2023 06 27 How End Russias War Ukraine Ash Et Al - 0

Report
Russia and Eurasia Programme | June 2023
How to end Russia’s

war on Ukraine
Safeguarding Europe’s future,
and the dangers of a false peace
Timothy Ash, Annette Bohr, Kateryna Busol, Keir Giles,

John Lough, Orysia Lutsevych, James Nixey, James Sherr,
Simon Smith and Kataryna Wolczuk
Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International
Affairs, is a world-leading policy institute based in London.
Our mission is to help governments and societies build
a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world.
Contents
Summary 3
Introduction 5
James Nixey
Fallacy 1
‘Settle now: all wars end at the negotiating table’ 12
James Sherr
Fallacy 2
‘Ukraine should concede territory in exchange for peace’ 16
Simon Smith
Fallacy 3
‘Ukraine should adopt neutrality’ 19
Orysia Lutsevych
Fallacy 4
‘Russian security concerns must be respected’ 23
John Lough
Fallacy 5
‘Russian defeat is more dangerous than Russian victory’ 26
Keir Giles
Fallacy 6
‘Russia’s defeat in Ukraine will lead to greater 29
instability in Russia’
Kataryna Wolczuk
Fallacy 7
‘This is costing too much, and the West needs 33
to restore economic ties with Russia’
Timothy Ash
Fallacy 8
‘Ukraine’s pursuit of justice hinders peace’ 36
Kateryna Busol
1 Chatham House
Fallacy 9
‘This war is not our fight, and there are more 41
important global problems’
Annette Bohr
Conclusion: Assuring the future of Europe 45

James Nixey
About the authors 51
Acknowledgments 54
2 Chatham House
Summary
— It’s now or never for Ukraine. A protracted or frozen conflict benefits Russia
and hurts Ukraine, as does a ceasefire or negotiated settlement on Russia’s terms.
If Ukraine is to avoid these outcomes and turn tenacious defence and incremental
battlefield gains into outright victory, it needs far more ambitious international
military assistance than it has received to date. This report presents the case for
an immediate and decisive increase in such support, seeks to dispel overhyped
concerns about provoking Russia, and counsels against accommodating
Moscow’s demands.
— Ukraine’s need is all the more pressing because the United States – the principal
donor of financial and military aid to Kyiv – is entering an election cycle that could
soon reduce US foreign policy engagement or ultimately result in a more inward-
looking administration in Washington. Increasing the West’s supply of weaponry
for Ukraine now would, in addition to helping ongoing military actions against
Russian forces, provide a measure of insulation against any future weakening
of US solidarity.
— The argument for Western military and diplomatic resolve is reinforced by

the impacts of Russian aggression beyond Ukraine itself. Not only is European
security under threat, but the viability of the rules-based international order is
potentially at stake. With this full-scale invasion, Russia has directly challenged
arrangements that have helped to secure peace for over 70 years. The world will
be safer with Russia defeated soundly on the battlefield than with an ambiguous
outcome that, for instance, institutionalizes Ukrainian territorial losses.
— The search for peace is fraught with pitfalls. Any temporary solution that
preserves, or partially preserves, the battlefield status quo will buy time for
Russian forces to regroup after recent heavy losses and prepare for the next
onslaught, while leaving Ukraine enfeebled and less than fully sovereign. While
a diplomatic solution seems attractive to many in the West, and may suspend
hostilities for a period, it would merely postpone an essential reckoning with
Russia and is pointless without an achievable long-term plan for Ukraine’s
security in place.
— Any such plan must set out the conditions for, and pathway towards, a durable
peace on Ukraine’s terms. It must enshrine the principle of respect for the country’s
sovereign independence and pre-2014 territorial borders. It must also envision
future security and political guarantees. The plan’s chances of success will be
greater if it supports Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO and EU membership. NATO
and other international allies of Ukraine will need to develop this plan jointly with
the Ukrainian government, and must remain committed to implementing it.
3 Chatham House
How to end Russia’s war on Ukraine
Safeguarding Europe’s future, and the dangers of a false peace
— A stalemate in the war or military setbacks for Ukraine would increase pressure,
including potentially from Western allies, for compromise. Calls for ‘pragmatism’ –
often a euphemism for granting Russia its demands – are even now proliferating.
To counter narratives that might lead in this direction, this report analyses
nine commonly articulated fallacies about the approaches the West should
adopt – and avoid – in the search for peace. These fallacies broadly fit into two
categories: ideas on accommodating Russia’s stated interests to accelerate a peace
agreement; and objections to increasing military and other assistance to Ukraine.
— Although often well-intentioned, and despite their prominence in policy

commentary as serious options for ending the war or avoiding escalation,
such ideas are misguided, we argue. Most current suggestions for a settlement
would, if implemented, crystallize Russian territorial gains and encourage
further aggression in the future. Similarly, restraint in backing Ukraine for fear
of provoking Russian reprisals is misplaced. By ignoring the true nature and
agenda of Moscow’s regime and the futility of hoping to engage Vladimir Putin
in negotiations in good faith, most ‘realist’ arguments for mitigating risk are
in fact less realistic than the name suggests.
— Backing a full and unambiguous Ukrainian victory is therefore essential not

only on moral but also practical grounds. Although recent increases in Western
supplies of munitions and other hardware are welcome, the fundamental solution
to many of the problems raised in this report remains: that Ukraine still needs
a massive influx of weaponry. Without it, Ukraine will cease to exist as a sovereign
state and an emboldened Russia will continue its imperialist campaign of
expansionism against neighbours and aggression against perceived adversaries,
democratic and otherwise, the world over. In the longer term, backing Ukraine
will serve to deter other aggressors while potentially sowing the seeds for
positive political change in Russia.
4 Chatham House
Introduction
Russia’s attempt to destroy Ukraine as an independent
country cannot be allowed to succeed. This is not solely for
the sake of Ukraine. At stake are the future of global security
and the preservation of the core principles of international
relations embodied by the United Nations.
Moscow’s war of reconquest against Ukraine has confirmed in the most

James Nixey brutal terms how Russia rejects the values underpinning European security –
the same values agreed between Moscow and the West at the end of the Cold
War. As a revisionist power, Russia has made itself the primary obstacle to peace
and security in Europe and beyond. For stability to be restored and protected,
it is essential that the outcome of the war in Ukraine leads to a situation in which –
in addition to the expulsion of occupying forces – the exercise of Russian power
is contained rather than encouraged. Over time, Russia’s leadership must also
be persuaded to renounce its expansionist ambitions.
That these goals are difficult to achieve should not be used as a justification for
‘Western’ powers1 to resign themselves to the pursuit of an inadequate or partial
settlement between Ukraine and Russia. Such a concession, anathema to the
government of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine, would
ultimately favour Russia and solidify at least some of its territorial gains in Ukraine.
Dispelling misplaced arguments for pragmatism and their variations, and making
a plea for Western solidarity and resolve in arming Ukraine and resisting Russia,
is the principal ambition of this report.
The report will set out a vision for the optimal outcome from this war. It imagines
a secure and territorially whole Ukraine, which is a member of NATO and the EU.
It also envisages the possibility – though a remote one – of a ‘better Russia’ in the
longer term. This reformed Russia would be less authoritarian, more constructive
in its foreign relations, and would at long last contribute to a more stable and
cooperative Europe of the type imagined in 1991 but never realized. At enormous
cost, Vladimir Putin has provided an opportunity for Western democracies and
others to reprise such an endeavour.
But for all this to happen, the starting requirement is that Western governments
and politicians challenge their own assumptions about the preconditions for peace.
Accordingly, the report examines policy options widely advocated for ending the war
1 Taken to mean, for the purposes of this report, key NATO members and some other allies of Ukraine.
5 Chatham House
and explains why they will not deliver lasting security. Similarly, the report critiques
commonly raised objections to increasing Western assistance to Ukraine – objections
that cite perceived risks such as military escalation, Russian state collapse of the type
some thought they might see on 24 June 2023 with the Wagner Group’s approach
on Moscow, and financial cost. Most importantly, the report proposes what its
authors believe are more effective alternative ways forward. These are largely based
on resisting the temptation to settle too easily or too quickly, ignoring Russian (and
Western) fearmongering, increasing the costs of the war to the Kremlin, persevering
in the pursuit of justice, and dramatically increasing military support for Ukraine.
The problem with ‘realist’ arguments on Ukraine

Ever since Russian forces were pushed back from the Kyiv region in April 2022,
the possibility of a successful outcome for Ukraine has been a prominent part of the
international policy debate. A frequent question has been, ‘What does a Ukrainian
victory look like?’ This question took on a new urgency on 24 June, with the
Wagner Group’s brief uprising exposing weaknesses in the Russian regime.
Definitions of Ukrainian success and prescriptions for achieving it have ranged
widely. At the ‘maximalist’ end of the spectrum – a characterization sometimes
used pejoratively to suggest the victim of aggression is being unreasonable –
are the demands of the Ukrainian government. These include the withdrawal
of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, the full restoration of Ukrainian
territory, justice for war crimes, and reparations for war-related damages.2
At the other end of the scale are calls for Ukrainian compromise and concession
as a means of expediting a ceasefire and then a permanent settlement agreeable
to Russia. These calls are widely endorsed by influential policy commentators often
categorized as ‘realists’.3 The gist of these positions is that Ukraine is unlikely to be able
to liberate its sovereign territory from Russian occupation, much less achieve justice
through international courts – and that therefore, since the current bloodshed is futile,
the sooner Kyiv is induced to accept a negotiated settlement and territorial losses,
the better. Where the cost of leaving Ukrainian citizens under Russian occupation
is recognized, it is presented as a lesser evil than fighting on to liberate them.4
The motives behind such proposals are largely well-intentioned, reflecting the
desire of some policymakers for a rapid solution to a disastrous war. However,
in addition to the detailed objections outlined in the rest of this report, settlement
on any of Russia’s terms makes little sense for two principal reasons. First, it has
been decisively rejected by Ukraine itself. President Zelenskyy’s government
and the Ukrainian people remain unequivocally committed to decisive victory,
2 This equates to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace plan, announced at the G20 in Bali in November 2022.
The transcript can be found here: President of Ukraine (2022), ‘Ukraine has always been a leader in peacemaking
efforts; if Russia wants to end this war, let it prove it with actions - speech by the President of Ukraine at the
G20 Summit’, 15 November 2022, https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-zavzhdi-bula-liderom-
mirotvorchih-zusil-yaksho-rosi-79141.
3 Prominently including, for example, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. See CNN
News18 (2023), ‘The best that we can hope for is frozen conflict: John Mearsheimer’, 28 March 2023,
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3411203822425860; and Foreign Affairs (2023), ‘Will Ukraine Wind Up
Making Territorial Concessions to Russia?’, Ask The Experts, 24 January 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/
ask-the-experts/will-ukraine-wind-making-territorial-concessions-russia.
4 For example, Samuel Charap, speaking at the Lennart Meri Conference, Tallinn, 13 May 2023.
6 Chatham House
and are lobbying hard for the West to supply more military equipment and related
assistance. In this, Ukraine has the especially strong support of other front-line
states neighbouring Russia, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. These
states recognize clearly both the necessity of deterring and punishing, rather than
tolerating, aggression and the vicious nature of the regime imposed on a previously
free people in the territories now occupied by Russian forces.5
Second, the argument for Ukrainian concessions – in effect, surrender – risks

becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its proponents, many of whom have not
changed their views on Russian pre-eminence since before the conflict, claim that
since Ukraine cannot win, it should not be provided with the weapons to do so.6
This has had a pernicious effect on Western policy towards Ukraine. Combined
with misplaced fears over Russian reactions, this rationale has retarded and
constrained the supply of military equipment and other assistance.7 For wavering
policymakers in the West, forcing Ukraine to concede looks like an easy way out.
But while there is a self-evident risk that Ukraine may not achieve all its objectives,
such an outcome is far likelier if the West fails to act decisively. In other words,
there is no surer way of arriving at a dangerous and unsustainable outcome
than not sending weapons to Ukraine.
That is why the authors of this report are convinced, based on their long
knowledge of how Moscow operates and the nature of the threat from Russia,
that looking for an easy solution would be disastrous. We collectively put
forward the following essential conditions that need to be met to ensure that
Ukraine is whole, free and independent, that the Russian state is no longer
a threat to any other country, and that a precedent is not set to encourage
other states with extraterritorial designs.
First-order priorities are as follows:
1. The eviction of Russian forces from the occupied territories; the reintegration
of those territories into Ukraine; and, consequently, the abolition of any
territorial ‘grey zones’.
2. Better defence across the whole Euro-Atlantic space against military

and non-military threats from Russia, including the protection of economies
and trade routes. Not least, this means ensuring that Russia’s neighbours –
whether in NATO or not – remain secure.
5 While some states formerly forced into the Warsaw Pact or the USSR have continued their alignment with
Russia, others have been disproportionately generous to Ukraine in materiel terms and rhetorically clearer about
the desired endgame. See, for example: Manenkov, K. and Dapkus, L. (2023), ‘In Baltics, Poland, grassroots
groups strive to help Ukraine’, AP News, 18 February 2023, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-
politics-europe-lithuania-3be7be715093e4bc3ff5805181ab0cac; and Euronews (2022), ‘‘We know this history’:
Polish and Baltic leaders reiterate support for Ukraine during Kyiv visit’, 14 April 2022, https://www.euronews.
com/2022/04/14/we-know-this-history-polish-and-baltic-leaders-reiterate-support-for-ukraine-during-kyiv-v.
6 For example, Charap, S. (2021), ‘Opinion | The U.S. Approach to Ukraine’s Border War Isn’t Working.
Here’s What Biden Should Do Instead.’, Politico, 19 November 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/
magazine/2021/11/19/ukraine-russia-putin-border-522989. This article advocated compromise with Russia
even before the full-scale invasion. The author argued that as Russia would not make any concessions on the
Minsk II agreements, Ukraine must. This was followed by a later argument, co-authored with Scott Boston, that
weapons assistance to Ukraine would be unhelpful as the war was a foregone conclusion in Russia’s favour.
Charap, S. and Boston, S. (2022), ‘The West’s Weapons Won’t Make Any Difference to Ukraine’, Foreign Policy,
21 January 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military.
7 As described in detail in Giles, K. (2023), Russian nuclear intimidation: How Russia uses nuclear threats
to shape Western responses to aggression, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135645.
7 Chatham House
Medium- or longer-term priorities are as follows:
1. Ensuring that the experience of the war and its result lead Russia to change
its foreign and security policy to become less aggressive and self-entitled.
The ideal end state is for Russia to work within the rules-based international
order, not attempt to bring the system down.
2. A national recognition within Russia that Ukraine is a sovereign independent

state, and that Russia is not entitled to an empire. This requires a sea change
in Russia’s political and societal culture.
3. An admission by Russia that intolerable crimes have been committed, with

acceptance in Moscow that Russia has to pay reparations to Ukraine.
It is important to note that these goals are not what the authors believe definitely
will happen. But they need to happen if Ukraine is to remain sovereign and secure.
And crucially, contrary to the assertions of ‘realists’, they can happen if the West
makes the right moves.
Risks to the international system

