Enough suffering — an accord over Ukraine has got to be on the table

Re “In Ukraine, negotiation talks are taboo” (Page A4, Sept. 2): Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to NATO’s secretary-general, suggested the possibility that an end to the war in Ukraine does not require a complete Russian defeat. Although he had his knuckles rapped for the comment, that solution has been on the mind of many. With Ukraine’s inability to deliver a knockout punch from the much-anticipated counteroffensive, it’s time to stop the human carnage, destruction of infrastructure, and disruption of the global order. It’s time to reconsider and negotiate an end to this war, now in its 18th month.

Why continue the horror of modern warfare when the end, messy and imperfect as it may be, will be hammered out at the table and not as a decisive victory on a scorched-earth battlefield. After the fall of Berlin and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Axis powers unconditionally surrendered to the Allies in 1945, ending

World War II. But all wars since, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, concluded with negotiated withdrawals or cease-fire settlements. In all probability, the civil war in Syria, the war in Yemen, and the various coups and counter-coups in Africa will be concluded in similar fashion.

Although I believe aggression should not be rewarded and there are causes worth fighting for, isn’t it time to face the facts and not expect a clear victor in the current European confrontation? End the suffering and regain some semblance of world order while there’s still time.

It’s time to stop the human carnage, destruction of infrastructure, and disruption of the global order and negotiate an end to this war.

DAVID GREENFIELD

Waltham