Doomed diplomacy can't justify surrendering commitments

And getting conflicts out of headlines is not a good reason to abandon allies

An image from the partition of Poland, a good reminder for what happens when you allow Imperial powers to start divvying up weaker states for the sake of temporary peace

In the few hours after its release, the letter from 30 progressive legislators in the United States to President Biden has provoked quite a stir and even some clarification - what most would call backpedaling - on the part of the signees. There is a great deal happening in the short letter, but the general thrust is, ostensibly, inoffensive - it calls for proactive diplomacy on the part of the Biden administration to end the war in Ukraine. But in diplomacy more than perhaps any field turns on details of word choice, and there we see a major error on the part of the letter writers.

The letter specifically calls for the president to “pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire”, and closes arguing for “vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties”.

The first part is concerning because of the discussion of a ceasefire to be paired with economic and military support - the obvious implication to anyone reading it (especially in Russia and Ukraine) is that the US is connecting its aid to Ukraine to the outcome or participation in diplomacy. Moreover, the discussion of a ‘ceasefire’ almost certainly implies an end to fighting at some point along the line of control at the point in time when the ceasefire is signed - this has been the implication of the word ceasefire throughout the last decades of diplomatic history.

And once the ceasefire begins, then what? Well, presumably the goal of talks is then to come to a permanent solution. Except ceasefires between a strong and weak party almost never mean that - instead, one need look only to Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, or Israel to note that in such a case, the ceasefire simply means the stronger party will wait until the situation favors going on the offensive again.

Moreover, while an ‘independent’ Ukraine is repeatedly emphasized, there is no mention of Ukraine’s territorial integrity - the call is almost certainly for Russia to be granted, at least de facto, the last it occupies at the point of the ceasefire. After all, Russia has formally declared the land to be Russian territory! It would be an enormous breach of Russian law to hand over formally annexed lands after a ceasefire has been signed.

All of this means that, fundamentally, the lawmakers signing the letter to not feel bound by the Budapest Memorandum under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, which affirmed that “The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. With the end of even a theoretical commitment to this memorandum comes an end to the ideal of non-proliferation altogether; if American progressives do not feel that states can be protected in exchange for surrendering nuclear weapons, there is no reason to believe anyone else in the world will.

The discussion of a ‘new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties’ is if anything more chilling. Recall that Russia continues to occupy portions of three European states (Ukraine as well as Moldova and Georgia) and the utter insufficiency of previous ‘security arrangements’ in Europe to prevent that. If a security arrangement that allows Russia leeway to run roughshod over former Soviet states is not adequately acceptable to them, which one possibly could? If Ukraine entering into a mutual defense arrangement with NATO is unacceptable to Russia, and the United States stands firmly opposed to any possible exchange of fire between its soldiers and those of Russia, is there any possible way beyond mere wishes that Ukraine can be anything besides at the mercy of Russia?

During the American Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine wrote that “It is the madness of folly to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war”. A negotiated settlement is the likely end of the war in Ukraine, but if Russia maintains the capacity to restart the war with a reasonable hope at victory, it will be a short ceasefire that leaves the people of Ukraine worse off than before - and a deep betrayal of liberal values.

Benito Juarez is said to have argued that, even as his armies had been pushed into the far north of the country, they had to continue fighting “not only for our country but for the respect of the sovereignty of the nations”. It is difficult to read the ‘progressive’ politicians’ letter as anything except an abandonment of that principle. It is likely that many of the signers have not through the implications of what they signed, but liberals - and anyone else who values national sovereignty, non-proliferation, or the rule of law - are right to hold them to account.