How the West responds to the war has global implications. The consequentialist
The consequentialist argument – in effect, ‘sacrifice Ukraine, save the world from a broader conflict’ –
argument – in effect, makes the wrong link between the war and international stability. It interprets
‘sacrifice Ukraine, security as the avoidance of all-out war between Russia and the West, rather than
save the world from understanding that the health of the rules-based international order is intrinsically
a broader conflict’ – tied to Ukraine’s victory. It ignores the fact that a broader conflict is already at hand,
interprets security and that Russia has been overtly and covertly waging this campaign for decades.8
as the avoidance of Putin has shown that Russia’s ambition does not end with the subjugation of Ukraine.
all-out war between In fact, it never ends, because the Russian state in its current form has little interest
Russia and the
in peaceful coexistence with the West.
West, rather than
understanding that This means that when Russia sees an opportunity to strengthen itself at home
the health of the rules- or abroad by the deployment of raw power, it takes it. Changes from within, such
based international as mutinies of the like seen on 24 June, can weaken the regime, but they also
order is intrinsically tighten repressive mechanisms. For as long as these politics remain unchallenged,
tied to Ukraine’s endless conflict is a normal and inevitable state of affairs.9 Any proposed solution
victory.
that fails to break this cycle is merely setting up the conditions for deeper and
more disastrous confrontation in the future.
Accommodating Putin’s Russia is thus a dead end, we argue, both for Ukraine
and its Western allies. It would deny the Ukrainian people’s demonstrated
ambition for membership of the transatlantic community. (Over 80 per cent
of Ukrainians polled think their country should join NATO and the EU.10)
8 As laid out in detail in Giles, K. (2022), Russia’s War on Everybody: And What it Means for You, Bloomsbury.
9 This is, in fact, the definition of a fascist state according to Timothy Snyder. Snyder, T. (2017), On Tyranny:
Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, The Bodley Head.
10 Rating Group (2023), ‘ДВАДЦЯТЕ ЗАГАЛЬНОНАЦІОНАЛЬНЕ ОПИТУВАННЯ. ЗОВНІШНЬОПОЛІТИЧНІ
НАСТРОЇ НАСЕЛЕННЯ (14-16 СІЧНЯ 2023)’ [20th Nationwide Polling. Foreign Policy View], 23 January 2023,
https://ratinggroup.ua/research/ukraine/dvadcyate_zagalnonac_onalne_opituvannya_zovn_shnopol_tichn_
nastro_naselennya_14-16_s_chnya_2023.html.
8 Chatham House
And in most conceivable instances it would leave Russia in the same position
or better compared to where it was on 23 February 2022, the day before its
full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Any such ‘solution’ would not only position
Russia to mount another assault on its neighbour whenever it felt ready, it
would also leave Russia willing and able to destabilize the international order
even further. Achieving the latter is an intrinsic element of Russia’s ambition
under its current leadership. If it is the West’s ambition to preserve that order,
then logic dictates that Russia’s capability (and, in the longer term, intent)
to weaken it needs to be removed.
It is often noted that much of the world, outside what is commonly referred
to as the West, does not support Ukraine – certainly not fully. Some countries
in the Global South, or elsewhere in the developing world, may not wish to invest
in an outcome in which the West wins. Yet while it is comprehensible that a state
in, say, Africa or Latin America may not be as concerned at Russia waging a distant
colonial war in Europe, it must be remembered that many of the countries that
support Russia or decline to condemn its aggression are already beholden to
Moscow in some way or have ulterior financial or domestic regime-stabilization
motives. Their stated concerns should thus be considered with the essential
caveat that in many cases they are not objective.
Similarly, proclamations or even initiatives emanating from Turkey, Saudi

Arabia and most notably China must be treated with caution. These countries
have closer ties with Russia than with Ukraine, are inclined towards ‘great power’
politics, and have at best complicated relationships with the West. Ukraine would be
bound to lose out from their arbitration if it were undertaken.
Scepticism of the West’s motives and the accusations against it of hypocrisy must
not be allowed to impede support for a European nation defending itself against
a war of colonial reconquest.11 The non-aligned world is suspicious of the West
on many matters, not least considering the latter’s colonial record. But betraying
Ukraine would create a similar level of distrust among most of the countries
bordering Russia for decades or longer. It would also provide destabilizing
encouragement and precedent for other aggressors far from Europe.
About this report: chapter structure

and audience
The chapters that follow examine nine misconceptions in the discourse on
assisting Ukraine and ending the war. The report does not cover in depth every
potential pitfall that such a complex and difficult situation as that in Ukraine
presents for Western foreign and security policy. So, for example, the temptation
to revive a ‘Minsk’-type peace agreement (offering concessions to the aggressor)
is not covered in detail, while the exaggerated fears that challenging Russia may
11 Chappell, B. (2022), ‘Kenyan U.N. ambassador compares Ukraine’s plight to colonial legacy in Africa’, NPR,
22 February 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/02/22/1082334172/kenya-security-council-russia.
9 Chatham House
bring about nuclear escalation are considered here largely in the context of other
arguments. Both subjects are also addressed in other recently published Chatham
House material.12
The fallacies that we focus on in this report are as follows:
1. The apparently urgent need to settle, based on the factually incorrect

supposition that all wars end at the negotiating table;
2. The proposition that Ukraine should give up territory – certainly Crimea,

quite possibly more;
3. That Ukraine should (again) declare itself neutral, as it was between

1991 and 2014;
4. The need to take Russian security concerns, as defined by Russia, into account;
5. The assertion that a defeated Russia must not be pushed into a punishing kind
of ‘Treaty of Versailles redux’, for fear that this will result in an even more
resentful and fascist state;
6. The idea that military defeat risks catastrophically destabilizing Russia, with
consequences that could include the break-up of the state or loss of control
of Russia’s nuclear arsenal;
7. The supposedly excessive financial cost;
8. The suggestion that the pursuit of justice hinders the quest for peace, on
the outwardly reasonable basis that at some point regional stabilization may
outweigh Ukraine’s needs for prosecutions and reparations, however justified
such demands may be; and
9. Finally, the assertion, espoused most prominently by the right wing of the
US Republican Party, that this is simply ‘not our war’ – that the West has no
obligations beyond perhaps humanitarian support.
This report is not aimed at the leadership of Russia, which stopped listening
to Western advice decades ago. Nor is it aimed at Russia apologists, advocates
of appeasement, or those who argue that the West is ‘just as bad as Russia’.
Those elements were, at least in part, the audience for Myths and misconceptions
in the debate on Russia, a conceptually related Chatham House report published
in May 2021.13 Moreover, the opinions espoused by Russia apologists have been
discredited by the reality of events – the result, in large part, of Russia’s actions
in this latest war.
The intended audience for this report instead comprises reasonable,

compassionate, well-informed individuals who sincerely believe that there may
be a swift, relatively safe or easy solution to the current highly dangerous situation.
The ‘solutions’ these people advocate or subscribe to are not generally irrational,
12 Smith, S. (2023), ‘One year on, how can the war on Ukraine end?’, Chatham House Expert Comment,
20 February 2023, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/02/one-year-how-can-war-ukraine-end; and Giles
(2023), Russian nuclear intimidation.
13 Allan, D. et al. (2021), Myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia: How they affect Western policy, and what
can be done, Report, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/
myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia.
10 Chatham House
and are mostly worthy of respect, engagement and discussion. However, the report
draws on the combined expertise and experience of its authors to explain why such
ideas are counterproductive and dangerous. In doing so, it arrives at proposals
for a better alternative – one that not only would benefit Ukraine in the short
term, but safeguard the cornerstones of Euro-Atlantic security in the long term.
Nothing could be more important.
11 Chatham House
Fallacy 1
‘Settle now: all wars end
at the negotiating table’
The war is an existential one for Ukraine, and is also framed
by Russia as a war of vital national interests. Similar conflicts
have almost always ended with the victory of one belligerent
and the defeat of the other. Calls to ‘settle now’ are based on
false analogies and an underestimation of the issues at stake.
Fallacy
James Sherr
Calls by Western experts and politicians to reach a settlement of Russia’s war
against Ukraine rest on a common belief: that wars should, and usually do,
end in negotiation and compromise.
These two axioms are related but distinct. Sometimes they are expressed
categorically, sometimes not. Barry Posen of MIT asserts that ‘there is only one
responsible thing to do: seek a diplomatic end to the war now’.14 Richard Haass
and Charles Kupchan are less emphatic: we ‘need to be formulating a diplomatic
endgame now’.15 Their goal largely accords with that of US National Security
Advisor Jake Sullivan: to put Ukraine ‘in the best possible position on the
battlefield, so that … they will be in the best position at the negotiating table’.16
Echoing this view, British prime minister Rishi Sunak believes that ‘this will
end as all conflicts do, at the negotiating table’.17
14 Posen, B. (2022), ‘Ukraine’s Implausible Theories of Victory’, Foreign Affairs, 8 July 2022,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-07-08/ukraines-implausible-theories-victory.
15 Haass, R. and Kupchan, C. (2022), ‘The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine’, Foreign Affairs, 13 April 2022,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/russia-richard-haass-west-battlefield-negotiations.
16 Cited in Stelzenmüller, C. (2022), ‘The West’s axis of prudence risks a Kremlin victory by default in Ukraine’,
Financial Times, 20 December 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/7ae8433c-c8c3-4e34-b555-9c1548bcd4cb.
17 Adu, A. (2023), ‘War will end at negotiating table with Ukraine in ‘best place’, Sunak says’, Guardian,
10 March 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/10/ukraine-war-negotiating-table-zelenskiy-
sunak-macron-paris-summit.
12 Chatham House
Analysis
The first problem is that they don’t. It is true that the majority of wars do
not end in absolute victory. Ceasefire, armistice and stalemate terminate most
conflicts, even if the ‘peace’ is infirm or short-lived.18 But where the stakes are
absolute, as they were in the Napoleonic wars, the US Civil War and the Second
World War, armed conflict usually ends in the victory of one side and the defeat
of the other. Negotiation, compromise and reconciliation are undertaken with
new regimes only after old regimes are defeated and removed. The Franco-German
reconciliation invoked by Emmanuel Macron would have been inconceivable
had the Nazis remained in power.19
The war that Russia renewed against Ukraine in 2022 falls into a similar category,
at least in significant respects: it is unquestionably a war of survival for Ukraine;
for Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, it is a war for the defence of Russian
civilization, whose roots are deemed to lie in Ukraine.20 Put another way, while
Russia’s sovereignty is not directly on the line, Russia is conducting hostilities
as if this were a total war.21
The second problem lies in the fatalistic quality of many arguments ruling
Where the stakes are out the pursuit or even possibility of Russia’s defeat. For Russia, Ukraine’s
absolute, as they were subordination has long been considered a fundamental interest. But for Ukrainians,
in the Napoleonic wars, survival is the most elemental interest of all. Sixteen months into Europe’s largest
the US Civil War and war since 1939–45, the armed forces of Ukraine, provisioned by the West, have
the Second World War, exposed the pretensions, deficiencies and pathologies of Russia’s state and military
armed conflict usually culture as no one else has managed to do. Yet inexplicably, the Westerners who
ends in the victory of call themselves ‘realists’ seem distinctly reluctant to concede that this matters.
one side and the defeat For Edward Luttwak, what matters is that ‘the Russian Federation is a great power
of the other. and it can absorb 20 defeats like Ukraine’.22 More modestly and perhaps more
soundly, Barry Posen argues that Russia’s economy is ‘autonomous enough and
Putin’s grip tight’.23 That is true for now. But for how long? The destruction of the
Nova Kakhovka dam on 6 June 2023 is a chilling demonstration of the lengths
to which Russia will go to win this war. Yet it can also be seen as an admission
18 A survey is available in Ricketts, P. (2022), ‘How wars end’, Prospect, 14 March 2022,
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/38472/how-wars-end.
19 RFI (2023), ‘Macron says Germany and France must be ‘pioneers’ in Europe’s development’, 22 January 2023,
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20230122-macron-says-germany-and-france-must-be-pioneers-in-europe-
development-olaf-sholz-defence.
20 If we understand states simply as sovereign, territorially delimited jurisdictions, then the war is only an
existential conflict for Ukraine, not for Russia. But if we understand Russia as the Putin regime understands
it, as a ‘civilization’ that transcends its juridically demarcated borders, then it is an existential conflict for
both. Note also the important related arguments by Keir Giles and Kataryna Wolczuk elsewhere in this
report, essentially cautioning that Russian defeat would not materially endanger the Russian state, and that
the war’s importance as a project of the Putin regime should not be used by the West as an excuse to avoid
‘humiliating’ Russia. See ‘Fallacy 5: “Russian defeat is more dangerous than Russian victory”’. On the negligible
prospect of collapse of the Russian Federation, see ‘Fallacy 6: “Russia’s defeat in Ukraine will lead to greater
instability in Russia”’.
21 Even seven months before the outbreak of the war, Putin stated that Ukraine’s ‘anti-Russia’ course was
comparable to the ‘use of weapons of mass destruction’. Putin, V. (2021), ‘Статья Владимира Путина
«Об историческом единстве русских и украинцев»’ [On the historical unity of the Russians and Ukrainians],
Presidential Administration, 12 July 2021, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181. See also Sherr, J.
and Gretskiy, I. (2023), ‘Why Russia Went to War’, ICDS, Tallinn, 30 January 2023, https://icds.ee/en/why-
russia-went-to-war-a-three-dimensional-perspective.
22 Taberidze, V. (2022), ‘Interview: Edward Luttwak, A Military Advisor to Presidents, Explains How The Ukraine
War Began And How It Might End’, RFE, 11 June 2022, https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-war-luttwak-interview-
putin-russia-plebiscite/31893485.html.
23 Posen (2022), ‘Ukraine’s Implausible Theories of Victory’.
13 Chatham House
that Russia no longer has a military path to victory. Handing Russia a ceasefire
that leaves it in control of Ukrainian territory is not the most obvious response –
and might well waste Ukraine’s best opportunity to expel Russian forces.
Indeed, the risk is that recriminations over the Nova Kakhovka dam’s destruction
could reinforce the greatest fatalism of all: the belief among officials in several
Western governments (including influential figures inside the Biden administration)
that Russia will employ nuclear weapons rather than allow itself to be defeated.
Yet there is a world of difference between an act of ecological terrorism undertaken
without fear of retribution and the use of nuclear weapons in the face of a nuclear-
armed alliance that has warned Russia of ‘catastrophic’ consequences.
The third deficiency of arguments to ‘settle now’ is their reliance on false

analogies. Apart from the post-war incorporation of West Germany into NATO
and that of post-Napoleonic France into the Concert of Europe, the most prevalent
analogy invoked is the durability of the armistice that ended the Korean War.24
Yet that armistice was concluded and sustained thanks to conditions vastly
different to those we now face. First, it occurred because of Stalin’s death and
the wish of the post-Stalin leadership to end the war. Unlike South Korea, Ukraine
is not at war with a Russian puppet state, but with Russia itself, and Putin is very
much alive. Second, the American troops and nuclear weapons that have preserved
the Korean armistice are not deployed in Ukraine, and Russia is repeatedly
assured that they will not be.
The fourth and greatest problem is a failure to take account of the character
This war might not of this war and the outlook of a systemic adversary viscerally hostile to the
meet legal definitions ‘collective West’ and the international order it claims to uphold. This war might
of genocide, but the not meet legal definitions of genocide, but the barbarism and the serial war crimes
barbarism and the that have taken place – material, cultural and now ecological – have not been
serial war crimes that witnessed in Europe since the Second World War. Both sides emphasize that the
have taken place – war is not about territory but the independence and very existence of the entity
material, cultural and
we recognize as Ukraine.
now ecological – have
not been witnessed In short, if Russian troops are not driven out of Ukraine by force of arms, they
in Europe since the are most unlikely to leave. For Russia, ‘frozen conflict’ has never been a path to
Second World War. peace but a platform to further enfeeble presumptive adversaries. Vladislav Surkov,
the coordinator of Russia’s Donbas war after 2014, has recently admitted that the
Minsk accords were never supposed to be workable.25 Negotiations that would
underwrite the continued Russian occupation of Mariupol, Berdyansk and Crimea
will be a roadmap to Ukraine’s economic ruin and the transformation of the Black
Sea into a zone of Russian dominance. Any outcome short of Russia’s expulsion
from territories occupied since 24 February 2022 (at the minimum) will be
read in Moscow as a victory and undermine confidence elsewhere.
24 Rumer, E. (2023), ‘Putin’s War Against Ukraine: The End of The Beginning’, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 17 February 2023, https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/02/17/putin-s-war-against-
ukraine-end-of-beginning-pub-89071.
25 Surkov, V. (2023), ‘Сурков заявил, что он не надеялся на выполнение Минских соглашений’ [Surkov
declared that he didn’t hope for the implementation of the Minsk accords], 16 February 2023, Kommersant,
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5827271.
14 Chatham House
The way forward

