No Room for Compromise?<\/strong><\/h3>\nUS President Joe Biden has made several statements that a negotiated solution to the war less likely. He has repeatedly called<\/a> Russian President Vladimir Putin a \u201cwar criminal<\/a>\u201d and also referred to the Russian president as a \u201cbutcher<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\nOther US policymakers have made similar statements. The State Department announced<\/a> that it formally judged Russian forces guilty of war crimes in Ukraine. Both the Democratic and Republican ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have indicated<\/a> Putin must face consequences for such crimes. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said, \u201cPutin must be held accountable for this tragic and barbaric assault on innocent civilians.\u201d Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) said, \u201cThe international community must also take concrete steps to hold Putin and his cronies accountable for their war crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"consistent](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/blog-Russia-Ukraine-War-300x188.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn a more just world order than the present one, world leaders who violate international law\u2014whether Putin or anyone else\u2014would indeed be held accountable for their crimes. That is regrettably not the current situation, however.<\/p>\n
The United States doesn\u2019t currently have jurisdiction to try Russian policymakers for war crimes and Russia isn\u2019t a party to the International Criminal Court (and neither is the United States). Also, Russia\u2019s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council would likely allow it to block effective prosecution of Russian war crimes. Most important, as long as Putin and his associates remain in power, they remain effectively immune from prosecution by a foreign or international court.<\/p>\n
Calling Putin a war criminal is unlikely to lead to the Russian president being brought to justice. However, such statements are likely to make Putin more committed to waging war against Ukraine and less willing to negotiate.<\/p>\n
The war has created a dire political situation for Putin. For all the death and devastation they have caused to date, Russian forces have not succeeded in seizing the Ukrainian capital of Kiev or otherwise decisively defeating the Ukrainians. The war might well end in a Russian defeat. Wartime defeat could threaten<\/a> Russian President Vladimir Putin\u2019s legitimacy and hold on power, which means he has strong incentive to do whatever is required to win. If a fall from power also means probable prosecution for war crimes, then that incentive to win becomes even stronger.<\/p>\nIf US policymakers are effectively saying that Putin must be removed from power\u2014a step that Biden has explicitly advocated<\/a>, although he later walked back<\/a> that statement\u2014then that leaves little room for Putin to make any concession or negotiate an end to the Ukraine war.\u00a0 Russian officials have responded to condemnatory American statements by calling<\/a> them \u201cabsolutely unacceptable and inexcusable\u201d and warning<\/a> of a \u201ccollapse\u201d in US-Russian relations.<\/p>\nEscalating Conflict<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn the absence of a negotiated solution, the Ukraine war continues and threatens to expand. The United States has provided an estimated $2.6 billion<\/a> in military assistance to Ukraine since the February 2022 Russian invasion (and was providing military assistance<\/a> to the Ukrainians for years before that point). Most recently, the Biden administration decided to send $800 million in military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment previously not provided to that country.<\/p>\nWhatever else one might think of such assistance, US support to Ukraine\u2019s war fighting carries with it the danger that the United States will be drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. If US military personnel train Ukrainian military personnel\u2014as is apparently planned under the most recent military aid package\u2014that opens the possibility of US troops being caught up in combat. Great caution is necessary.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/blog-Ukraine-Russia-War-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Biden administration has at least so far refrained from committing US troops directly to the war. In particular, the administration has not embraced the policy of a \u201cno-fly-zone\u201d over Ukraine, despite repeated<\/a> requests<\/a> for such a policy from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.<\/p>\nA no-fly-zone would effectively require US or other NATO forces to shoot down Russian aircraft, if necessary. This would turn the Ukraine war into a full-fledged world war between Russia and the west.<\/p>\n
