As the United States and other NATO nations send weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian invaders, some left-wing critics have condemned the effort as an escalation of the war.
For example, Professor Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky described American politics as “bragging about heroism” while “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.” I do not accuse anyone of mourning the destruction and hoping for peace, but this assessment does not understand this war and America’s role in it.
The decision on when to stop fighting for Ukraine depends on the Ukrainians. Helping them while balancing other risks is the best way to peace.
However, Chomsky insists that America should encourage Ukraine to accept Russian demands: “You can sympathize with [Ukrainian President Zelensky’s] positions. But you can also pay attention to the reality of the world. ” This reality, he says, is “neutralization of Ukraine, some adjustment for the Donbass region” and removal of the status of Crimea from the negotiating table. He compared Russia to a hurricane and said concessions were “an alternative to the destruction of Ukraine and nuclear war”.
The linguistics professor and longtime anti-war activist has drawn criticism for denying both Ukrainian and Russian agencies and sounding like an apologist for Putin, but he also has his defenders. Here’s how Ben Burgess explained it in a column for The Daily Beast last week:
“Chomsky’s analysis is that the options are, on the one hand, a serious impetus for Russia, Ukraine, the United States and other powers to sit down and find a negotiating agreement to end the fighting or, on the other, to continue the escalation. good case will be lost countless additional Ukrainian lives. In the worst case, regional warfare could escalate into a wider conflict that could lead to World War III.
This is a false choice. The options are not serious diplomacy that ends fighting or military escalation. Ukraine is the main actor here, and its choice is to reconcile with Russian rule – with the capitulation of the cities, the abdication of Zelensky’s government and the installation of a pro-Russian leader (as Russia’s initial attempt on Kyiv) – or resistance. Ukraine’s elected leaders and a large percentage of its population have chosen to retaliate.
At this point, this is not diplomacy or war. That’s it.
War, explains political scientist James Fiern, is a negotiation process. Both sides have incompatible requirements, so they can’t make a deal, but they don’t really know what they can force the other to accept. Thus, the battles reveal information showing what the military can (or not) achieve, and this continues until at least one side changes its demands enough to make a settlement possible.
Ukrainian and Russian delegations met days after the invasion began, but did not reach an agreement. As early as April 19, Russia rejected proposals for a ceasefire by both Ukraine and the United Nations to allow the evacuation of civilians. The main reason the war is not over is not the United States, which is trying to “fight to the last Ukrainian”, but Russia, which is demanding much more than Ukraine is willing to give.
In a broader sense, America can bear some responsibility by welcoming former Soviet republics – such as Poland and Estonia – to NATO after the Cold War and leaving open the possibility of Ukrainian membership. It is reasonable to say that NATO enlargement has led Russia to embrace a geopolitical challenge that it must confront. But it is also plausible that post-Soviet Russia would like to re-establish itself in its near abroad, nonetheless. According to international relations professor Daniel Nexon, there are many factors and many possible alternative stories. We do not know, we cannot know, and although some hypothetical ones seem more plausible than others, we cannot change the past.
However, the massacre of Ukrainian civilians is not a reasonable response to geopolitical concerns about NATO enlargement.
“The war in Ukraine will end in a negotiated settlement, as most wars do, but the details will be shaped by military outcomes that remain uncertain.
Attributing the current violence to American ambition and the desire to sacrifice Ukrainians requires the admission of many unknown results. He demands that it be accepted as certain that – while Russian forces were gathering on Ukraine’s borders in January – the United States had only said: “Ukraine will never be in NATO and everyone should consider it in Russia’s sphere of influence”, this would satisfied the Kremlin.
Given Russia’s maximalist demands and how little Putin and his spokesmen mention NATO in public excuses – focusing instead on claims that Ukraine is not a real country, and the often-changing lies of genocide against Russian-speaking Ukrainians, covert programs for WMD and a government with a Jewish president secretly ruled by the Nazis – this is not very plausible.
The United States is an important player in this situation, but not the protagonist. Russia has chosen to demand the abdication of the Ukrainian government and targeted national demilitarization. Ukraine, which has been fighting Russian-backed separatists in Donbas for eight years, has chosen independence over abdication. Then Russia chose to launch a full-scale invasion. Recognition of the Russian and Ukrainian agencies means accepting that the United States is not the root cause of this war and probably could not stop it.
The war in Ukraine will end in a negotiated settlement, as most wars do, but the details will be shaped by military outcomes that remain uncertain. Ukraine has already been more successful than many expected, thwarting Russia’s attempt to take Kyiv and other major cities. Far from fruitless resistance to the last, Ukraine’s military efforts, aided by Western weapons, have secured its independence.
What Chomsky calls the “reality of the world” is not a fait accompli. Russia is not a mindless natural force, like a hurricane, but a resource-constrained country led by people with limited will. They have already been forced to lift the regime change and pursue the less ambitious goal of controlling Donbass and southern Ukraine.
Ukraine is retaliating, and if they win the battle of Donbass (as they won the battle of Kyiv), they can improve their negotiating position and perhaps even last long enough to exhaust Russia’s offensives. Maybe they can get something like the status quo before the invasion or better.
Or maybe not. But as Ukrainians want to try, it is not surprising that they will be offended by the desire of outsiders to trade with Ukraine and the ability to choose their own international relations, not least because they worry that abdication may now mean that Russia will reap profits, regain strength, and return in a few years to complete the work. After seeing Russian forces rape, torture, steal and kill all over the country, few Ukrainians, from Zelensky down, seem interested in giving Russia things they don’t have to, even when they know for sure that continuing the fighting means more death.
This means that America’s choice is not between diplomacy and war, but between respecting Ukraine’s request for help and telling them they are alone.
As NATO openly supports Ukraine’s military efforts, there are serious risks of escalation, which could spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear exchange. But the Biden administration’s policy shows a healthy assessment of this risk. The president is not and insists he will not send US troops, rejects calls for a no-fly zone, blocks the transfer of fighter jets from Poland to Ukraine and avoids reacting to Russian missile tests and other nuclear provocations. The United States is following a careful line, helping Ukraine as much as possible while minimizing the risk of a wider war.
Whether to settle with Russia and under what conditions is Ukraine’s decision. If they like the deal, the United States must support it, even if it means removing the economic pressure that Putin’s critics have advocated for years.
But until the Ukrainians decide to fight, the path to peace is Ukraine’s military success. This improves Ukraine’s negotiating position and discourages future international aggression – not only from Russia but also from China – by showing that the costs outweigh the benefits.
A settlement is possible when Russia accepts Ukraine’s independence, not before.
Add Comment