The way forward will not be secure unless the West draws lessons from its
Western policy must own failures. Procrastination, risk aversion and the continued fear of victory
be underpinned by will doom Ukraine to an infirm peace that exposes the West to further, possibly
a long-term strategy – greater, tests in future. The war is being waged on an industrial scale. Western
political, military and defence industries might not be able to meet this challenge over an indefinite
industrial – based on period. These constraints make it doubly imperative to remove others of the
a sustainable definition West’s own making.
of victory, not on
a search for negotiation Western policy must be underpinned by a long-term strategy – political, military
with an adversary and industrial – based on a sustainable definition of victory, not on a search for
whose minimal terms negotiation with an adversary whose minimal terms flatly contradict Western
flatly contradict interests. If President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s definition of victory surpasses that
Western interests. of Ukraine’s international partners, his willingness to make concessions to Russia is
likely to depend on the West’s own willingness in turn to provide a credible pathway
to NATO membership. The latter goal is unlikely to be achieved at the Vilnius summit
in July. But, as Henry Kissinger notes, the strongest case against NATO membership
before 2022 was the risk of war. Ukraine was not offered membership, and it ended
up with war. The case he makes is becoming increasingly difficult to refute.26
26 World Economic Forum (2023), ‘A Conversation with Henry Kissinger: Historical Perspectives on War’,
18 January 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbCFnn_g_MI.
15 Chatham House
Fallacy 2
‘Ukraine should concede
territory in exchange for peace’
Any territorial concessions by Ukraine in a peace agreement
with Russia will reward crimes and aggression. They will
encourage, not end, Russia’s attacks on countries in its
neighbourhood and elsewhere in Europe.
Fallacy
Simon Smith
The belief that Russia and Ukraine need to strike a deal (see preceding chapter)
is frequently accompanied by the belief that a settlement has to include some
Ukrainian territory being conceded to Russia, because Russia won’t settle for
an outcome that does not include territorial gains. In this view, Crimea is often
presented as the least problematic potential concession for Ukraine: supposedly
a post-Soviet ‘grey area’ in terms of recognized borders.
Analysis
Ukraine’s 1991 borders have more than once been recognized by both
Ukraine and Russia in international and bilateral agreements. Advocates of
territorial concession therefore need to explain what other problems are supposed
to be solved by rewarding Russia for its aggression. A territorial giveaway might
be defended by some as a price worth paying for a lasting end to Russia’s efforts
to destabilize its neighbourhood and create a 21st-century sphere of Russian
domination. It is more likely to achieve precisely the opposite: emboldening
Russia to sustain an expansionist strategy.
Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership has spent two decades frequently
and systematically attacking the independence and sovereignty of many of its
neighbours. Against this background, it is implausible to imagine that Putin would
accept Ukrainian territorial concessions with relief, reflect on his good fortune,
and resolve never again to gamble his country’s future on disastrous military
adventures. Territorial concessions will, on the contrary, give a firm basis on which
Putin and/or future leaders in the Moscow Kremlin can claim success for a strategy
of weakening and destabilizing the neighbourhood. Aspiring future Russian
16 Chatham House
leaders will not choose a sober and repentant path of good-neighbourliness.

They will seek to garner domestic public support with similar ‘make Russia great
again’ manifestos.
But isn’t Crimea a special case? Many well-intentioned advocates of an urgent

negotiated peace see Crimea as somehow different. This view rests on various
arguments: that Crimea is ‘more historically Russian’ (a view which ignores the
Crimean Tatar perspective, and the centuries of history that preceded the Russian
footprint on the peninsula27); that its population is ‘predominantly Russia-leaning’
(although the last credible opinion poll before Russia’s 2014 annexation showed
67 per cent of respondents preferred Crimea to remain Ukrainian28); and that
its transfer in 1954 from the Russian to the Ukrainian Soviet republic was an
anomalous endo-Soviet ‘mistake’, making it a grey area in the context of post-Soviet
border recognition. As a result, Ukraine can (or ought to) see Crimea as a more
dispensable concession.
These arguments dangerously fail to address a fundamental point: a Crimea

concession would be, as much as any other territorial transfer, a change to
recognized 1991 borders, and a reward to Russia for its aggression. It would
therefore not only fail to deter the Russian regime’s campaigns to steal the territory
and sovereignty of its neighbours. It would confer legitimacy on them.
But the crowning unwisdom in seeing Crimea as some sort of lower-cost

Rather than offer consolation offering to Putin is a failure simply to look at the map. Crimea provides
Russia inducement a geographical and logistical springboard from which Russia would with high
to negotiate, the effort likelihood launch future attacks on Ukraine, as well as further efforts to disrupt
to drive up the costs and destabilize the wider region, and hold to ransom the peaceful conduct of
of its deluded strategy commercial navigation in the Black Sea. Nor would leaving the status of Crimea
must be continued on ice for a few years make the issue easier to handle in future. Crimea would not
and enhanced. remain frozen in time. It is much more likely that continuing Russian occupation
would accelerate Moscow’s efforts to militarize and Russify the peninsula.
An adage well used in several Slavic languages describes a situation where

conflicting demands can be reconciled as one where ‘the wolves are sated, but
the sheep remain whole’. Territorial giveaways to Russia will achieve neither
of these conditions.
The way forward

Absent an unlikely change in strategy and/or leadership in Moscow,
a comprehensive defeat of Russia’s threat to countries in its neighbourhood
needs to remain a key objective for the West. Rather than offer Russia inducement
to negotiate, the effort to drive up the costs of its deluded strategy must be
continued and enhanced. A Russia which ceases to export ‘Wagner values’
27 See Lutsevych, O. (2021), ‘Myth 12: Crimea was always Russian’, in Allan, D. et al. (2021), Myths and
misconceptions in the debate on Russia: How they affect Western policy, and what can be done, Report, London: Royal
Institute of International Affairs, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-
russia/myth-12-crimea-was-always-russian.
28 Baltic Surveys/Gallup (2013), ‘Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea,
May 16 – 30, 2013’, https://www.iri.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/iri.org/2013%20October%207%20
Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf.
17 Chatham House
and recognizes the benefits of constructive and cooperative partnerships in

the wider European region may seem a distant prospect now. But until there
is a satisfactory minimum of shared vision on what will bring that region
stability and success, a rush to negotiations is unlikely to end well.
In short, Crimea is not a ‘special case’. Russia must be defeated, not appeased.
Deterrence and containment of Russia must remain key objectives for Western
governments and their allies.
18 Chatham House
Fallacy 3
‘Ukraine should adopt neutrality’
Calls for Ukraine to become ‘neutral’ because this will remove
Russia’s incentive for aggression ignore the fact that Ukraine
was already neutral when first attacked in 2014. Implementation
of such proposals would expose Ukraine to future attacks that
would threaten European security still further.
Fallacy
Orysia Lutsevych
A number of prominent commentators have proposed that, to end Russian
aggression, Ukraine should adopt neutral status.29 They argue that Ukraine
should relinquish its aspiration to join NATO, rule out the presence of foreign
military bases on its territory, and refrain from joint military exercises with
NATO members. They further argue that potentially institutionalizing such an
arrangement via US assurances to Russia regarding Ukraine’s neutrality would
satisfy Russia’s so-called ‘security concerns’, which were among the pretexts for its
full-scale invasion in 2022. This, it is claimed, would be sufficient to prevent further
Russian attacks on Ukraine.
Analysis
Imposed neutrality would leave Ukraine exposed to a continued existential
threat. It would invite more aggression from Russia and is contrary to
a fundamental principle of international law – the sovereign right to choose
international alliances. Russia itself formally recognized this principle
as a co-signatory of the Istanbul Declaration of 1999.
Neutrality is commonly understood to mean the sovereign right of a country

to refrain from taking sides during a military conflict. But this is not what the
Kremlin wants. When Russians demand a ‘neutral’ Ukraine, they really mean
making it defenceless against the Kremlin’s territorial claims, allowing the
creation of a zone of undisputed Russian dominance, and ensuring the protection
of Russia’s military bases in Crimea. The fact of the matter is that Russia attacked
Ukraine in 2014 when it was already de facto neutral, and when ‘non-bloc status’
29 Charap, S. and Priebe, M. (2023), Avoiding a Long War: U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine
Conflict, RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html.
19 Chatham House
was still a guiding principle of Ukraine’s foreign policy. This has left a deep
scar and aversion within Ukraine to any solution that proposes to restore that
vulnerable status.
At the core of the expansionist agenda of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin,

When Russians demand is a desire to regain what Russia (inaccurately) presents as historically ‘Russian
a ‘neutral’ Ukraine, lands’.30 The territory targeted by this project extends far beyond the bounds
they really mean making of Russia and all the way west to Kyiv, as well as including the whole of the Black
it defenceless against Sea coast. Furthermore, Putin’s address at the start of the war claimed that
the Kremlin’s territorial Moscow had a legitimate right to far more than Ukraine – in fact, to all former
claims, allowing the Russian imperial territory contained within the USSR at its creation in 1922.31
creation of a zone Sixteen months into the war, there is no indication that Putin is changing his aims.
of undisputed Russian Indeed, they are consistent with a decades-long policy of persistent disrespect
dominance, and
of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Following Ukraine’s independence in 1991,
ensuring the protection
its Soviet-era internal borders with Russia became external national borders.
of Russia’s military
bases in Crimea. Russia acknowledged the existence of such borders in principle, but there was
no agreement between the two countries on the precise demarcation of territorial
boundaries.32 Even after recognition of Ukraine as an ‘equal and sovereign’ state in
the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, Russia’s commitment
to respecting the agreed ‘inviolability’ of the two countries’ borders remained
nominal. (Russian provocations included former Moscow mayor Yuriy Luzhkov
frequently referring in public to Sevastopol as a Russian city,33 and Russia’s attempt
to join the Ukrainian island of Tuzla to the Russian mainland across the Kerch Strait
in 2003 – an illegal dam construction project which led to a serious bilateral crisis.)
Neutrality would create new territorial grey zones, encouraging Russia to

step up territorial claims against its neighbour on spurious grounds. It would
embolden Putin to continue a tactic of ‘salami slicing’, incrementally absorbing
Ukrainian lands into Russia. Experienced observers of Russia have no doubt that
after restoring its military capabilities, Moscow would continue its campaign
of territorial conquest to reach – at a minimum – the administrative borders of
Donets, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. (Russia proclaimed the ‘annexation’
of all four regions in September 2022, although a large proportion of their
territory remains under Ukrainian sovereign control.)
Moreover, even if Russia were to provide security guarantees to a neutral Ukraine,

the invasion and related atrocities and war crimes committed by Russia have
removed any grounds for trust in such assurances. Early in the war, in March
2022 when Kyiv was at risk, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was ready to put
neutrality backed by viable security guarantees on the table.34 However, Russia’s
30 Roth, A. and agencies (2022), ‘Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands’,
Guardian, 10 June 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/putin-compares-himself-to-peter-
the-great-in-quest-to-take-back-russian-lands.
31 President of Russia (2022), ‘Address by the President of the Russian Federation’, 21 February 2022,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828.
32 Wolczuk, K. and Dragneva, R. (2022), ‘Russia’s longstanding problem with Ukraine’s borders’, Chatham
House Explainer, 24 August 2022, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/08/russias-longstanding-problem-
ukraines-borders.
33 Focus (2010), ‘Лужков: Севастополь - русский город, база России’ [Luzhkov: Sevastopol – Russian city
and military base], Focus, 22 July 2010, https://focus.ua/politics/133984.
34 Reuters (2022), ‘Ukraine offers neutrality in exchange for NATO-style security guarantees at Russia talks’,
29 March 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-
guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29.
20 Chatham House
actions throughout the course of the war – including the mass killing of civilians
in Bucha – have ruled out this option. Russia is now a pariah state led by a war
criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court. Since its initial invasion
of eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has violated more
than 400 international treaties and conventions, most significantly the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994. It was in return for the security guarantees enshrined in this
memorandum that Ukraine relinquished its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal, at the time
the world’s third largest.
Given these aggravating factors, expecting the adoption of neutrality by Ukraine

Even if Russia were
to provide a route to peace is simply not feasible. No Western country or coalition
to provide security
could compel Ukraine to do so. The country has passed the point of no return in
guarantees to a neutral
Ukraine, the invasion its choice of alignment with the West. Any changes to its security status would
and related atrocities demand amending the Ukrainian constitution, which since February 2019 has
committed by Russia enshrined an aspiration for NATO and EU membership. With 80 per cent of
have removed any Ukrainians supporting NATO and EU membership,35 and only 9 per cent believing
grounds for trust that ‘neutrality with some kind of international guarantees’ could secure the
in such assurances. country,36 there is no democratic means of arriving at a ‘neutral’ Ukraine.
The way forward

Neutrality is thus doomed for failure as a proposed remedy. To secure Ukraine,
as well as Europe more widely, a transatlantic consensus must form around the
strategic objective of defeating Russia. This means, as the war goes on, ensuring
that the Ukrainian armed forces have all the necessary resources to defeat Russia’s
occupying troops. It includes providing military equipment on a sustained and
strategic basis, offering lend-lease funding to underwrite the costs of the war,
sharing intelligence and cooperating on cyber defence. Russia’s military calculus
is only likely to change if it understands that Western financial resources will
flow to Ukraine for the foreseeable future.
Ultimately, there remains no substitute for NATO membership, which should be

the aim for Ukraine once the war is over. Interim multilateral security guarantees
should be viewed only as a temporary solution. In the light of Russia’s aggression
and likely future expansionist ambitions, NATO’s leadership and members should
offer Kyiv a clear pathway to full membership during the Vilnius summit in July
2023. Any accession process is likely to be facilitated by the fact that the Ukrainian
army has already adopted many of NATO’s procurement, land combat and logistics
standards in the course of the war with Russia. Ukraine’s armed forces are rapidly
moving towards closer ‘interoperability’ with other NATO forces. Integration would
also be aided by internal reform of Ukraine’s security sector.
35 Rating Group (2023), ‘ДВАДЦЯТЕ ЗАГАЛЬНОНАЦІОНАЛЬНЕ ОПИТУВАННЯ. ЗОВНІШНЬОПОЛІТИЧНІ

НАСТРОЇ НАСЕЛЕННЯ (14-16 СІЧНЯ 2023)’ [20th Nationwide Polling. Foreign Policy View], 23 January 2023,
https://ratinggroup.ua/research/ukraine/dvadcyate_zagalnonac_onalne_opituvannya_zovn_shnopol_tichn_
nastro_naselennya_14-16_s_chnya_2023.html.
36 Ukrinform (2022), ‘Найкращою гарантією безпеки 49% українців вважають вступ до НАТО’
[49% of Ukrainians believe NATO membership is the best security guarantee], 29 December 2022,
https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3643276-najkrasou-garantieu-bezpeki-49-ukrainciv-vvazaut-
vstup-do-nato.html.
21 Chatham House
NATO membership would provide a powerful deterrent to future aggression by

