the “incremental” camp – the ones who have consistently given Ukraine enough to stay in it but not necessarily enough to win it due to a fear of “escalation” with Russia. This group includes the United States and most of the western European countries. As Chuck Hagel, former US Secretary of Defence (and others) has said, it is bewildering how, on the one hand, the West outwardly recognizes Putin for who and what he is and wants to see Russia stopped from what it is doing in Ukraine (and may well try to do elsewhere in the former Soviet and Eastern Bloc sphere, given half a chance) but on the other hand has refused to give Ukraine the firepower it needs to do the job in a thorough and timely manner.
To paraphrase, “If defeating Russia is the objective and giving Ukraine what it needs is the means to achieving that objective, then why are we not doing exactly that right now?”
One wonders how many Ukrainian lives (and Russian lives, for that matter) would have been saved, had assistance to Ukraine not been so piecemeal and slow in coming, especially with regard to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Russia certainly has not been afraid to escalate this “special military operation” by the constant and indiscriminate daily dropping of bombs throughout Ukraine and the killing of innocent civilians, so why the hesitation?
Red line or more weak Western posturing?
From the West’s perspective, the answer, of course, is first, that it does not want to see this conflict become a nuclear confrontation; second, that inflicting any kind of full and complete defeat of Russia may well bring Vladimir Putin down but it could actually put someone even worse in his place; and third, that it likely brings China into the conflict, with all the risk that this change of dynamic would entail. All these are valid, critical concerns, but the question arises: how long does the world let a geopolitical bully call the shots?
At some point, the world thought it worthwhile to put a stop to Hitler’s plans for territorial conquest and genocide – why is it any different with regard to Russia and Putin, who are clearly, if their eliminationist and genocidal rhetoric is any indication, trying to eradicate Ukraine from the world map? Is there an actual red line or is that just more weak Western posturing on display?
A multi-polar world?
There is intuitive attractiveness to the idea of a “multi-polar” world, particularly (from some perspectives, at least) one in which the US does not have quite as much power and influence as it currently does. However, if one of those poles is an imperialistic, belligerent, and territorially (and ethnically) hegemonic Russia, what is the argument that the world is a safer, better place with this kind of international alignment? What is Russia actually offering the world in those circumstances, other than some kind of perceived bulwark against the US?
In a lot of ways, this war in Ukraine is more about Russia and its place in the world than it is about Ukraine. Whether some countries wish to admit it or not, Russia is a bad actor on the world stage and, if we are to judge a country by the company it keeps, then Russia’s increasingly cozy relationships with the likes of North Korea and Iran should tell us everything we need to know. As columnist Diane Francis stated, “The war, and much global strife, will end only once Russia is dismantled and its oligarchy bankrupted”. Easier said than done, of course, but is the kind of multi-polar in which Russia plays a key role the kind of world we want to see?
Conclusion
As the saying goes, “If Russia stops fighting, there will be no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine”, and yet that is not the only concern at play here. With ever more proof of Russia’s use of torture in Ukraine, of its sending Ukrainian children to camps deep inside of Russia for re-education and systematic generational erasure of Ukrainian identity, of its indiscriminate destruction of the environment (as is evident in the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam), of its bombardment of foodstuffs and related Ukrainian exports to countries sorely in need of these, and of its preached liquidation of Ukrainians as a people, it is difficult not to see the world as having a moral responsibility in putting a stop to this, regardless of whether it is happening in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, or elsewhere.
Moreover, whether the Global South and others realize it or not, and moral considerations aside, it is in Europe’s and the world’s own interest to keep a bad actor from being successful in its acquisitive designs on neighbouring (and other) lands. Is this the “multi-polar” world we want? After all, who might be next and how might that play out?
And then will we once again look back on what we should have done in the first place and proclaim, “Never again?”
Next column: What good has come from the situation?
Jerry,
I’ve read and re-read this essay a number of times. You have done a masterful job of melting the past with the present with your “never again” references.
It makes me very uneasy as I retreat back into my comfortable life….
Would that your work reach decision makers….