In response to an article by Victor Rud titled “Thirteen Reasons Why a ‘Negotiated Peace’ in Ukraine Will Shatter Our Security,” published in EU Today on 22 October 2024, experts gathered in an online conference with the author himself to consider the dangers posed by a negotiated settlement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Moderated by Gary Cartwright, publisher of EU Today, the panel included Victor Rud, a prominent American attorney, foreign policy analyst, and Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the Ukrainian American Bar Association; Willy Fautré, Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers; and Dmytro Shkurko, a Brussels-based correspondent for Ukrinform.
The panelists discussed how Western insistence on a “diplomatic solution” could lead to further security risks and the erosion of international rule of law.
The Case Against Negotiations with Russia
Rud opened the discussion by expressing strong opposition to negotiations that might see concessions made to Russia without Ukraine’s full involvement.
He argued that any such arrangements could signal weakness and a lack of credible deterrence from the West. According to Rud, the US, particularly under previous administrations, has historically underestimated Russia’s geopolitical aspirations.
He warned that a renewed emphasis on negotiations could not only undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty but also embolden other authoritarian regimes, such as China and Iran, creating a broader challenge to the global order.
Rud drew on historical parallels, pointing out the repeated failure of diplomatic agreements to restrain Russia. From the Soviet Union’s aggressive postures during the Cold War to the ongoing situation with Ukraine, Rud argued that Western democracies have consistently misread Russian intentions, often treating it as a partner that could be appeased.
“We cannot sell parts of the international order,” Rud stated, emphasising that Russia’s disregard for international borders and law cannot be legitimised through compromise.
Human Rights Concerns and Global Implications
Willy Fautré, a prominent figure within the EU’s human rights landscape, reiterated concerns about the risks of a Western-backed peace deal. Fautré warned that Russia’s longstanding approach to negotiations, which often excludes key stakeholders such as Ukraine and the European Union, reinforces Moscow’s goal to be perceived as a global superpower on par with the United States.
He argued that Europe’s reliance on negotiations could further erode the West’s credibility, adding, “Putin’s actions suggest he views NATO as a paper tiger, given the alliance’s current reluctance to take decisive action.”
Fautré also discussed how Russia’s tactics, including using North Korean troops in support of its objectives, demonstrate Putin’s disregard for international rules of engagement.
He voiced concerns that European nations might eventually accept an unfavourable deal to end the conflict, prioritising economic stability over principles of sovereignty and human rights. According to Fautré, the European Union’s reluctance to escalate its military involvement limits its influence over the conflict’s resolution.
The Conflict in Broader Terms: A Clash of Systems
Adding a Ukrainian perspective, Shkurko outlined the ideological divide that he believes lies at the heart of the conflict. In his view, Russia represents the last imperial state, where individual rights are subordinate to the power of the state.
He argued that Ukraine’s struggle symbolises a clash between authoritarianism and democratic values, positioning Ukraine as a frontline defender of the West’s ideals. “This is a global fight between democracy and dictatorship,” Shkurko stated, warning that the stakes extend beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Shkurko further emphasised the existential nature of Ukraine’s resistance, explaining that despite fluctuating levels of Western support, Ukrainians remain committed to defending their nation.
He pointed out that the West’s perception of Russian strength has often been exaggerated, which, in turn, has led to a hesitant approach in confronting Moscow directly. Shkurko noted that this overestimation has historically influenced Western defence spending and strategic decisions, leaving Ukraine inadequately equipped in the current conflict.
Misunderstandings of Russian Intentions and the West’s Strategic Missteps
Rud underscored the West’s apparent misunderstanding of Russian political psychology, stating that a willingness to negotiate may be misinterpreted by Moscow as a sign of weakness. He cited examples from the past 20 years, highlighting moments when the West could have countered Russian actions more decisively.
He attributed the current global security challenges, including those posed by North Korea and Iran, to the West’s reluctance to assert its influence. According to Rud, the frequent failure of Western policy in dealing with Russia is a result of “our own ignorance, naivety, and the refusal to acknowledge historical experience.”
Both Fautré and Rud pointed to the failure of previous agreements, such as the Minsk Accords, which allowed Russia to maintain a foothold in Ukraine without facing significant consequences. Fautré remarked that this pattern signals to other authoritarian regimes that defiance of international norms can be advantageous.
Both speakers raised concerns over the implications of a US policy approach that prioritises diplomacy over deterrence, suggesting that this could destabilise the power balance in other regions, particularly in Asia.
A Call for Clearer Western Strategy and Leadership
The discussion ended with calls for more robust leadership from the West. Rud argued that Europe and the United States lack the decisive leadership needed to counter Russian ambitions effectively.
The panellists noted that Western democracies’ preoccupation with internal political dynamics often prevents them from formulating consistent foreign policies. Fautré pointed out that while Russia has a single, clear leader in Putin, European Union institutions are plagued by bureaucratic gridlock and political divisions.
The participants agreed that there is an urgent need for the West to unify its stance on Russia and that Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty should be non-negotiable elements of any diplomatic engagement.
Shkurko concluded with an appeal for optimism, stressing that the current resistance in Ukraine could ultimately pave the way for the end of Russian imperial ambitions, with the condition that Western support remains steadfast. He argued that Ukraine’s resilience represents a beacon for those striving for freedom, asserting, “We are fighting not only for our future but for a democratic future for all.”
Conclusion
The conference illuminated the complexities of negotiating with Russia, revealing that any such efforts would likely have far-reaching consequences.
The speakers expressed concerns that an insufficiently robust Western response could not only fail to deter Russia but also embolden other authoritarian regimes. The discussion highlighted a consensus: that the West, particularly Europe, must reconsider its approach to security, recognising the broader ideological stakes at play.
Read also:
The ‘Little Russia’ malware in our brains, by Victor Rud (The Hill, 01 May 2023)
Thirteen Reasons Why a “Negotiated Peace” in Ukraine Will Shatter Our Security, Explains Victor Rud