Russia. But in addition to the protection Ukraine would enjoy, its accession would
also benefit NATO by providing the alliance with one of the most combat-ready
armies in Europe.
Another necessary step to reinforce Ukraine’s resilience and security is to push

ahead with EU membership. Accession would consolidate Ukraine’s economic
and political alignment with the West, and allow for mutual defence assistance
from external threats. Provision for such assistance was introduced as part of the
Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 (Article 42). In addition, EU membership would improve
Ukraine’s internal resilience by providing access to the European single market,
helping post-war reconstruction and offsetting the decade-long decline in Ukraine’s
historical trading relationship with Russia. The formal process of accession would
also help to introduce higher standards of governance as Ukraine reformed its
economy and legal system to meet EU requirements. A priority for Ukraine and
the EU should therefore be to open accession negotiations as soon as possible.
22 Chatham House
Fallacy 4
‘Russian security concerns
must be respected’
Calls to treat as legitimate the ‘security concerns’ raised by
Russia, and to account for these in a future settlement of the
war in Ukraine, disregard the fact that Moscow’s requirements
are fundamentally incompatible with European security.
Fallacy
John Lough
Proponents of a settlement in the war on Ukraine often put forward the idea
that Russian ‘security concerns’ must be taken into account in any such settlement,
but also in broader revisions to the European security system.
These proposals echo the Russian information campaign over the past 30 years
to persuade European publics that there can be ‘no security in Europe without
Russia’.37 They provide false support to the argument that Western security policy
after the collapse of the USSR unnecessarily encroached on core Russian interests
by expanding NATO and forcing Moscow to militarize its foreign policy. In this
telling, Russia was merely challenging what it viewed as an unjust European
security order.
Analysis
The main problem with the idea of accommodating Russian ‘security concerns’
is that Russia’s requirements in their currently stated form do not provide
a reasonable basis for discussion with Ukraine and its Western allies. Nor can such
requirements be satisfied without compromising the security of Ukraine and other
countries in the region. Moscow’s agenda in this area in large measure reflects the
paranoia of a leadership that, through its efforts to increase its own security, has
paradoxically made itself increasingly insecure by intimidating its neighbours,
its Western partners and its own citizens.
37 See, for example, Federal Foreign Office (2016), ‘“Fear is not a good guide – and nor is it a policy”,
interview with Foreign Minister Steinmeier, published on 29 July 2016 in Passauer Neue Presse’, 29 July 2016,
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/-/282446.
23 Chatham House
Despite its claim to respect the principle of equal and indivisible security, the
Kremlin fully subscribes to the traditional view held by imperial centres that their
security needs trump those of neighbouring countries. A logical consequence of
this is that efforts by Russia’s neighbours to integrate with NATO and the EU are
viewed as a direct threat to Moscow’s definition of national security interests.
Russian military thinking is not exceptional in believing that a country is best

defended by ensuring that conflict takes place beyond its borders. Indeed, Russia
developed as an empire because of rapid territorial expansion in search of
natural defences. This required maintaining over centuries what Moscow today
calls a ‘zone of privileged interests’, based on an instrumentalized definition
of ‘good-neighbourly’ and ‘friendly’ relations with adjacent peoples.
This imperial policy continues. It requires the former Soviet republics to accept
that, despite now being independent countries, they must demonstrate loyalty
to Russia by not joining alliances or organizations that Moscow regards as having
hostile intentions towards Russia. ‘Hostile’, in this definition, includes the ability
of an alliance or organization – the EU, for example, or NATO – to change the
geopolitical orientation of such countries. In the view of today’s Russian leadership,
there is also a cultural dimension to this definition of security interests that compels
it to defend the rights of Russians in neighbouring countries, and to prevent those
states from becoming ‘anti-Russian’.
Taking Russia’s security concerns at face value also disregards the fact that
Prioritizing Russia’s the Russian military’s general staff, the nerve centre of the armed forces, does
security concerns not believe in the concept of mutual security beyond strategic nuclear weapons.
distracts attention The way in which NATO seeks to build security based on member states
from the steps that using cooperation as a tool to narrow differences and increase trust contrasts
NATO countries must with the Russian approach, which emphasizes the military benefits of seeking
take to rebuild their positions of advantage in preparation for possible conflict. This deep conceptual
collective defence and difference explains why NATO’s model of cooperative security based on wide-
deterrence capabilities ranging partnership initiatives has never genuinely appealed to Russia’s political
and ensure that Russia and military leadership class.
can never again start
a war in the heart Prioritizing Russia’s security concerns distracts attention from the steps that NATO
of Europe. countries must take to rebuild their collective defence and deterrence capabilities
and ensure that Russia can never again start a war in the heart of Europe. The West
did not win the Cold War by worrying about the USSR’s security concerns. Instead,
it did so by defending itself and demonstrating the superiority of its political and
economic model.
The way forward

The West’s challenge on this occasion is not dissimilar. It must demonstrate
to the Kremlin that it will devote the necessary resources to preserving
Ukraine’s independence and ensuring that the country can be rebuilt in peace.
The precondition for Ukraine’s reconstruction is guaranteed security. Without
it, the hundreds of billions of dollars of investment necessary will not arrive.
24 Chatham House
The West’s immediate strategic goal must be to change Moscow’s calculus of its
security needs, as it did in the 1980s. Containment worked because it persuaded
the Soviet leadership that confrontation was too costly, and that the way forward
instead lay in reducing tensions and pursuing radical economic reform.
The longer-term ambition for Western policymakers should be to make

a compelling case to a post-Putin leadership that Russia must de-imperialize
its approach to security to feel secure. This opportunity was missed in the early
1990s when a small group of Russian reformers looked to the West to help them
consolidate Russia’s democratic gains by tying the country to NATO and offering
the prospect of membership.
The end of the Putin era – whenever that occurs – is likely to create new
possibilities to align Russian and Western security interests, but only if a future
Russian leader concludes that Russia must build cooperative security relations
with the West to manage relations with China and prevent Moscow from becoming
dangerously dependent on Beijing. The West must ensure that the tools
of cooperation are available if Moscow wishes to use them.
25 Chatham House
Fallacy 5
‘Russian defeat is more
dangerous than Russian victory’
Fears of inflicting a humiliating defeat on Russia because
of immediate retaliation from Moscow or longer-term
revanchism are misplaced. Instead, a convincing defeat
of Russia is essential both for European security and
for change in Russia itself.
Fallacy
Keir Giles
A wide range of Western public figures, most prominently French president
Emmanuel Macron,38 have argued that Russia must not be ‘humiliated’ by resounding
defeat in Ukraine. Russian defeat is repeatedly presented as being more dangerous
than a stalemate or settlement in the conflict, or even than Russian victory.39 This
concern is entirely one-sided – there are no calls to avoid similar ‘humiliation’ for
Ukraine, while Ukraine’s desire to evict invaders from its territory is presented as
unreasonable and ‘maximalist’.40 Fear of Ukrainian victory has constrained Western
support for Kyiv, and thus protected Russia from the consequences of its actions.41
Analysis
Whatever the outcome of the fighting in Ukraine, Russia will still be there and will
still nurture the same ambition to expand its power at the expense of its neighbours.42
Therefore a vital component of the war’s outcome must be to minimize the Kremlin’s
ability to undertake aggression abroad. This implies a need to inflict the maximum
38 Reuters (2022), ‘Russia must not be humiliated despite Putin’s ‘historic’ mistake, Macron says’, Reuters,
4 June 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-must-not-be-humiliated-despite-putins-historic-
mistake-macron-2022-06-04.
39 Zubok, V. (2022), ‘No One Would Win a Long War in Ukraine’, Foreign Affairs, 21 December 2022,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/no-one-would-win-long-war-ukraine.
40 Brennan, D. (2022), ‘Ukraine Leaders Eye Maximalist War Goals as Russian Lines Collapse’, Newsweek,
12 September 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-goals-demands-nato-russia-lines-collapse-kharkiv-
counter-attack-1742009.
41 Straus, I. (2022), ‘Ukraine must be allowed to strike back against targets inside Russia’, Atlantic Council,
22 November 2022, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-must-be-allowed-to-strike-back-
against-targets-inside-russia.
42 Fiala, P., Heger, E. and Morawiecki, M. (2023), ‘The Free World Must Stay the Course on Ukraine’, Foreign Affairs,
24 April 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/free-world-must-stay-course-ukraine.
26 Chatham House
possible damage on Russia’s armed forces – and thus is another powerful

rationale for providing Ukraine with all means by which that damage can be
achieved. Front-line states donating entire sectors of military capability to Ukraine
know that by doing so, they are investing in safeguarding their own future.43
Those who fear defeat of Russia look to the precedent of the end of the First
World War. Russia’s overt cheerleaders,44 as well as those independent foreign
policy commentators who consistently advocate Russia’s preferred solutions,45
invoke the Treaty of Versailles as a cautionary tale. Like so many arguments
for not confronting Russia, the analogy does not stand close inspection.46 Defeat
of Russia will not lead to a new 1939 because we are already there – Russia has
already followed a parallel trajectory to Germany’s after 1919. Russia has created
its own ‘stab in the back’ myth; it has leveraged resentment based on the economic
trauma of the 1990s; it has created its own brand of fascism through relentless
indoctrination of its youth; and it has launched its war of expansion as soon as
it felt powerful and confident enough to do so. Russia cannot be transformed any
further into a revanchist power when revanchism already defines the entirety
of its state policy.
Russia has also deliberately stoked fears of a nuclear response to defeat.47

Those who fear defeat But there are few circumstances in which defeat in the field in Ukraine could
of Russia invoke the be construed as an existential threat to Russia itself, or to the leadership elite,
Treaty of Versailles as despite Putin’s disingenuous presentation of the war as one of survival for Russian
a cautionary tale. Like civilization.48 And there are even fewer grounds to suppose that that elite would
so many arguments for wish to transform survivable defeat into an existential threat by unleashing
not confronting Russia, nuclear exchanges.
the analogy does not
stand close inspection. For all that Russia may claim that the subjugation of Ukraine and occupation
of Crimea are its national destiny, this does not mean that in reality Russia would
be incapable of relinquishing captured or ‘annexed’ territory if the alternative was
a real core interest, such as the survival in power of Putin and those around him.
The more likely course – borne out repeatedly through history – is for Russia to
swallow defeat, and trade in what is negotiable to preserve what is essential. And
throughout history, the positive effect of this has been transformation within Russia
itself. Another, even deeper, transformation is essential if the country is finally no
longer to persist in being the only hard security threat on the European continent.49
43 The Kyiv Independent (2023), ‘Minister: Latvia to send Ukraine all its Stinger air defense systems’,
21 April 2023, https://kyivindependent.com/minister-latvia-to-send-ukraine-all-its-stinger-air-defense-systems.
44 Bolger, B. P. (2022), ‘The Peace Proposal in Russia: Shadows of Versailles’, The National Interest,
4 December 2022, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/peace-proposal-russia-shadows-versailles-205973.
45 O’Hanlon, M. and Sisson, M. W. (2022), ‘Weaken, but don’t ruin, Russia’, The Hill, 18 May 2022,
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3491087-weaken-but-dont-ruin-russia.
46 Quinn, W. (2022), ‘Bad history — why the Treaty of Versailles is an imperfect guide to future Russia-West
relations’, Engelsberg Ideas, 27 May 2022, https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/bad-history-why-the-treaty-
of-versailles-is-an-imperfect-guide-to-future-russia-west-relations.
47 Giles, K. (2023), Russian nuclear intimidation: How Russia uses nuclear threats to shape
Western responses to aggression, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135645.
48 For more on this, and on the extent to which Putin presents the war as a struggle for a Russian civilization,
see the related arguments by James Sherr earlier in this report, in ‘Fallacy 1: “Settle now: all wars end at the
negotiating table”’.
49 Rostowski, J. (2022), ‘Russia Must Be Humbled’, Project Syndicate, 25 October 2022, https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/russia-putin-humiliation-in-war-often-drives-progress-by-jacek-rostowski-2022-10.
27 Chatham House
This transformation – along with the process of truth and reconciliation that
Russia avoided at the end of the Cold War, and eventual justice for war crimes and
reparations – lies long in the future. But it is certain that it will never be achievable
in circumstances short of clear and unambiguous defeat for Russia in the current
war with Ukraine. And this defeat must be not only clear but with long-lasting
effects. The examples of Germany after 1919, and Iraq after 1991, show the
dangers of considering the problem solved once the fighting is over.
The way forward

Russia’s onslaught on Ukraine has finally destroyed many of the West’s most
cherished fantasies about Russia as a benign state with which the West can
coexist. Far more politicians, officials and analysts are now willing to admit the
true nature of the challenge from Moscow, that this is an existential conflict not
only for Ukraine but for the rules-based international order, and that it cannot
be resolved by negotiation now that Russia has, as long expected, embarked
on open warfare.50 An ideology as fanatical and as alien to our way of thinking
as that of Nazi Germany, Islamic State or the Khmer Rouge requires eradication,
not accommodation.
Clear and unequivocal defeat of Russia will bring both immediate and long-
Any reduction in term benefits for European security. Any reduction in Russian military capacity,
Russian military including through destruction in combat, increases the time and resources
capacity, including that Russia will need to expend on reconstituting its military capability before
through destruction launching another attack on a neighbour.51 And in the long term, it is only
in combat, increases a substantial and undeniable defeat that will cause Russian attitudes to begin
the time and resources the slow process of change. Russia’s leadership needs to be brought to understand
that Russia will that it has made a colossal blunder in launching its full-scale war on Ukraine, and
need to expend on
the population more broadly needs to understand that the age of empires is over
reconstituting its
for Russia just as it is for other European powers. Without resolution of these
military capability
before launching two challenges, Russia will never cease to be a threat to Europe.
another attack on Thus, as well as the moral argument for backing Ukraine to victory over the
a neighbour. Russian invader, the strictly practical reasons are compelling. Defeat for Russia
will make Europe, and the world, a safer place.
50 As described in Giles, K. (2019), Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West, Chatham House/
Brookings, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/01/moscow-rules-what-drives-russia-confront-west.
51 Dyner, A. (2023), ‘The Next Reform of Russia’s Armed Forces’, PISM Strategic File, 1 March 2023,
https://pism.pl/publications/the-next-reform-of-russias-armed-forces-is-it-a-new-threat-or-just-for-appearances.
28 Chatham House
Fallacy 6
‘Russia’s defeat in Ukraine
will lead to greater instability
in Russia’
Fear of destabilizing Russia or even causing its break-up
must not deter the West from pressing for a Ukrainian victory.
To do otherwise is to protect Russia and Putin from the
consequences of their actions in Ukraine and, if anything,
increase Russia’s instability in the longer term.
Fallacy
Kataryna Wolczuk
There is a growing narrative that were Russia to suffer a major defeat in
Ukraine, then some sort of severe internal turbulence would invariably follow,
with speculation on the likely consequences ranging from increased political
instability to the break-up of the country.52 The failed Wagner Group mutiny on
24 June 2023 provided a dramatic illustration of how military infighting might
threaten Vladimir Putin’s regime. For many in the West, the worst scenario would
be the fragmentation of the Russian Federation into its constituent parts, resulting
in the loss of control of nuclear weapons or the creation of a geopolitical vacuum
filled by China.53
According to this logic, further political instability in Russia is therefore to be

avoided at all costs,54 which means that the country’s armed forces must not be
allowed to suffer a catastrophic defeat in Ukraine. This in turn risks encouraging the
view that Ukraine’s victory is less important than the avoidance of a Russian defeat.
52 Sannikova-Franck, M. (2023), ‘Discussing Russia’s Future’, LibMod, 17 February 2023, https://libmod.de/en/

