tmourning brought wednesday a striking opinion article by Jolle Demmers, professor of conflict studies at Utrecht University. It calls for moderation in the Western response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Instead of taking harsh sanctions and providing arms support, the Dutch government should focus on conflict mediation,” she writes. “A realistic and pragmatic focus on de-escalation is the only way out of this dangerous war dynamic.” And further on: “The continued military support to Ukraine is giving a strong impetus to the dynamics of warfare. While well-intentioned, this will further escalate a conflict that can (still) be resolved at the negotiating table.”
Is Demmers not too optimistic about the possibilities at the negotiating table? So far, Putin seems to be using those negotiations mainly to force the surrender he is simultaneously trying to force on the battlefield. It seems rather naive to expect too much from that. Precisely by not giving Ukraine arms support, as Demmers advocates, Putin would be strengthened in his aggressive attitude. The result will be a de-escalation that will only come at the expense of Ukraine.
I see more in the sense of reality that columnist Thomas Friedman in some articles in The New York Times showed. The Ukrainians who want to fight for their country must be given the weapons they need; he thinks that most important at the moment.
He further describes three scenarios: 1. Most likely, he supposes, has already begun: ‘A complete disaster’. A massacre of civilians and a destruction of infrastructure. “This could lead to war crimes on a scale that Europe has not seen since the Nazis.” 2. Less likely: “The Dirty Compromise.” Ukraine is holding its ground on the battlefield, and the sanctions are hurting Putin badly. In exchange for a ceasefire, Ukraine cedes its eastern enclaves to Putin and pledges never to join NATO. 3. Least Likely: ‘The Rescue’. The Russian people are as brave as the Ukrainian people and depose Putin.
I also had in mind the war crimes that Friedman fears when I read my previous column (Let’s slaughter a nation?) wrote. I received support and criticism for that column. Did I realize that I was in fact pleading for a Western intervention that could lead to a new world war, some readers asked.
But I especially wanted to point out the inevitability – from a moral point of view – of a Western intervention if a huge humanitarian crisis arises in Ukraine, ie of the magnitude that Friedman describes. I wrote it to a reader before I even read Friedman: “Suppose, in the worst case scenario, that Putin conquers Ukraine and then sets up concentration camps where he tortures six million Ukrainians to death, do we in the West continue to say: ‘Sorry, brave Ukrainians, bad luck for you, but you’re not in NATO, so we’ll keep our hands to ourselves’?”
Perhaps such a standoffish stance would aid de-escalation between the parties, but I fear that one day we will hopefully have to offer our sincere apologies.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of March 4, 2022