The Folly of Negotiating with Putin
As Putin’s invasion of Ukraine nears the one-year mark, many individuals within donor countries are understandably frustrated. The more money countries funnel into Ukraine for armaments and humanitarian assistance, the more appealing pressuring Ukraine into a negotiated peace settlement seems. Many in the United States, including Elon Musk, have gone so far as to echo the sentiment that Ukraine should give up pieces of its internationally recognized territory for a peace settlement. However, this myopic strategy is immoral and wildly arrogant.
Ever since 1945, our world order has been built on a series of norms that promoted diplomacy, anti-imperialism, and decolonization. When Britain and France attempted to seize the Suez Canal or when the Soviet Union remained in Iran, the diplomatic backlash stemming from anti-imperial and anti-colonial norms forced the aggressing power to back down.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine represents an analogous scenario. A negotiated peace with Putin that allows Russia to maintain annexed Ukraine territory signals to autocrats across the world that territorial annexation is acceptable with enough strength.
When describing such a negotiated peace deal, the term “peace” is a misnomer that conflates real peace with a lack of war. Given the war crimes in Bucha and throughout the rest of Ukraine, such a deal would lead to an occupation that deprives Ukrainians of democracy while subjecting them to an autocracy that places little value on the lives of Ukrainians. In this case, a negotiated peace only exists insofar as interstate warfare ceased. Peace would not exist for the Ukrainians in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson.
Moreover, the means used to pressure Zelenskyy into negotiating with Putin is unacceptable. Leveraging both military aid and sanctions relief to pressure Ukraine into negotiations with Russia would signal that a Russian military victory in Ukraine is a realistic and achievable goal. This would embolden Putin to end the wars not through negotiations, but through strength.
Putin has indicated an unwillingness to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty time and time again, and there’s no evidence that a peace deal in which Russia receives Ukrainian territory would lead to a different outcome. Steven Pifer rightly argues, “In 2014, the Russian military seized Crimea, and Russian and Russian proxy forces occupied part of Donbas, but the Kremlin was not content just with that.” The historical record shows that Putin will not negotiate seriously and in a way that respects the sovereignty of Ukraine. So long as Putin remains in power, peace can only be achieved through a Ukrainian victory.