discussing-russias-future.
53 The instability argument is a flipside of the nuclear threat argument. According to Andrei Kozyrev, two
opposing arguments are used against Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. On the one hand, Russia is too strong. It is
a superpower that will use nuclear weapons. On the other, Russia is too weak and fragile, an almost failed state
that would descend into chaos. Kozyrev, A. (2023), Twitter thread, 22 January 2023, https://twitter.com/
andreivkozyrev/status/1617220599478198273?cxt=HHwWgoC9taPkwvEsAAAA.
54 Maria Domanska examines the narrative in Domanska, M. (2023), ‘The fetish of Russia’s stability: an intelligent
weapon against the West’, New Eastern Europe, 24 March 2023, https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/03/24/the-
fetish-of-russias-stability-an-intelligent-weapon-against-the-west.
29 Chatham House
Analysis
One of the problems with worrying about what Russia might become is
that it overlooks what is happening in the country right now: descent into
a neo-totalitarian system,55 whose leaders maintain that the salvation of Russia
depends on the annihilation of Ukraine as both a state and a nation. To control and
mobilize society, the regime presents the war in Ukraine as a zero-sum game for
Russia, with all means justified to achieve victory.56 Propaganda and coercion are
used in tandem to ensure societal acquiescence and create support for a drawn-
out war against Ukraine and the West.57 Equally, wars and geopolitical rivalry
offer a means for autocratic political regimes in Russia to sustain themselves –
this was the case before Vladimir Putin, and will still likely be true after his
eventual departure.
Although the Wagner rebellion is a major setback for the Russian leadership,
this should not obscure the fact that in significant respects the war to date has
consolidated Putin’s regime.58 Both the Russian military and vast numbers of
state officials remain loyal to it, and thus willing actors in external aggression
and domestic repression. Ultimately, the status, security and wealth of Russian
officials rely on regime preservation, so the litany of blunders, miscalculations
and battlefield catastrophes do not automatically translate into an increased
likelihood of Putin’s removal.59 Facilitating the regime’s survival both prolongs the
war against Ukraine and risks leading to the deeper, longer-lasting brutalization
of Russian society.60 The sorts of massive losses experienced by Russia on
the battlefield would stop most governments in their tracks. But despite the
55 On his experience as a political prisoner, Vladimir Kara-Murza has observed: ‘I’ve been surprised by the
extent to which my trial, in its secrecy and its contempt for legal norms, has surpassed even the “trials” of Soviet
dissidents in the 1960s and ’70s. … In this respect, we’ve gone beyond the 1970s — all the way back to the 1930s.’
Kara-Murza, V. (2023), ‘Opinion | Vladimir Kara-Murza’s last statement to Russian court: A reckoning will come’,
Washington Post, 10 April 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/10/vladimir-kara-murza-
final-statement-court.
56 Rumer, E. (2023), ‘How Putin’s War Became Russia’s War: The Country Will Struggle to Reckon With Its
Crimes in Ukraine’, Foreign Affairs, 9 June 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/how-putins-
war-became-russias-war.
57 Centre for Democratic Integrity (2023), ‘Putin’s Russia: From dictatorship of spin to dictatorship of fear.
Interview with Sergei Guriev’, 11 May 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1fKHYun_us.
58 It is important to stress the difference between Putin’s leadership, the political regime and the Russian
state. After 23 years of Putin’s leadership, many Western analysts equate his possible fall with the implosion
of the political regime and even the disintegration of the state. Many people simply presume that Putin’s
departure (if resulting from Russia’s defeat in Ukraine) would inevitably result in a Soviet-style collapse.
See, for example, Treisman, D. (2022), ‘What Could Bring Putin Down?’, Foreign Affairs, 2 November 2022,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/what-could-bring-putin-down. However, experienced analysts
such as Maria Domanska and Duncan Allan point out that, even in the case of Putin being replaced, core
features of the Russian political regime and state system would be preserved. Therefore, Putin’s departure
is unlikely to lead to the disintegration of Russia. See Allan, D. (2023), Imagining Russia’s future after
Putin: Possible outcomes of a defeat in Ukraine, Briefing Paper, London: Royal Institute of International
Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135737; Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) (2023),
‘Russia’s neototalitarianism. The future of Putin’s Russia’, 8 March 2023, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=VMvdFh7NcTs; and Sannikova-Franck (2023), ‘Discussing Russia’s Future’.
59 Hill, F. and Stent, A. (2022), ‘The World Putin Wants: How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About
the Future’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2022, 25 August 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-
federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent.
60 Pomerantsev, P. (2023), ‘What lies behind Russia’s acts of extreme violence? Freudian analysis offers an
answer’, Guardian, 11 June 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/11/ecocide-russia-
ukraine-war-kakhovka-dam-destroyed.
30 Chatham House
current military infighting, there is no sign yet that the number of Russian
casualties is making the leadership think twice about pursuing maximalist goals
vis-à-vis Ukraine.61
Much is made of the prospect that in the event of military defeat, the Russian
Federation could disintegrate. Indeed, some hope for Russia’s break-up precisely
as a route to achieving the implosion of Putin’s regime.62 Yet there is no evidence
that disintegration of the state would be likely. The preconditions for a break-up
are lacking: the regions lack the political leaders, resources, ideologies and
instruments to challenge Moscow. The centre’s tight political and economic
control, including of personnel and security agencies, provides the regime with
significant – though not inexhaustible – capacity to persist, even under extreme
stress. Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, is believed to have worked
hard behind the scenes to defuse the Wagner Group tensions.
Moreover, Russia’s minorities – which account for about 20 per cent of the
population – have little interest in secession. Most non-Russian republics favour
decentralization to create a genuine federation, rather than dissolution of the state.
These republics are only too aware of how Chechnya was pacified, and clearly have
no wish for a similar experience. The temptation to create a parallel between the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the current political situation ignores the vast
and pivotal differences in conditions between the USSR and Russia today.
Crucially, narratives on the impending demise of Russia are not only

Waiting for Russia’s uncorroborated by facts on the ground but counterproductive for Western
imagined collapse policy.63 Waiting for Russia’s imagined collapse is a way to defer confronting the
is a way to defer challenges the regime presents now. It is revealing that countries neighbouring
confronting the Russia – i.e. those most vulnerable to conquest and occupation, or with the
challenges the regime most experience of Russian aggression – seem the least fearful of what may
presents now. hypothetically happen inside the country; their politicians and leaders are far
more concerned with what Russia does today than with speculating about the
future.64 Conversely, commentators and officials in more distant countries that
are less vulnerable or exposed seem to worry most about the consequences
of Russian defeat.65
The problem with the latter way of thinking is that, even if inadvertently, those
afraid of instability in Russia de facto advocate prolonging Putin’s regime – Russia,
in effect, is deemed too important to be allowed to fail. Yet fetishizing a false
stability in the hope of ‘modulating’ a political change whose contours inherently
61 Landsbergis, G. (2023), ‘7 myths standing in the way of Ukraine’s victory’, Politico, 19 March 2023,
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-victory-russia-7-myths/amp.
62 Bugajski, J. (2023), ‘The benefits of Russia’s coming disintegration’, Politico, 12 January 2023,
https://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-russia-benefits-disintegration.
63 Vock, I. (2023), ‘No, Russia isn’t about to break apart’, New Statesman, 14 February 2023,
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/02/russia-federation-break-up.
64 Besides Ukraine, the countries which seem most undaunted by imagined prospects of Russian collapse are
arguably Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, because all experienced what happens when Russia is not stopped
and is allowed to invade and occupy. Raik, K. (2022), ‘Don’t Be Afraid of a Russian Collapse’, Foreign Affairs,
8 December 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/12/08/ukraine-russia-war-escalation-collapse-victory-baltic-
poland-putin-imperialism.
65 Many countries are experienced in interacting with Russia. Yet dealing with Russia from a distance – through
diplomatic channels, cultural exchanges, trade and international organizations – is rather different to a direct
experience of Russian invasions and occupation, which countries such as Estonia, Finland, Lativa, Lithuania,
Poland and Ukraine have had.
31 Chatham House
defy prediction vastly overplays the West’s influence on Russia. It amounts to an

unworkable re-interpretation of the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle – in which,
implausibly, the aggressor country is to be protected from the consequences
of its own wrongdoing.
The way forward

Western policy cannot be premised on the belief that internal instability in Russia
is a greater evil than the war itself and the Kremlin’s domestic repressions. In fact,
Russia’s defeat in Ukraine is a necessary condition – if perhaps insufficient on its
own, as mentioned – for the demise of Putin’s regime. The Russian opposition
cherishes the prospect of military defeat as a means to create cracks in the regime
and facilitate a political thaw. Seen from this angle, although a decisive Ukrainian
military victory offers no guarantee of toppling Putin and is unlikely to radically
destabilize Russia, it still provides the best chance for political reform in the
country and is needed, at the very least, to tame Russian imperialist ambitions.66
The West needs to deal with the problem in hand – namely, undermine the
will and capacity of Russia’s leaders and state to launch wars of aggression and
conquest in Europe – rather than devising grand schemes to modulate political
change and prevent further possible instability inside Russia.67
As the former US diplomat George Kennan said: ‘Few of us can see very far into
the future, all would be safer if we take principles of conduct, which we know we
can live with, and at least stick to those, rather than try to chart our vast schemes.’68
This realization ought to transcend the defeatism among those who think that
‘firmness against Russia can only bring war’, when, in fact, it is indispensable
for bringing peace.69
66 According to Maria Domanska: ‘Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed the nexus between repressive
domestic rule and aggressive foreign policy. As long as Russia remains a dictatorship, it will pose an existential
threat to the security order in Europe. It is, therefore, in the West’s interest to see a permanent dismantling
of the current model of government in Russia. Putin’s departure from office will create a short-term window
of opportunity for political change. Contrary to widespread fears, the end of this autocratic pseudo-stability
may pave the way for sustainable peace in Europe.’ Domanska (2023), ‘The fetish of Russia’s stability’.
67 It is very unlikely that Russia will relinquish the idea of conquering Ukraine and destroying its statehood.
Therefore, the West needs to foresee effective measures to deter Russia and make it incapable of waging wars
in the medium to long term. See Osmolovska, I. and Maksak, H. (2022), ‘Five Security Scenarios on Russian
War in Ukraine for 2022–2023: Implications and Policy Recommendations to Western Partners’, GLOBSEC,
12 December 2022, https://www.globsec.org/what-we-do/publications/five-security-scenarios-russian-war-
ukraine-2022-2023-implications-and.
68 Gaddis, J. L. (2011), George F. Kennan: An American Life, Penguin, p. 369.
69 Ibid.
32 Chatham House
Fallacy 7
‘This is costing too much,
and the West needs to restore
economic ties with Russia’
The financial costs of pushing back against Russian
aggression in Ukraine are high, but entirely manageable
given the size of Western economies. Failure to act would
leave Europe at risk of further Russian expansion, attack
and economic blackmail, ultimately costing the West
much more over the long term.
Timothy Ash
Fallacy
Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, and indirectly on the West, is imposing a huge
financial cost on Ukraine, the West and indeed the global economy. A common
misconception stemming from this situation is that the West simply cannot afford
the financial burden of continuing to help Ukraine, given other economic priorities,
and that the best way to end tensions with Russia is to return to the pre-war status
quo of economic interdependency. Only then, this argument goes, will Russia
have an interest in de-escalation.
Analysis
Western budgetary support for Ukraine since February 2022 has totalled around
$46 billion, while military assistance is estimated to have cost around $50 billion
thus far.70 Putin’s restrictions on energy trade in response to Western support
for Ukraine are estimated to have reduced GDP growth in the EU by around
1 percentage point in 2022 (equivalent to a €200 billion loss)71 and forced
70 Author’s estimates, based on sources that include Mills, C. (2023), Military assistance to Ukraine since
the Russian invasion, House of Commons Library Research Briefing, 23 May 2023, https://commonslibrary.
parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477; and Ministry of Finance of Ukraine (2023), Ukraine – Monthly
Report, March 2023, Wartime Edition, 12 April 2023, see https://mof.gov.ua.
71 Lefort. J. S. (2022), ‘Ukraine economic shock’, European Investment Bank, 14 June 2022,
https://www.eib.org/en/stories/ukraine-trade-inflation.
33 Chatham House
multiple European countries (namely EU members, the UK and Norway) to

announce energy relief measures to the tune of $800 billion.72 The war has also
boosted inflation across the euro area by between 5 and 6 percentage points.73
In response to Russia’s invasion, defence spending in NATO countries is now
set to increase from an average of around 1.5 per cent of GDP to 2–2.5 per cent
of GDP, equivalent to an additional $375 billion of recurring costs.74
Taken together, these sums are huge, but there is no credible alternative
to increased spending for the West. No scenario can simply set the clock back
to 23 February 2022. European security has been fundamentally weakened
because of Russia’s aggression, and the West must adjust accordingly. This
means putting its security at the fore when it comes to economic choices.
Through its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has surely proven its aggressive
intent towards the West. If it is not stopped in Ukraine, there is a credible risk of
further Russian expansion into Europe. Restoring economic relations with Russia
would only assist Moscow in swiftly rebuilding its military forces. If this then leads
to Russia defeating Ukraine and extending its reach into Poland, the West would
have to spend much more on defending its borders, but from a greatly weakened
position and with Russia in the ascendancy.
Conversely, the rationale for the West holding firm in resisting Russia is boosted
NATO’s best strategy by the greater relative economic impact on Russia of continuing the war. Current
is forward defence economic constraints on the country mean that replacing conventional military
by stopping Russia capacity lost in Ukraine will entail difficult choices to be made in other areas
in Ukraine now. of state spending – a classic ‘guns versus butter’ dilemma. This in turn has the
This is also the potential to create new political and social fissures in Russia, perhaps even
cheapest option. opening opportunities for political change, to the West’s – and Russia’s own –
long-term benefit.
NATO’s best strategy is forward defence by stopping Russia in Ukraine now.

This is also the cheapest option. In fact, the sums currently being spent to help
Ukraine defend itself – and, by extension, to protect the security of the West –
remain relatively small in the context of overall NATO financial commitments.
At around $96 billion to date, the combined defence spending and budgetary
support for Ukraine thus far represents just 0.2 per cent of the GDP of the Western
alliance working in support of Ukraine, with the defence component equivalent
to around 4 per cent of defence spending in these countries. That represents
a phenomenal return on investment if estimates are correct that around half of
Russia’s conventional military capability has thus far been destroyed in Ukraine.
In response to the idea that the West is still spending too much, it is also important
to note that the economic impacts of the war – in terms of depressing European
growth and prompting the launch of energy adjustment measures – represent
72 See Abnett, K. (2023), ‘Europe’s spend on energy crisis nears 800 billion euros’, Reuters, 13 February 2023,
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-spend-energy-crisis-nears-800-billion-euros-2023-02-13.
73 See Arce, O., Koester, G. and Nickel, C. (2023), ‘One year since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – the effects on
euro area inflation’, 24 February 2023, The ECB Blog, European Central Bank, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/
press/blog/date/2023/html/ecb.blog20230224~3b75362af3.en.html.
74 Author’s estimate.
34 Chatham House
costs that are locked in and cannot be recovered. Partly these sunk costs are
the result of past policy failures in not taking the threat from Russia seriously,
a mistake Europe cannot afford to make again.
The way forward

The West needs to reduce its economic dependency on Russia, and thereby
limit the latter’s ability to use economic blackmail as a tool of statecraft. Cutting
Russia out of supply chains will, as the recent oil price cap75 introduced by the
G7, the EU and Australia has shown, limit Russia’s pricing power on international
markets. This will restrict the financial resources available to Russia to rebuild
its military capacity – which, unless checked now, will likely be used against
the West in the future.
Russia has demonstrated that it is an unreliable energy partner, and Europe