The administration has also to date rejected<\/a> the notion of giving Ukraine fighter jets. While not as extreme as imposing a no-fly-zone, flying jets from NATO nations into Ukraine so Ukrainians can use them against Russians could still be interpreted by Russia as an escalation.<\/p>\nNevertheless, various voices within the United States have called for giving Ukraine fighter jets or even imposing the no-fly-zone. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) has questioned<\/a> the fighter jet decision, saying \u201cPresident Biden should explain exactly why he vetoed fighter jets for Ukraine.\u201d Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican House minority leader, has said<\/a> the United States should \u201cprovide [the Ukrainians] the planes where they can create a no-fly-zone,\u201d a stance seconded by House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has released a statement<\/a> expressing support either for supplying jets or imposing a no-fly-zone (and also calling for measures to \u201cfurther devastate the Russian economy\u201d). We must hope the Biden administration continues to avoid such escalations.<\/p>\nEscalation on the Russian side is also a real danger, especially if the war continues to go badly and Putin gets desperate. What this might entail was recently spelled out<\/a> by CIA Director William Burns: \u201ca potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapon\u201d While such a drastic step does not seem likely at present, what the future holds is unknown.<\/p>\nThe Diplomatic Path<\/strong><\/h3>\nAs long as the war continues without a diplomatic resolution, more people will die and the risk of some terrible escalation continues. All parties need to seek a cease-fire and some kind of negotiated settlement. The settlement\u2019s precise form will no doubt depend on how the situation on the ground changes, but it will probably require an agreement of Ukrainian neutrality between Russia and NATO as well as concessions by all sides.<\/p>\n
The idea of negotiations with and concessions to Putin and the current Russian leadership undoubtedly seems a bitter pill to swallow after the events of the past two months. However, a diplomatic resolution will ultimately not be bitter to the untold numbers of people whose lives will be saved by the war ending\u2014not to speak of the still greater number of people who will spared if further escalation can be prevented.<\/p>\n
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev urged<\/a> President John F. Kennedy that they \u201cought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war . . . a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it.\u201d After that, the only option would be to \u201ccut the knot\u201d\u2014that is, wage world war. Now as then, leaders on both sides should not \u201cpull the knot tighter\u201d through further verbal and military escalation. They should seek to untie the knot and end the war.<\/p>\n===================================<\/p>\n
For more of our posts on Ukraine, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nNot Your Pawns: A CLE Examination of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict<\/a><\/p>\nA Catastrophe Decades in the Making: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine<\/a><\/p>\n
Other US policymakers have made similar statements. The State Department announced<\/a> that it formally judged Russian forces guilty of war crimes in Ukraine. Both the Democratic and Republican ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have indicated<\/a> Putin must face consequences for such crimes. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said, \u201cPutin must be held accountable for this tragic and barbaric assault on innocent civilians.\u201d Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) said, \u201cThe international community must also take concrete steps to hold Putin and his cronies accountable for their war crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n In a more just world order than the present one, world leaders who violate international law\u2014whether Putin or anyone else\u2014would indeed be held accountable for their crimes. That is regrettably not the current situation, however.<\/p>\n The United States doesn\u2019t currently have jurisdiction to try Russian policymakers for war crimes and Russia isn\u2019t a party to the International Criminal Court (and neither is the United States). Also, Russia\u2019s status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council would likely allow it to block effective prosecution of Russian war crimes. Most important, as long as Putin and his associates remain in power, they remain effectively immune from prosecution by a foreign or international court.<\/p>\n Calling Putin a war criminal is unlikely to lead to the Russian president being brought to justice. However, such statements are likely to make Putin more committed to waging war against Ukraine and less willing to negotiate.<\/p>\n The war has created a dire political situation for Putin. For all the death and devastation they have caused to date, Russian forces have not succeeded in seizing the Ukrainian capital of Kiev or otherwise decisively defeating the Ukrainians. The war might well end in a Russian defeat. Wartime defeat could threaten<\/a> Russian President Vladimir Putin\u2019s legitimacy and hold on power, which means he has strong incentive to do whatever is required to win. If a fall from power also means probable prosecution for war crimes, then that incentive to win becomes even stronger.