Vladimir Putin must be defeated
It was with a great deal of disquiet that I read Professor William Derbyshire’s opinion piece (“Allowing Russia to keep Crimea could bring peace,” Commentary, Feb. 18). He presents a cogent synopsis of Crimea’s checkered history, with control passing repeatedly from one group to another, culminating in the Russian Empire’s seizure of the territory in 1783. Derbyshire also points out that jurisdiction over Crimea was transferred from the Russian Federation to the Ukrainian SSR only in 1954 and notes correctly that the majority of the peninsula’s population are Russian speakers.
However, I believe he is mistaken in his conclusion that “‘regifting’ Crimea to Russia … would be a small price to pay for peace.” Derbyshire presumes Vladimir Putin would be willing to call off his “special military operation” in return for an agreement in which Ukraine surrenders territory to Russia. While such a bargain might have some short-term benefit, even a possible end to the current war, in the long run it could have terrible consequences.
First, history has demonstrated autocrats are unlikely to honor deals of this sort. As an example, in September 1938, in return for Czechoslovakia’s forfeiture of the Sudetenland (borderlands where ethnic Germans outnumbered Czechs) to the German Reich, Adolf Hitler declared this was “the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe.” Six months later, Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia, and six months after that, Poland.
As Derbyshire himself writes, Putin’s goal is to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire. Were Putin to attain the formal concession of Crimea, is it likely he would stop there and declare an end to his territorial demands? Moreover, it has become obvious Putin has even greater ambitions: to reverse the advancement of democracy and freedom across Europe; to dismantle NATO; and to undo the post-Cold War world order. Over the last two decades, with these aims in mind, Putin has been testing the Western world’s resolve and has often found it wanting.
In 2008, he launched a “peace enforcement” operation against the Republic of Georgia that resulted in Russian occupation of the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia — and which effectively blocked that nation’s application to join NATO. The West responded with limited censure that imposed no cost on Putin, and which he undoubtedly viewed as proof of Western weakness. His small triumph in the Caucasus was followed six years later when Putin’s “little green men” illegally seized Crimea. This time the Western reaction was stronger but still not strong enough: United Nations resolutions and sanctions that inflicted little or no pain. Undaunted, Putin felt he could just keep taking one little bite after another after another.
Well, now, with his “special military operation” against Ukraine, he may have finally bitten off more than he can chew. Surely he has been surprised by the tough defense put up by the outgunned and outmanned Ukrainian military, as well as the robust economic, political and military support the U.S., the European Union and other nations have provided. But our resolve may again be failing, and he still could win. Any victory Putin can achieve, even if smaller than he had hoped, even if it is only the “regifting” of Crimea, will encourage further belligerence.
There can be no more half-measures nor hapless attempts to bargain. There can be only one acceptable outcome to this conflict: Vladimir Putin must be defeated.
Peace cannot be bargained for; peace must be won.