The West needs to cannot credibly return to the status quo that prevailed before the invasion by
reduce its economic simply turning Russian energy taps back on once the war is over. Europe has
dependency on Russia, now to ensure its energy security by diversifying supplies away from Russian
and thereby limit the energy and accelerating the low-carbon transition. Much of the $800 billion in
latter’s ability to use energy support allocated by European countries consists of investment needed
economic blackmail for that adjustment – and investment in energy security will also help revive
as a tool of statecraft. European growth.
Ensuring the defence of Ukraine in this war, and Ukraine’s successful post-war
reconstruction to make it economically self-sufficient in defence, is the best
investment the West can make in its own security, and thereby the best way
to reduce defence spending over the longer term.
75 HM Treasury (2023), ‘UK and coalition partners announce price caps on Russian oil products’,
3 February 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-coalition-partners-announce-price-caps-
on-russian-oil-products.
35 Chatham House
Fallacy 8
‘Ukraine’s pursuit of justice
hinders peace’
Many believe that for Ukraine to insist on judicial redress
is unrealistic and should not be a precondition of a peace
settlement. However, quite apart from the moral imperative,
the reality is that peace will not hold unless justice –
in the form of trials and reparations – is served.
Fallacy
Kateryna Busol
Some experts are advocating setting aside the issue of justice for Ukraine –
at least for now and in the immediate post-war period – in order to find a quicker
path to peace. They argue that Ukraine’s proactivity in seeking accountability
in international and domestic courts in respect of the Russian state, its political
and military leadership, propaganda figures and soldiers might act as a deterrent
to ending the war.76 At the heart of this misconception is the idea that Russian
officials might be less willing to end hostilities if they perceive a viable possibility
of incarceration for the crime of aggression and related atrocities that are alleged
to have been committed by the regime.
Analysis
Russia is pursuing the neo-imperial subjugation of Ukraine.77 Atrocities are
a central part of the Kremlin’s tactics, as was also the case in Chechnya and Syria.78
76 Corder, M. (2023), ‘War-crime warrant for Putin could complicate Ukraine peace’, Associated Press,
2 April 2023, https://apnews.com/article/putin-arrest-warrant-ukraine-war-crimes-court-93bfa0eb81d
d2abe5edb008b78df568d; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (2023), ‘China’s
Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’, 24 February 2023, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/
zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html; Krastev, I. and Leonard, M. (2022), ‘Peace versus Justice:
The coming European split over the war in Ukraine’, European Council on Foreign Relations, 15 June 2022,
https://ecfr.eu/publication/peace-versus-justice-the-coming-european-split-over-the-war-in-ukraine.
77 Zabrodskyi, M., Watling, J., Danylyuk, O. and Reynolds, N. (2022), Preliminary Lessons in Conventional
Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022, Royal United Services Institute for Defence
and Security Studies, pp. 10–11, https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-
final.pdf; and Jordash, W. (2023), ‘Геноцид в Україні’ [Genocide in Ukraine], Ukrainska Pravda, 28 March 2023,
https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2023/03/28/7395377.
78 Wilson Center (2022), ‘The Echo of Chechnya in Russia’s War with Ukraine’, 1 June 2022,
https://5g.wilsoncenter.org/event/echo-chechnya-russias-war-ukraine.
36 Chatham House
Unless the pattern of impunity is broken, Russia will continue to perpetrate

direct and proxy violence globally.
As emphasized by Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian lawyer and head of

Constraining Ukraine’s the Center for Civil Liberties, a Nobel Peace Prize-winning non-governmental
pursuit of justice organization (NGO): ‘Justice should not depend on the durability of authoritarian
contravenes the regimes.’79 War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression pose
requirement under a threat to the international rules-based order and must be prosecuted. The 1949
international law Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocol I, binding upon both Ukraine
that the perpetrators and Russia, envisage the prosecution of grave breaches of their provisions;
of atrocities be such breaches include killing, torture, deportation and the holding of sham
prosecuted, and would trials.80 The UN rejects amnesties for atrocity crimes in peace agreements and
send a discouraging in proceedings before UN-affiliated courts.81 Constraining Ukraine’s pursuit of
message to civil
justice contravenes the requirement under international law that the perpetrators
societies opposing
of atrocities be prosecuted, and would send a discouraging message to civil
oppressive regimes
globally. societies opposing oppressive regimes globally.
Russia’s weaponization of torture, sexual violence, deportations, summary

executions and attacks on civilian objects in Ukraine plausibly meets definitions
of war crimes, crimes against humanity and, perhaps, genocide.82 The scale of
Russia’s recent crimes is such that in 2023, after a period of relative inactivity
concerning Ukraine in 2014–21, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued
arrest warrants for two high-profile Russian figures, including President Vladimir
Putin. Parallel investigations are under way in Ukraine and numerous other
countries83 with the aim of securing prosecutions for possible atrocities committed
during the conflict. Ongoing processes include efforts to prosecute the crime
of ‘aggression’ – considered the ‘supreme international crime’ by the 1945–46
Nuremberg International Military Tribunal84 – to reinforce the message that
neocolonial war and the perpetration of atrocities in the attempted subjugation
of another nation are impermissible.
79 Matviichuk, O. (2023), ‘A Speech to Europe 2023: Read the Full Text or Watch the Recording’, 9 May 2023,
https://www.iwm.at/news/a-speech-to-europe-2023-read-the-full-text.
80 International Committee of the Red Cross (2004), ‘How “grave breaches” are defined in the Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocols’, 4 June 2004, https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/
faq/5zmgf9.htm.
81 United Nations (2004), The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, Report of the
Secretary-General, S/2004/616*, 23 August 2004, paras 10, 32, 64(c), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/
un-documents/document/pcs-s-2004-616.php.
82 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2023), ‘Summary’, Report of the Independent
International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, Human Rights Council, A/HRC/52/62, 15 March 2023,
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/coiukraine/A_HRC_52_62_
AUV_EN.pdf. Specifically on genocide allegations, see Jordash (2023), ‘Геноцид в Україні’ [Genocide
in Ukraine]; Marchuk, I. and Wanigasuriya, A. (2022), ‘Beyond the False Claim of Genocide: Preliminary
Reflections on Ukraine’s Prospects in Its Pursuit of Justice at the ICJ’, Journal of Genocide Research,
9 November 2022, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623528.2022.2143528; Global Rights
Compliance (2023), ‘New Torture Chamber evidence uncovered from liberated Kherson’, 2 March 2023,
https://globalrightscompliance.com/2023/03/02/new-torture-chamber-evidence-uncovered-from-
liberated-kherson/; Azarov, D., Koval, D., Nuridzhanian, G. and Venher, V. (2022), ‘Genocide committed
by the Russian Federation in Ukraine: Legal Reasoning And Historical Context’, SSRN, 15 September 2022,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4217444.
83 Crawford, J. and Cruvellier, T. (2022), ‘Ukraine Responds to Warfare with “Lawfare”’, Justice Info,
25 March 2022, https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/89266-ukraine-responds-to-warfare-with-lawfare.html.
84 International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment of 1 October 1946, p. 25, https://www.legal-tools.
org/doc/45f18e/pdf.
37 Chatham House
Justice is crucial to Ukrainians’ vision of victory. Ukraine has investigated

conflict-related crimes since 2014, established a specialized war crimes unit in
2019 and further expanded prosecutions in 2022.85 Ukrainian atrocity survivors
and members of civil society have consistently demanded that the Russian
leadership and direct perpetrators of conflict-related crimes be held accountable.86
Survivors expect prosecutions and wider individual reparations, including
medical, psychological and housing support.87 Human rights NGOs have submitted
numerous communications about documented atrocities to the ICC. They have
advised domestic investigators, backed the enhancement of Ukraine’s criminal
legislation on conflict-related proceedings and advocated for prosecution of the
Russian leadership for the crime of aggression.88 Human rights NGOs have also
consistently called for Kyiv to ratify the ICC Rome Statute – which would allow
Ukraine to nominate ICC judges, elect the court’s prosecutor and participate
in the deliberations of the ICC Assembly of States Parties, including on reforming
the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.
Thus, beyond the moral and strictly legal dimensions, Ukrainians’ deep desire
Ukrainians’ deep for justice and the extensive efforts committed thus far to its pursuit suggest
desire for justice and that any peace deal that mitigated accountability for Russian perpetrators would
the extensive efforts likely activate acute social discontent. Ukrainians also remain strongly opposed
committed thus far to bargaining in exchange for peace.89 For these reasons, the notion that legal
to its pursuit suggest action and reparations should be subordinated to the imperative of ending
that any peace the war does not seem viable.
deal that mitigated
accountability for Finally, compromising justice for Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine would undermine
Russian perpetrators civic transformations more broadly in the post-Soviet region, especially in Russia
would likely activate and Belarus. Impunity for the Russian and Belarusian leaderships would devalue
acute social discontent. the efforts of citizens in both countries who have opposed the war on principle
and have been persecuted as a result.90 Deprioritizing fair examination of the
Kremlin’s crimes would also deprive the Russian and Belarusian peoples of an
impartial assessment of their own direct or indirect complicity in supporting
85 Busol, K. (2022), ‘If Ukraine’s Fate Is not a Menu à La Carte, then Ukrainian Voices Must Be Heard’,
EJIL:Talk!, 20 June 2022, https://www.ejiltalk.org/if-ukraines-fate-is-not-a-menu-a-la-carte-then-ukrainian-
voices-must-be-heard.
86 ZMINA (2021), ‘Як українці ставляться до перехідного правосуддя – соціологічне дослідження’
[The Attitudes of Ukrainians to Transitional Justice – a Sociological Survey], 17 March 2021, https://zmina.info/
articles/doslidnyky-rozpovily-pro-stavlennya-ukrayincziv-do-perehidnogo-pravosuddya.
87 Nassar, A., Busol, K. and Sydor-Czartorysky, A. (2022), Ukraine Study on the Status of and Opportunities
for Reparations for Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence, Global Survivors Fund, pp. 47–51,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ff7d9f4dd4cdc650b24f9a4/t/62c3d1610bf4cc740f73
fb56/1657000313991/GSFReporUkraine_ENG.pdf.
88 ‘Memorandum of Civil Society Organizations of Ukraine: Shared Guiding Principles on Accountability
for Grave Crimes Committed in Ukraine’, https://rights-justice-peace.in.ua/en-us.
89 84 per cent of Ukrainians oppose any territorial bargaining with Russia in exchange for peace. Kyiv
International Institute of Sociology (2022), ‘Dynamics of Readiness for Territorial Concessions for the
Earliest Possible End to the War: Results of a Telephone Survey Conducted on July 6-20, 2022’, 27 July 2022,
https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1124&page=1.
90 Novaya Gazeta Europe (2023), ‘Not only do I not repent, but I am also proud’, 10 April 2023,
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/04/10/not-only-do-i-not-repent-but-i-am-also-proud-en-
news; Human Rights in Ukraine (2022), ‘International Memorial: we are against the war with Ukraine’,
25 February 2022, https://khpg.org/en/1608810139.
38 Chatham House
the war or acquiescing to it.91 Without a profound reckoning of society’s role in

these events, and its contribution to the creation of the environment that enabled
them, an eventual democratic transition in Russia and Belarus is impossible.
The way forward

An immediate practical task is to help Ukraine process its huge backlog of
An immediate criminal prosecutions. There are currently 89,000 war-related proceedings under
practical task is to way in the country.92 Ukraine needs permanent on-the-ground expert advice in
help Ukraine process handling these, particularly in investigating and prosecuting more challenging
its huge backlog of atrocities such as conflict-related sexual violence, indiscriminate shelling and
criminal prosecutions. genocide. Any allegations of misconduct by Ukrainian military personnel should
There are currently also be impartially investigated to ensure equal treatment of all victims. There
89,000 war-related remains a need to step up engagement with vulnerable survivors, such as children
proceedings under and victims of sexual violence; processes will need to be carefully crafted to avoid
way in the country. the retraumatization of victims. Kyiv needs to develop a comprehensive transitional
justice framework covering criminal proceedings, truth-telling, reparations
for victims and non-repetition guarantees.93 Steps such as these will normalize
Ukraine’s application of international law domestically, strengthen the expertise
of national criminal justice professionals, enhance conflict-related proceedings and
increase overall compliance with the rule of law – in visible contrast with Russia.
By backing comprehensive justice for Ukraine, the international community will

strengthen access to justice for atrocity victims globally. States should launch
more universal jurisdiction proceedings for atrocities committed in Ukraine and
elsewhere through their domestic courts, to narrow impunity for geographically
distant crimes and to assist countries such as Ukraine that are overwhelmed with
cases.94 States should execute all ICC arrest warrants, including for President Putin,
and ensure that the court has resources for effective investigation of international
crimes in all situations, including Ukraine.95
91 As of early 2023, around 75 per cent of Russians and 33 per cent of urban Belarusians supported the war
against Ukraine. Bne IntelliNews (2023), ‘Levada poll finds 75% of Russians supporting war’, 24 February 2023,
https://www.intellinews.com/levada-poll-finds-75-of-russians-supporting-war-271068. See also Belarus
Initiative (2023), ‘Fifteenth Survey Wave: Belarusians’ views on the war and value orientations (poll conducted
March 15-27, 2023)’, 12 April 2023, https://en.belaruspolls.org/wave-15.
92 As of 26 May 2023, Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, official Twitter account, https://twitter.com/
gp_ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3bax_gy5dASd1k4-GYNUFdcC_E6lhVT-7H0OxDTH-Qc3YoxL12Xasl514.
93 OHCHR (2023), Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, A/HRC/52/62,
15 March 2023, para 105, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/
coiukraine/A_HRC_52_62_AUV_EN.pdf.
94 Crawford, J. and Cruvellier, T. (2022), ‘Philip Grant: “Ukraine is Accelerating a Revival of Universal
Jurisdiction”’, Justice Info, 29 November 2022, https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/109532-philip-grant-ukraine-
revival-universal-jurisdiction.html. On different modalities of universal jurisdiction proceedings, see the country-
specific research at ‘Justice Beyond Borders’: https://justicebeyondborders.com.
95 International Criminal Court (2023), ‘Situations under investigations’ [as of 1 June 2023],
https://www.icc-cpi.int/situations-under-investigations.
39 Chatham House
Finally, given the ICC’s limited jurisdiction in respect of the crime of aggression,96
states should support proposals for the establishment of a special tribunal for
Russia’s aggression. In addition, Ukraine should ratify the ICC Rome Statute and
catalyse reform of the ICC to enable it to prosecute future cases of aggression free
from the current jurisdictional constraints around political consent.97 This will
allow Ukraine to hold Russia’s leadership accountable and to become an agent
of change for atrocity victims worldwide.
96 International Criminal Court (2011), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, arts. 15bis, 15ter,
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf. See also the following definition as cited by the European
Commission: ‘The International Criminal Court (ICC) is competent to prosecute the most serious international crimes
such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is also competent to prosecute the crime of aggression but
only in relation to those countries that have accepted its jurisdiction in relation to this crime.’ European Commission
(2023), ‘Statement by President von der Leyen on the establishment of the International Centre for the Prosecution
of Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine’, 4 March 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/
statement_23_1363.
97 This two-pronged approach is already supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE) and the UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. PACE (2023), Resolution 2482 (2023): ‘Legal and
human rights aspects of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine’, 26 January 2023, para 9, https://pace.coe.
int/en/files/31620/html; OHCHR (2023), Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry
on Ukraine, A/HRC/52/62, 15 March 2023, para 104.
40 Chatham House
Fallacy 9
‘This war is not our fight,
and there are more important
global problems’
The West cannot stand aside from Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Moscow’s attack on the core interests and values of the
transatlantic community has global repercussions, while
arguments that fighting Russia reduces scope for climate
action or containing China present a false dilemma.
Fallacy
Annette Bohr
The notion that the war in Ukraine is a faraway territorial dispute with few
ramifications for the transatlantic community is upheld by segments of the
Republican right in the US, notably the ‘MAGA’ 98 faction unofficially led by
former US president Donald Trump, as well as by anti-war movements in several
European states.99 A corollary of this mistaken assumption is the idea that Western
expense and effort dedicated to defeating Russia in Ukraine are a distraction from
more important geopolitical concerns, such as managing an adversarial China
or responding to climate change.
Analysis
At a time when democracy is in decline by all measurable indicators,100 the
transatlantic community cannot afford to allow the regime in Moscow to make
imperial aggression and annexation an acceptable form of politics. If Western
98 ‘Make America Great Again’, or MAGA, is a political slogan made popular by Donald Trump in the run-up
to the 2016 presidential election.
99 Choudhury, S. (2023), ‘Standing Against the Warmongering Tide – Protests for Peace Around the World This
Weekend’, Stop the War coalition, 23 February 2023, https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/standing-against-the-
warmongering-tide-protests-for-peace-around-the-world-this-weekend.
100 See Freedom House (2023), Freedom in the World 2023: 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy,
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years.
41 Chatham House
nations do not fully embrace the war in Ukraine as their own fight to achieve
a Russian defeat, there is a risk of creating a future in which petro-tyrants are
allowed to rewrite the world order.
Allowing Russia to remain in control of any Ukrainian territory could lead to