<\/p>\n If US policymakers are effectively saying that Putin must be removed from power\u2014a step that Biden has explicitly advocated<\/a>, although he later walked back<\/a> that statement\u2014then that leaves little room for Putin to make any concession or negotiate an end to the Ukraine war.\u00a0 Russian officials have responded to condemnatory American statements by calling<\/a> them \u201cabsolutely unacceptable and inexcusable\u201d and warning<\/a> of a \u201ccollapse\u201d in US-Russian relations.<\/p>\n In the absence of a negotiated solution, the Ukraine war continues and threatens to expand. The United States has provided an estimated $2.6 billion<\/a> in military assistance to Ukraine since the February 2022 Russian invasion (and was providing military assistance<\/a> to the Ukrainians for years before that point). Most recently, the Biden administration decided to send $800 million in military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment previously not provided to that country.<\/p>\n Whatever else one might think of such assistance, US support to Ukraine\u2019s war fighting carries with it the danger that the United States will be drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. If US military personnel train Ukrainian military personnel\u2014as is apparently planned under the most recent military aid package\u2014that opens the possibility of US troops being caught up in combat. Great caution is necessary.<\/p>\n The Biden administration has at least so far refrained from committing US troops directly to the war. In particular, the administration has not embraced the policy of a \u201cno-fly-zone\u201d over Ukraine, despite repeated<\/a> requests<\/a> for such a policy from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.<\/p>\n A no-fly-zone would effectively require US or other NATO forces to shoot down Russian aircraft, if necessary. This would turn the Ukraine war into a full-fledged world war between Russia and the west.<\/p>\n The administration has also to date rejected<\/a> the notion of giving Ukraine fighter jets. While not as extreme as imposing a no-fly-zone, flying jets from NATO nations into Ukraine so Ukrainians can use them against Russians could still be interpreted by Russia as an escalation.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, various voices within the United States have called for giving Ukraine fighter jets or even imposing the no-fly-zone. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) has questioned<\/a> the fighter jet decision, saying \u201cPresident Biden should explain exactly why he vetoed fighter jets for Ukraine.\u201d Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican House minority leader, has said<\/a> the United States should \u201cprovide [the Ukrainians] the planes where they can create a no-fly-zone,\u201d a stance seconded by House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA). Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has released a statement<\/a> expressing support either for supplying jets or imposing a no-fly-zone (and also calling for measures to \u201cfurther devastate the Russian economy\u201d). We must hope the Biden administration continues to avoid such escalations.<\/p>\n Escalation on the Russian side is also a real danger, especially if the war continues to go badly and Putin gets desperate. What this might entail was recently spelled out<\/a> by CIA Director William Burns: \u201ca potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapon\u201d While such a drastic step does not seem likely at present, what the future holds is unknown.<\/p>\n As long as the war continues without a diplomatic resolution, more people will die and the risk of some terrible escalation continues. All parties need to seek a cease-fire and some kind of negotiated settlement. The settlement\u2019s precise form will no doubt depend on how the situation on the ground changes, but it will probably require an agreement of Ukrainian neutrality between Russia and NATO as well as concessions by all sides.<\/p>\n The idea of negotiations with and concessions to Putin and the current Russian leadership undoubtedly seems a bitter pill to swallow after the events of the past two months. However, a diplomatic resolution will ultimately not be bitter to the untold numbers of people whose lives will be saved by the war ending\u2014not to speak of the still greater number of people who will spared if further escalation can be prevented.<\/p>\n During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev urged<\/a> President John F. Kennedy that they \u201cought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war . . . a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it.\u201d After that, the only option would be to \u201ccut the knot\u201d\u2014that is, wage world war. Now as then, leaders on both sides should not \u201cpull the knot tighter\u201d through further verbal and military escalation. They should seek to untie the knot and end the war.<\/p>\n ===================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts on Ukraine, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Not Your Pawns: A CLE Examination of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict<\/a><\/p>\n A Catastrophe Decades in the Making: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nEscalating Conflict<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Diplomatic Path<\/strong><\/h3>\n