A few questions to Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump and all those calling for “peace at all costs”

I admit it: I’m not that type of person who follows domestic and international politics day by day, in such a way that I become aware of every single development or decision. So, it may be my fault, but as I understand I am not the only one to have missed a little detail in the pressure that Donald Trump is exercising on Volodymyr “you don’t have the cards” Zelenskyy in order to have “peace” in Ukraine. That is: what will Russia commit to do as part of the treaty? What is Trump demanding of Vladimir “you have the cards and the US will give you more” Putin?

Please, help me here. All I understood is that on March 18, after a two-hour call, Trump proposed a full cease-fire, but Putin rejected and instead agreed to a 30-day suspension of attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and also demanded that the U.S. cease military and intelligence support to Ukraine. That’s it. Did I miss something?

On the contrary, what Putin requires Ukraine to do is super-clear. He wants:

– Ukraine’s withdrawal of its military forces from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, recognizing these regions within their administrative borders as part of Russia.

– Ukraine’s abandonment of any NATO aspirations, adopting instead a neutral and non-aligned status.

– The lifting of international sanctions imposed against Russia.

– Finally, Ukraine’s demilitarization and so-called process of denazification. On the risibility of Nazi Ukraine concern we’ll talk another day. For now, I’m still guessing what type of “process” Putin has in mind, and I can only think of that sequence in A Clockwork’s Orange, where the protagonist Alex is strapped into a chair and forced to watch graphic scenes of violence and cruelty on a screen, with his eyelids kept open with mechanical devices. 

Also what Trump wants from Zelenskyy is very clear. He wants compensation for the U.S. assistance Ukraine has received. As he stated, “We’re asking for rare earth and oil, anything we can get”. Oh, and he also wants a public apology , as supposedly Zelenskyy has not sufficiently acknowledged America’s support.

All this, apparently, in the name of “peace”.

A multitude of people, including political figures, feel that the priority is the immediate cessation of violence and the suffering of civilians in Ukraine, regardless of the conditions attached. They view peace negotiations with Russia as the only viable solution to prevent further escalation, regardless of the conditions attached. They agree with Trump’s supposed realpolitik that engaging directly with Russia to end the war could bring about a more stable and predictable geopolitical environment, regardless of the conditions attached. They support Putin’s stance that NATO expansion is a threat to Russia, and thus they may favor reducing U.S. involvement to prevent further confrontation with Russia, regardless (all together now!) of the conditions attached.

Regardless of the conditions attached. And, obviously, we have to add: regardless of the consequences. My friend and esteemed colleague Prof. Davide Castiglione, from Vilnius University, has recently written a post about the concept of “peace”, starting from a simple definition provided by the most authoritative Italian dictionary, Treccani: “In a strict sense, the condition contrary to the state of war, with reference to nations which, by regulating their mutual relations according to common agreements without acts of force, can attend to the normal development of their economic, social and cultural life”. Castiglione rightfully puts an emphasis on the last part, the normal development of economic, social and cultural life, stating that, with the current conditions proposed to, or rather bullied into, Ukraine, we cannot talk about peace, but rather unconditional surrender, with devastating consequences on the Ukrainian people, and a realistic menace for the rest of Europe.

The war in Ukraine has been one of the most devastating conflicts in recent history: we have witnessed significant civilian casualties, war crimes, and territorial seizures. It is understandable that the prospect of a peace deal, regardless (everybody now!) of the conditions attached, may seem attractive to those weary of war.

However, in a civilized society, as we Europeans think we are, a conversation about peace cannot exclude a conversation about justice, otherwise it risks being nothing more than an imposition that will leave Ukraine vulnerable to future aggression and deny accountability for the atrocities committed. Surrendering to a deal that overlooks war crimes, territorial sovereignty, and the suffering of the Ukrainian people would only embolden future conflicts.

George Santayana famously said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This seems to be another of such cases. History, if for a change we want to pay attention to it, has repeatedly demonstrated that conflicts do not truly end until justice is served. The Nuremberg Trials after World War II were essential in ensuring that the crimes of the Nazi regime were not forgotten and that perpetrators faced consequences. In the Balkans, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia sought to bring war criminals to justice, helping to pave the way for long-term peace. And so forth. Without justice, the grievances and trauma of war persist, and not rarely they lead to tragic cycles of violence and future instability. I am in no doubt that, with the present “conditions attached”, Ukraine would end up in such cycles.

I am amazed how these days all those advocating for that peculiar idea of “peace” are systematically omitting to mention what has happened in Ukraine. The documented war crimes committed by the Russian army, the forced deportation of Ukrainian children, the attacks on civilians, the widespread use of torture. In a civilized society, we need to address, and ask questions about the consequences of a “peace at all costs”, regardless of the conditions attached, both in general and in the specificity of Russia’s brutal attack to Ukraine.