If Western nations further land grabs by Moscow, just as allowing the annexation of Czechoslovakian
do not fully embrace territory in 1938 did not halt Hitler’s Lebensraum campaign. While it is highly
the war in Ukraine doubtful whether Vladimir Putin’s regime has the ability to battle a NATO member
as their own fight successfully, the non-NATO states of Moldova and Georgia would be vulnerable
to achieve a Russian to attack after a period of Russian regeneration.
defeat, there is a risk
of creating a future How the US’s position develops will be particularly important, given its domestic
in which petro-tyrants divisions over continued support for Ukraine. Some US analysts have argued that
are allowed to rewrite such assistance ‘remains squarely in [America’s] own self-interest’, reflecting the
the world order. fact that US economic and strategic agendas have been deeply intertwined with
Europe’s security and prosperity for decades.101 But theirs is not the only voice,
and increasingly strident postures on the right wing of the US Republican Party
in particular could endanger solidarity against Russia. Statements by Trump that
he will ‘end the war in Ukraine in a day’ if re-elected to the US presidency in 2024102
risk prolonging the conflict by signalling to Moscow that the Russian leadership
perhaps only needs to ride out the last 18 months of Joe Biden’s presidency
before Kyiv is forced to the negotiating table by its Western supporters.
There is also the matter of Western responsibility for the situation in Ukraine.
Aside from the obligations of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on security
assurances, which persuaded Ukraine to surrender what was then the world’s
third largest nuclear arsenal,103 European NATO allies form the most proximate
major Western power to Ukraine. And Russia’s full-scale invasion has exposed
Germany’s misguided Wandel durch Handel (‘change through trade’) approach,
according to which economic interdependence was supposedly an impediment
to war. Instead of making conflict impossible, poorly diversified trade with
Russia gave Moscow the leverage to weaponize energy flows.
The war in Ukraine has precipitated supply chain disruptions, soaring energy prices
and wider inflationary pressures. Global food insecurity has increased dramatically.
Russia’s invasion has also created one of the largest displacement crises since the
Second World War: according to UNHCR, at the end of 2022 a total of 11.6 million
Ukrainians had been displaced (5.9 million within their country, and 5.7 million
abroad).104 All of these repercussions have been keenly felt in the West and beyond.
101 Cohen, R. S. and Gentile, G. (2023), ‘Support to Ukraine continues to be for America first’, The Hill,
15 February 2023, https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3858658-support-to-ukraine-continues-to-be-
for-america-first.
102 James, L. (2023), ‘Donald Trump claims he could end war in Ukraine in a day if re-elected to White house’,
The Independent, 3 May 2023, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-ukraine-
putin-farage-b2331973.html.
103 Pifer, S. (2019), ‘Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum’, Brookings, 5 December 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-
budapest-memorandum.
104 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2023), Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022,
June 2023, p. 8, https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022.
42 Chatham House
Yet a large part of the non-aligned world is still sitting on the sidelines of the
war in Ukraine. Many states will either resist pressure to pick a side or attempt
to play Russia and China off against each other. A solid Russian defeat in Ukraine
would increase Western influence in the Global South, making it harder for Russia
or China to broker international alliances in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the
Middle East in the future, and helping countries in these regions to ‘multi-vector’
their foreign relations more effectively.
Moreover, rather than distracting attention from other global issues, focusing
Rather than distracting on the threats posed by Russia may enable Western policymakers more effectively
attention from other to address geopolitical concerns deemed by many to be of greater importance,
global issues, focusing such as climate change and Chinese revisionism. For example, the war in Ukraine
on the threats posed has prompted many Western countries to reduce their dependency on imports
by Russia may enable of Russian fossil fuels, increase energy efficiency and accelerate the move to
Western policymakers renewables (although some countries are seeking new sources of fossil fuels
more effectively to to make up for the interruption of supplies from Russia).105
address geopolitical
concerns deemed by The supposed choice between the strategic challenges presented by China and
many to be of greater Russia is also a false one, given that certain of these challenges are interconnected.
importance, such as First, Moscow’s diminishing international influence is in any event an undesirable
climate change and development for Beijing. Without a strong Russia, it would be much more difficult
Chinese revisionism. for China to achieve its own objective of revising the world order. Second, strong
Western resolve to defeat Russia is much more likely than diplomatic entreaties
to temper Chinese foreign policy behaviour. Third, the faltering course of the war
for Russia has made conflict in the Indo-Pacific region less likely in light of China’s
surprise at the unity of the West in resisting Russia. Not least, a Russian defeat
in Ukraine would underscore for Beijing the high risks and costs that a potential
Chinese military invasion of Taiwan would incur, thereby lessening the chances
that the West could be required to support two theatres of war simultaneously.106
The way forward

As Russia’s military shifts to a defensive stance, the transatlantic alliance is
at a critical juncture. Allied leaders must arm Ukrainian fighters for a strategic
win instead of a stalemate. Western arms deliveries have steadily grown in
both sophistication and volume. But rather than arguing about the depletion of
weaponry stocks, NATO should shift into full wartime production.107 In addition
to securing Ukraine’s sovereignty and deterring further aggression, only a clear
defeat for Moscow will allow Russia the possibility to eventually discard its
imperial mentality and thus shed its international pariah status.
105 See New Energy World (2022), ‘Europe plans bolder phase-out of Russian fossil fuel dependency’,
25 May 2022, https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=126987; Siddi, M. (2023),
‘Europe’s Energy Dilemma: War and the Green Transition’, Current History, (2023) 122 (842): 83–88,
1 March 2023, https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2023.122.842.83; and Couto, L. (2022), ‘Chapter 06:
Climate finance’, in Vinjamuri, L., Malloch-Brown, M. and O’Neill, J. et al. (2022), Building global
prosperity: Proposals for sustainable growth, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135508.
106 Baev, P. (2023), ‘Taiwan is feeling the pressure from Russian and Chinese autocracy’, Brookings, 16 March 2023,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2023/03/16/taiwan-is-feeling-the-pressure-from-russian-and-
chinese-autocracy.
107 Michta, A. A. (2023), ‘Why is the West self-deterring in Ukraine?’, New Atlanticist, Atlantic Council,
13 April 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/why-is-the-west-self-deterring-in-ukraine.
43 Chatham House
Despite the impact of the war on global food supplies, many of the countries
enduring acute hunger remain susceptible to Russian disinformation that would
seek to place the blame for shortages and price hikes on European sanctions
rather than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Black Sea blockade.108 At a time when
Russia is bolstering its relations with the Global South, including by selling more
hydrocarbons to India, the transatlantic community can better exert its influence in
the non-Western world – and counter potential Russian narratives on responsibility
for international problems – through increased re-engagement initiatives, such
as debt relief and reallocations of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).109 Reallocating
SDRs to the most vulnerable middle- and low-income countries could increase their
resilience to global shocks and help to offset their reliance on Russia and China.110
Surrender on unjust terms does not translate into lasting peace. Ukrainian
resistance has presented the West with an historic opportunity to deal Russian
imperial ambitions a fatal blow, and to pre-empt further open warfare as well as
the ongoing low-intensity hybrid operations that undermine European security
and peace. Only then can the process of reconstructing Ukraine and fully
integrating it into the transatlantic community begin in earnest.
108 Savage, S. (2023), ‘Russians bearing gifts shove Ukraine aside to win over Global South’, Politico,
17 March 2023, https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-war-win-global-south-fertilizer-grain.
109 The Special Drawing Right is an interest-bearing international reserve asset created by the IMF in 1969
to supplement other reserve assets of member countries.
110 Hott, A. and Sembene, D. (2022), ‘Opinion: Ukraine conflict shows urgency of SDR reallocation for Africa’,
devex, 24 May 2022, https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-ukraine-conflict-shows-urgency-of-sdr-reallocation-
for-africa-103279.
44 Chatham House
Conclusion:
Assuring the future
of Europe
A range of immediate measures is needed to secure
long-term solutions and end the war on Ukraine’s terms
rather than on Russia’s.
If you do not regard Ukraine as a European democracy with full sovereign rights,
James Nixey
and if you do not see Russia as a fascist, imperialistically minded state, this is
probably not the publication for you. But you would also be ignoring the evidence
to hand. These labels are facts, and they lead to what ought to be inescapable
operational conclusions.
As noted in the introduction, there is a potential world of difference between

what should happen and what will happen in this war. Ukraine ‘should’ win
(in the sense that it is essential on both moral and practical grounds that it does);
whether it will win is not yet determined. But if the policy pitfalls described in
the preceding chapters are avoided, then Ukraine has a much stronger chance
of victory. Concomitantly, Russia will be more likely to lose, with European
security and the rules-based international order more likely to be preserved.
This is a solutions-based report, designed to help get to the ‘should’ – the

optimal outcome. In this context, the report has repeatedly challenged the notion
of compromise with Russia and the related aphorism that one should ‘not let the
perfect be the enemy of the good’. Outwardly reasonable suggestions about ending
the war in Ukraine often reference the ‘reality’ of settlements and imperfect peace
agreements achieved in other conflicts – such as in Colombia111 and Northern
Ireland – where justice for some families and communities was subordinated
111 See, for example, comments by former Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos at the Munich Security
Conference in February 2023, suggesting there is always a tension between peace and justice, and the need to end
the war as opposed to winning it. Erlanger, S. (2023), ‘A Nobel Peace Prize Winner Sees Perils in the West’s Focus
on Ukraine War’, New York Times, 20 February 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/world/juan-manuel-
santos-ukraine.html.
45 Chatham House
to a wider regional or national stabilization agenda. Crucially, however, those

two settlements were put to referendums (Ireland’s was approved, Colombia’s
narrowly rejected).
The evidence shows that if the same were to be attempted in Ukraine,

an overwhelming majority of citizens would vote against anything less than
a restoration of pre-2014 borders (including Crimea), reparations from Russia
(if not already addressed through the seizure and repurposing of Russian
individuals’ and state assets), and a judicial reckoning for the crime of aggression
(with the leading perpetrators of atrocities and war crimes, presumably including
President Vladimir Putin, tried in international courts).112 Taking into account
the nature of the Russian regime, any settlement that does not encompass
these elements would be guaranteed to fail.
Another misconception is that the stakes are not as high as Ukraine and its
supporters claim, at least in the sense that the rules-based international system
What is needed is is not at risk.113 Quite apart from the dubious inference that Ukraine can be
a greatly enhanced sacrificed for some greater good, and that everywhere beyond Ukraine would
commitment by all of thereafter and forever be secure, this position disregards Russia’s track record
Ukraine’s backers to across the globe and its embrace not only of conventional aggression but of other
providing war-winning hostile measures such as extraterritorial assassination and electoral manipulation.
materiel as swiftly as If Russia wins, not only is Ukraine gone; no one is safe from a Kremlin made
it can be delivered and bolder by success.114
absorbed by Ukraine’s
armed forces. Only an overwhelming Ukrainian military victory can deliver what Ukrainians
themselves reasonably demand. This can only be achieved with external military
support, in particular from the US. The arguments against providing Ukraine
with advanced weaponry are spurious. What is needed is a greatly enhanced
commitment by all of Ukraine’s backers to providing war-winning materiel as
swiftly as it can be delivered and absorbed by Ukraine’s armed forces. This should
include more air defence systems, long-range missiles, combat aircraft, advanced
main battle tanks, and other such weapons systems as may be identified as essential
to victory. Half-measures short of this will prolong the conflict, at a continuing
cost in Ukrainian lives and also at great cost to the long-term prospects for the
security of Europe.
There also needs to be a clear acknowledgment that Vladimir Putin has passed
the point of no return and has to go. The president is an intrinsic part of the
112 International Republican Institute (2023), ‘National Survey of Ukraine (IRI): February 2023’, 23 March 2023,
slide 26 (territorial integrity), slides 29 and 37 (reparations), https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/
national_survey_of_ukraine_iri_february_2023.html (accessed 8 June 2023). On judicial reckoning, see
Sociological Group “Rating” (2023), ‘LEGAL PROTECTION OF VICTIMS FROM THE WAR CRIMES OF RUSSIA
(DECEMBER 23-26, 2022)’, 15 February 2023, https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/pravoviy_zahist_
postrazhdalih_v_d_vo_nnih_zlochin_v_ros_23-26_grudnya_2022.html.
113 See, for example, comments by Charles Kupchan, such as in Council on Foreign Relations (2023), ‘How Does
the War in Ukraine End?’, meeting, 15 March 2023, https://www.cfr.org/event/how-does-war-ukraine-end.
Kupchan is also an advocate of a settlement by the end of 2023.
114 For insight into how Russia conducts campaigns across the globe, see Giles, K. (2022), Russia’s War
on Everybody: And What it Means for You, Bloomsbury.
46 Chatham House
problem of Russian expansionism – although by no means its sole architect.115

The immediate issue of safeguarding Ukraine can be achieved by defeating Russia
militarily. But addressing the longer-term challenge to Europe, given deep-seated
For all the talk of attitudes and assumptions held across Russian society, requires change within
security guarantees Russia itself.116 Such change needs to be far more constructive than the kind Yevgeny
for Kyiv, up to and Prigozhin – himself a staunchly nationalist, pro-war figure – would have brought had
including NATO and EU his challenge to Putin succeeded. Nevertheless, a lasting resolution, with or without
membership, Ukraine the recovery of Ukraine’s territory, is simply impossible with the current political
and the West can never configuration in Moscow. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand Putin himself,
feel secure while Putin his personal obsession with Ukraine, the broader antipathy of much of the Russian
remains in power. population towards Ukraine, and the popular assumption within Russia of entitlement
to empire more broadly. For all the talk of security guarantees for Kyiv, up to and
including NATO and EU membership, Ukraine and the West can never feel secure
while Putin remains in power, and while Russia’s leadership and many Russian people
believe the Ukrainian people and polity should rightly be ruled from Moscow.117
What happens if Russia is not defeated

We already have multiple guides to the consequences of a false peace with
Russia. The drive to end conflict by imposing unworkable ceasefires led to the
‘six-point plan’ for Georgia after Russia’s 2008 invasion, multiple flawed ceasefire
agreements in Syria, and the two Minsk agreements on Ukraine following Russia’s
first invasion in 2014. Crucially, capitulations by the West not only allowed Russia
to retain occupation of substantial parts of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereign
territory, they also showed Russia it could go further. This encouraged the
full-scale onslaught on Ukraine in 2022.
But the scale of the 2022 invasion is such that the international ramifications
of a settlement imposed on Ukraine would now be far greater. First, Ukraine’s
existence as a sovereign state would be fatally undercut. Next in line could be
Moldova, an obvious target considering its adjacency to Ukraine, its unilateral exit
from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in May 2023 and its broader
westward drift. After that, the Baltic states and Poland – despite their NATO
membership – would be left more vulnerable by the message that the West is not
prepared to face down Russia. After all, if Western states cannot enforce the specific
commitments in the Budapest Memorandum,118 why would they honour the vaguer
promise of collective defence enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty?
(Contrary to how it is routinely portrayed, Article 5 does not unequivocally oblige
115 For detailed explanations as to why this is not all down to one man, see Giles, K. (2019), Moscow Rules:
What Drives Russia to Confront the West, Chatham House/Brookings, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/01/
moscow-rules-what-drives-russia-confront-west. See also Noble, B. and Schulmann, E. (2021), ‘Myth 15: ‘It’s all
about Putin – Russia is a manually run, centralized autocracy’’, in Allan, D. et al. (2021), Myths and misconceptions
in the debate on Russia: How they affect Western policy, and what can be done, Report, London: Royal Institute of
International Affairs, pp. 91–95, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-
russia/myth-15-its-all-about-putin-russia-manually-run.
116 Meduza (2023), ‘The only thing worse than war is losing one’, 3 June 2023, https://meduza.io/en/
feature/2023/06/03/the-only-thing-worse-than-war-is-losing-one.
117 McGlynn, J. (2023), Russia’s War, Polity.
118 The text of the treaty deposited with the UN is available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/
Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf.
47 Chatham House
member states to use armed force – or in fact take any measures at all – in support
of another member under attack.119) Some Balkan states could also be at risk from
an unrestrained Russia.
This report has argued that any proposed solution which leaves Ukraine with
less than 100 per cent of its territory restored and Putin in power is not viable. Unless
or until such point as Ukraine’s defeat is assured and there is no other option, calls for
compromise are specious. This is not only because compromise will be unacceptable to
Ukraine, which perfectly well understands that the West has let it and other countries
down repeatedly this century in conflicts with Russia. It is also because any perception
of success – which Russia will measure by ground held, not by lives or materiel lost –
will convince the Kremlin that its assault on Ukraine was the correct choice.
A ticking clock – the case for urgent action

