Ukraine War: The continuing illusion of "negotiations"; wishful thinking and potential appeasement in Ukraine
Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) in International Law, Harvard University
Adapted rom The Trenchant Observer, May 8, 2023
Bojan Pancevski, Laurence Norman, and Vivian Salama of the Wall Street Journal report that U.S. National Security Officials (i.e., Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser) are now receptive to China helping to mediate a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.1 Certain European leaders reportedly share this view (unnamed, but probably French and German).
NSC and some European officials are responding to the fact that as the war drags out, they are uncertain as to whether support for Ukraine from the West can be maintained at current levels. The Journal notes,
The supply of ammunition is a key problem because Western industrial capacity has proven unable to meet its own demands while supporting Ukraine, several officials and industry leaders said.
The reporters are talking about current “Western industrial capacity”—without moving to an emergency war production economy.
Assuming Ukraine makes significant gains in its upcoming counter-offensive, so the thinking goes, President Biden is likely to suggest to Volodymyr Zelenski that now would be a good time for negotiations.
The Journal reports further that the White House is thinking Ukraine may have to make territorial concessions. Pancevski, Norman, and Salama write,
The aim is for Ukraine to regain important territory in the south, a development that could be interpreted as a success even if Russia retains chunks of territory its forces have occupied.
“The military aid dispatched to Ukraine is designed to put Kyiv in a stronger negotiating position,” the Journal reports.
Pancevski, Norman, and Salama note,
The interest in negotiations brings Washington in closer alignment with some European countries, which are eager to see the conflict end, or at the very least moderate in intensity, and have been the most intent on discussing some resolution this year.
The White House clings to the illusion of a negotiated ceasefire or settlement to the war. A resolution this year would certainly help President Joe Biden in his campaign for re-election in 2024.
Yet it is all wishful thinking. It ignores basic realities.
Ukraine is not likely to willingly accept any territorial concessions.
Such concessions would greatly undermine the norms of international law and the U.N. Charter which prohibit the international use of force and the recognition of any territorial gains achieved by military conquest. Non-recognition of such gains has been the official policy of the United since 1932 under the Stimson Doctrine. That doctrine is now embodied in peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens), from which there can be no exception, not even by agreement.
The law of the Charter and international law governing the use of force is of critical importance in maintaining international peace and security. Any abandonment of its basic peremptory norms could lead to wars of aggression in a number of places in the world, including Taiwan.
The article by Pancevski, Norman, and Salama also reveals a fundamental flaw in U.S. strategy toward the Ukraine: a failure to understand what is really at stake in the war, and a consequent failure to take emergency actions, such as the sufficient production of munitions, that are required—for Ukraine, the West, and the U.N. Charter-based international legal order to prevail.
Biden has not yet accepted the goal of victory in this struggle, with victory being defined as Russian withdrawal of its troops from all of Ukraine together with a cessation of missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian targets, and reparations. In other words, an outcome consistent with international law, and the U.N. General Assembly Resolution adopted on February 23, 2023.
Officials like Jake Sullivan are used to resolving differences within Washington with clever words. That will not work in Ukraine.
Biden, Sullivan, and Anthony Blinken may think they can muddle through the challenge of the Ukraine War.
Yet they may be mistaken, as they were on the Afghanistan withdrawal decision.
They could lose the 2024 presidential election, particularly if the Republicans end up with a candidate other than Donald Trump.
A Republican victory in 2024 would in all likelihood be a victory for Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Bojan Pancevski (Berlin), Laurence Norman ( Berlin), and Vivian Salama (Washington), “U.S. and Allies Look at Potential China Role in Ending Ukraine War; An expected offensive by Ukraine is seen as paving way for negotiations with Russia,” Wall Street Journal, updated May 7, 2023 (2:45 pm ET).
***
See also,
“Sudan: An inspiring story of two student taxicab heroes amidst the fighting,” The Trenchant Observer, May 5, 2023.
***
Support the Author
There are two ways to support the author, so that he can continue to publish articles and books dealing with the war in Ukraine and other pressing international issues, including articles published here in the Trenchant Observations Newsletter and in The Trenchant Observer blog.
First, you may make a contribution to his Go Fund Me appeal by clicking on the last button and link below.
Second, you may order a paid subscription or upgrade to a Founding Member subscription to Trenchant Observations, by clicking on the “Subscribe” button below. (Substack takes 10% of the subscription amount.)
Finally, to help build the audience for Trenchant Observations, you can share aricles you like with your friends and colleagues, by clicking on the “Share” button.
See also “Why I care about the war in Ukraine,” Trenchant Observations, June 26, 2023.