First, this kind of “peace” would mean a legitimization of the aggression. Allowing Russia to keep the territories it has seized by force would set a precedent that international borders can be changed through military invasion, undermining global security, and that the aggressor gets away with it. The comparison with bullying is always valid: imagine someone beats the hell out of you, robs you of your money and your clothes, and someone else (perhaps with funny carrot-colour hair) tells you that, in the name of peace, this guy should keep the money and the clothes, you should take care of your own wounds and broken bones, and, by the way, don’t forget to say thank you to those who “helped” you, you ungrateful jerk.

Hence the questions: is the restitution of some or all the territories ever going to be put on the table of peace negotiations? Will Russia withdraw from occupied regions, including Crimea and Donbas?

Second, if we do not establish proper mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for atrocities, the victims of war crimes will receive no justice, and the suffering inflicted upon them will remain unaddressed.

Hence the questions: will someone ever be prosecuted for war crimes? Will someone be held accountable for Bucha, for Borodyanka, for Mariupol, etc.? Will the kidnapped children be freed? Will a full account be given of the tortures to prisoners in defiance of the Third Geneva Convention, of which Russia is a party? Will Russian officials and military personnel responsible for crimes against humanity be prosecuted in international courts, or are we going to experience another US-Iraq situation where they only prosecuted few low-rank American soldiers for the war crimes? Or worse: not even those few will be prosecuted in Russia, but everything will be swept under the carpet? And what about the arrest warrant for Putin issued by the International Criminal Court?

Third, a peace deal that lacks accountability will only embolden Russia to engage in further aggression in the future, knowing that it can act without facing consequences.

Hence the questions: Will the peace agreement ensure that Ukraine has strong defense commitments to prevent future aggression? But also, will other European countries, especially the Baltic ones, Moldova, Poland and the likes, receive some guarantee that Russia will not continue its imperialist expansion?

Lastly, even if the realpolitik supporters do not like to hear this, let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians reject territorial concessions, and forcing such an agreement upon them would be an insult to their sovereignty and self-determination, not to mention, once again, all the pain suffered and lives sacrificed in the process.

Hence the questions: will Russia compensate Ukraine for the immense destruction it has caused? In general, what is in it for Ukraine in order to find this peace deal any attractive, and any preferable to keep on fighting for their freedom?

In his brilliant post, Castiglione, referring to the misuse of the words “peace” and “pacifism”, adds: “if there is something that puts me down, that is the manipulation of words”. A peace settlement without these elements would not be an act of peace or pacifism – it would be appeasement. And we remember appeasement towards Hitler, don’t we? No, we don’t: Santayana was right.

I feel we need to rename the supporters of the “peace at all costs” not so much “pacifists”, but “appeasers”. And, among the appeasers, we have also to distinguish the honest ones, as wrong as I believe they are (but that’s my personal opinion), who genuinely believe that this is the only way to stop the war, from those who have more personal and ideological investment in this position. The latter are the ones I fear the most, because they are many and they happily inhabit the space of civilized societies. There are many people who are ideologically aligned with both Trump and Putin. They won’t necessarily admit it, but they support authoritarian leaders who promise to challenge the current world order, and “make things right” with their authority. And Trump’s rhetoric resonates with these people, who are mostly of populist and nationalist extraction. Misinformation campaigns have of course a role in this: both Russia and pro-Trump media outlets have, at various points, framed the war in ways that justify Russian actions, blame partly or mainly Ukraine, minimize the role of Western powers in the conflict, and promote the idea that a ceasefire is the best course of action no matter what.

Appeasers are also those who oppose any of the current discussions, within the EU, to increase our security level, through ReArm Europe and other measures, as they see this as an act of belligerence that may escalate the situation. On another occasion it would be good to discuss this aspect as well. But for now, I will just conclude my reflection with some simple facts:

1) After World War II, no European country has formally declared war on another nation. Sure, European nations have been involved in numerous military conflicts, often through NATO or UN. But those were never declarations of war: they were military interventions in response and/or peacekeeping missions.

2) After the collapse of the USSR, in 1991, and excluding minimal interventions, Russia has invaded Chechnya (twice), Georgia, Crimea and indeed Ukraine. If we count the Soviet Union, then we need to add Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

3) After World War II, the USA has invaded Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, while not formally declaring war, has played a leading role in escalating the Korean and the Vietnam wars, de facto becoming the aggressor.

Hence my last question: forget peace, forget appeasement, forget realpolitik. Just use common sense: who is more likely to attack who? Who is more likely to escalate a conflict? Who has more reasons to worry about being attacked? 

And, most of all: which part of Santayana’s quote was not clear?