Most publications of this nature seek enduring relevance, a ‘shelf life’. Not here.
This is the decisive US assistance remains decisive, but America is approaching another momentous
year in which to give electoral fork in the road, with a stark choice between an administration currently
Ukraine the necessary doing the right thing – albeit hesitantly and with one foot on the brake – and one
military assistance to that would wish to abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether. This, then,
win, before the 2024 is the decisive year in which to give Ukraine the necessary military assistance
US election distracts to win, before the 2024 US election distracts from and constrains Western action –
from and constrains
or, in the event of a victory for Donald Trump or his fellow travellers, hands victory
Western action – or,
to Russia. Far too much time has already been lost to timidity and misplaced fears
in the event of a victory
for Donald Trump or his of Russian escalation.120 This delay could well prove tragic. If the recommendations
fellow travellers, hands in this report – principally to ensure Ukraine’s military victory and the reduction
victory to Russia. of Russia as a future threat – are not taken up within months, all is potentially lost.
Western politicians too readily use the word ‘unacceptable’. Wars of aggression,
annexations, mass killings, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, radiological
and chemical weapons attacks, mass murder of airline passengers, ecocide as
exemplified by the June 2023 destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, and the vast
array of Russia’s hostile actions against its neighbours and perceived adversaries
further afield have all been described thus. But Russia has never been confronted
with sufficiently severe consequences for its behaviour, which therefore has been
de facto accepted as the norm.
Ukraine, by contrast, understands the true meaning of unacceptable actions

because they threaten its existence. The lesson from Ukraine and its plight is to
understand that if you consider something unacceptable, you must stand against
119 Article 5 leaves flexibility for member states to avoid the use of force after Article 5 is triggered. It states
that NATO members agree, in the event of an armed attack on another NATO member, that each ‘will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking … such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to
restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area’. The phrase ‘such action as it deems necessary’ keeps
open non-military options. NATO (2019), ‘The North Atlantic Treaty’, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/
official_texts_17120.htm. For more on the misinterpretation of Article 5, see Stoicescu, K. (2022), ‘Myth 3:
‘Russia wouldn’t attack a NATO member state’’, 14 July 2022, Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.
org/2022/06/myths-and-misconceptions-around-russian-military-intent/myth-3-russia-wouldnt-attack-nato.
120 Giles, K. (2023), Russian nuclear intimidation: How Russia uses nuclear threats to shape
Western responses to aggression, Research Paper, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135645.
48 Chatham House
it, defeat it and prevent it from happening again. This means imposing meaningful
costs and consequences on the perpetrator. As observed by Estonia’s prime
minister, Kaja Kallas, Russia’s leaders have seen throughout history that there
is little consequence or sanction for waging war – it is essential now to break the
cycle in which, through the centuries, one country in Europe repeatedly attacks
its neighbours with minimal accountability.121
At the time of publication of this report in June 2023, as a Ukrainian

counteroffensive gets under way and as the Kremlin survives an attempted
power grab from a paramilitary entity of its own creation, Ukraine’s fate hangs
in the balance – and with it the longer-term security of the European continent.
A plethora of wrong choices is available. They would crystallize Ukraine’s territorial
losses, cost more lives in the longer term, and perpetuate and encourage Russia’s
global malignancy. This report is a plea for making the right choice.
Summary of principles for Western

policy on the war
— Ukraine must not be pressured, directly or indirectly, into a negotiated pause
to the fighting. Instead, Kyiv must be allowed to fight the war to a conclusion
before a peace is negotiated. Anything short of this grants Russia success and
will encourage future Russian invasions.
— Ukraine’s Western backers must recognize that territorial concessions

by Ukraine – including over Crimea – are not a workable solution.
Granting Russia its wishes will confirm for Moscow that the path of conflict
is the right one.
— Ukraine must be provided with genuine security guarantees to provide

for its future safety. ‘Neutrality’, Ukraine’s status before 2014, provides no such
guarantee. This war proves that real safety against Russia lies only within NATO,
and with Ukraine’s completed transformation from former Soviet republic to full
and free partner within the transatlantic community. Ukrainian membership
of NATO and the EU should be a priority.
— Ukraine’s Western backers must overcome their fear of inflicting a clear

and decisive defeat on Russia. The dangers of this defeat are far outweighed
by those of Russian success or an ambiguous end to the conflict.
— The potential for political instability within Russia should not be a deterrent
to pressing home Ukraine’s advantage. Indeed, the attempted Wagner Group
mutiny of 24 June 2023 showed that domestic tumult can offer a tactical edge
to Ukraine. The war has shaken the Russian regime, as the rebellion showed,
although state fragmentation is unlikely even in the event of Russia’s defeat.
— The financing of support for Ukraine must be recognized as an investment

in Euro-Atlantic security, and one which is yielding enormous returns in
neutralizing the most acute threat to that security. Western governments
121 Speaking at the Lennart Meri Conference, Tallinn, 13 May 2023.
49 Chatham House
should make it clearer to their electorates what this investment buys,

and if necessary adopt public communications strategies challenging narratives
around the fiscal costs of supporting Ukraine. For example, governments should
make clear that headline figures on the value of weapons and other equipment
supplied to Ukraine mostly do not represent new costs, but materiel already
purchased and on hand.
— NATO must urgently increase production of munitions and weapons

systems, with the aim of matching rates of consumption in Ukraine. This is
not only to sustain the Ukrainian armed forces in the current conflict, but also
to replenish and augment stockpiles across NATO in readiness for an extended
period of military tension, and the possibility of high-intensity warfare.
NATO should facilitate international defence procurement collaboration and –
in consultation with the EU – remove systemic obstacles such as protectionism
impeding multinational defence orders.
— The vital requirement for justice for Russia’s war crimes and atrocities
must not be disregarded for the sake of a settlement with Moscow.
Only accountability will prompt change in Russia. Most pressingly, Ukraine
needs ongoing assistance with its vast caseload of war-related proceedings,
as well as with the establishment of a special tribunal for Russia’s crime of
aggression. Ultimately, support to win the war is necessary to allow a prospect
of justice being delivered.
— Economic and financial sanctions must be constantly refined and honed

to ensure they remain effective. Policy in this area should be informed by an
understanding that Russia is involved in a huge effort to get around sanctions.
Sanctions remain important in imposing a cost on Russia. They will have an
increasing role in constraining the ability of the Russian military-industrial
complex to rebuild offensive military capability eroded in Ukraine.
— The frozen assets of the Russian state and private individuals must be
repurposed to finance reconstruction of Ukraine’s society, infrastructure
and economy. Western government funding and private sector investment
will not be enough on their own to meet Ukraine’s needs. Asset seizures
or some variation on them, quite apart from being the moral choice and a
source of substantial additional finance, are also necessary to show Russia
and the Russians that crime doesn’t pay. In fact, they should be an essential
part of the de-Putinization process that Russia must undergo if it is to join
the civilized community of nations.
— Finally, it is essential that Western countries – and partners further afield –

recognize and accept that the outcome of Russia’s war on Ukraine is a key
determinant of their own future safety and security. Any genuine, durable
plan for peace can only be implemented after hostilities have ended in Ukraine’s
favour. And it must enshrine the principle of respect for the country’s sovereign
independence and pre-2014 territorial borders. Any other outcome will set
a precedent that encourages aggressors worldwide and degrades the rules-based
international order. Ongoing, long-term deterrence of Russia after this war
is an essential condition for preserving peace.
50 Chatham House
About the authors

Timothy Ash
Timothy Ash is an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme
at Chatham House. His research specializes in emerging European economies,
sanctions policy and financial markets, with a particular focus on Russia and
Ukraine. He is also a senior sovereign strategist at RBC-Bluebay Asset Management.
He has worked for more than 25 years in international financial institutions,
with a focus on sovereign risk, and has covered Ukraine for 35 years.
Annette Bohr
Annette Bohr is an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at
Chatham House. She has more than 30 years of professional experience as an
analyst of Eurasian politics and energy, specializing in the domestic and foreign
policies of the post-Soviet Central Asian states as well as Russia’s relations with
China. Her research has a particular focus on governance and regime change
in authoritarian states, comparative regionalism and the geopolitics of energy.
Annette is the author or co-author of a number of publications, including the
Chatham House reports and research papers Myths and misconceptions in the debate
on Russia (2021), Kazakhstan: Tested by Transition (2019) and Turkmenistan: Power,
Politics and Petro-Authoritarianism (2016). Annette regularly advises corporate
investors. She prepares briefings and reports on political risk and engagement
strategies in Eurasia for international financial institutions, UK, US and Canadian
government departments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Annette
holds degrees from the University of California at Berkeley, the University
of Cambridge and Harvard University.
Kateryna Busol
Kateryna Busol is a Ukrainian lawyer. She is a senior lecturer at the National
University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and a fellow at the British Institute of
International and Comparative Law. Kateryna has worked on various issues
relating to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, with a particular focus on the
weaponization of cultural heritage, conflict-related sexual violence, reparations
and Ukraine’s transitional justice process. She has worked with the Clooney
Foundation for Justice, UN Women, the Global Survivors Fund and Global Rights
Compliance. Kateryna has collaborated with Ukrainian NGOs such as the Ukrainian
Helsinki Human Rights Union and Truth Hounds, and has advised Ukrainian
prosecutors and judges on war-related proceedings. She was a visiting researcher
at the Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies, a Robert Bosch
Stiftung fellow at Chatham House, and a visiting professional at the Office of the
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Keir Giles
Keir Giles is a senior consulting fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Programme
at Chatham House. Keir has supported Chatham House in its Russia-focused
research since 2013. Previously, he worked with the BBC Monitoring Service and
the UK Defence Academy, where he wrote and advised on Russian military, defence
and security issues – including human factors influencing Russian security policy,
51 Chatham House
Russian strategy and doctrine, the Russian view of cyber and information security,
and Russia’s relations with its neighbours in northern Europe. Keir is the author
of multiple publications explaining the Russian approach to warfare. These include
NATO’s Handbook of Russian Information Warfare (NATO Defense College, 2016);
and Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West (Chatham House/
Brookings, 2019), an exploration of the persistent factors causing relations with
Russia to fall into crisis. He examined consistent patterns of Western success and
failure in deterring Russian aggression in What deters Russia: Enduring principles
for responding to Moscow (Chatham House, September 2021). His most recent book
is Russia’s War on Everybody: And What it Means for You (Bloomsbury, 2022), which
describes the human impact of Russia’s campaigns to acquire power and influence
around the world.
John Lough
John Lough is an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme
at Chatham House. He began his career as an analyst at the Soviet Studies
(later Conflict Studies) Research Centre, focusing on Soviet/Russian security
policy. He spent six years with NATO, and was the first NATO representative to
be based in Moscow (1995–98). He gained direct experience of the Russian oil
and gas industry at TNK-BP as a manager in the company’s international affairs
team (2003–08). From 2008 to 2016, he ran the Russia and CIS practice at BGR
Gabara, a public affairs and strategy consulting company. Alongside his work with
Chatham House, John is a consultant with Highgate, a strategic advisory firm.
Orysia Lutsevych
Orysia Lutsevych is deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia Programme and
head of the Ukraine Forum at Chatham House. Orysia’s research focuses on social
change, the role of civil society in democratic transition in Eastern Europe and,
most recently, democratic resilience to foreign encroachment. She is the author
of several Chatham House research publications, including: Giving civil society
a stake in Ukraine’s recovery: How government, citizens and donors can work together
to embed trust in reconstruction (2023); Resilient Ukraine: Safeguarding Society
from Russian Aggression (with Mathieu Boulègue, 2020). Her media work includes
contributions for the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times and
the New York Times.
James Nixey
James Nixey joined Chatham House in 2000 and has been director of the institute’s
Russia and Eurasia Programme since 2013. He is also an associate fellow with the
Geneva Centre for Security Policy, an honorary research fellow at the University of
Exeter, and serves on the board of the journal UA: Ukraine Analytica. His principal
research interests concern Russia’s relationships with the other post-Soviet states
and with key international actors. Selected Chatham House publications include:
The Long Goodbye: Waning Russian Influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia
(2012); and chapters in Putin Again: Implications for Russia and the West (2012),
The Russian Challenge (2015), The Struggle for Ukraine (2017), Kazakhstan: Tested
by Transition (2019), and Myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia (2021).
James has written for the Guardian, The Times, the Telegraph, the Independent,
52 Chatham House
Newsweek, USA Today, BBC.co.uk and CNN.com. He holds degrees in modern

languages and international relations and has previous experience in journalism
(as a reporter in Moscow in the late 1990s).
James Sherr
James Sherr OBE has been a senior fellow of the International Centre for Defence
& Security in Tallinn since 2019. He also is an associate fellow and former head
of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House (2008–11). He was
a member of the Social Studies Faculty of Oxford University from 1993 to 2012;
a fellow of the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the UK Ministry of Defence
from 1995 to 2008; and director of studies of the Royal United Services Institute
(1983–85). He has published extensively on Soviet and Russian military, security
and foreign policy, as well as energy security, the Black Sea region and Ukraine’s
efforts to deal with Russia, the West and its own domestic problems. He was
awarded an OBE in the 2020 New Year’s Honours List for his services to British
interests overseas.
Simon Smith
Simon Smith chairs the steering committee of the Ukraine Forum at Chatham
House. He was British ambassador to Ukraine from 2012 to 2015 and director,
Russia, South Caucasus and Central Asia in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office
from 2005 to 2007.
Kataryna Wolczuk
Kataryna Wolczuk is an associate fellow of Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia
Programme and a professor of East European politics at the Centre for Russian,
European and Eurasian Studies (CREES), University of Birmingham. She holds
an MA in law from the University of Gdansk, Poland, and an MA and PhD
from the University of Birmingham. Kataryna has long experience of working
with international organizations, think-tanks, governments and international
media, and has extensively researched the post-Soviet countries. She frequently
contributes to publications, conferences and events relating to the Eastern
Partnership and Eurasian integration, as well as those looking at the domestic
and foreign policies of Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.
53 Chatham House
Acknowledgments
This is the sixth major multi-author report the Chatham House Russia and Eurasia
Programme has produced in just over 10 years (the first, Putin Again: Implications
for Russia and the West, came out in 2012). These publications are always more
than the sum of their parts; and as with any such large-scale endeavour, there
are twice as many people vital to its realization as there are authors. Here are
just a few to whom the authors are especially indebted:
Ľubica Polláková has project-managed to perfection. Without her, you wouldn’t

be reading this until December, or maybe not at all.
It is not easy to work within the constraints imposed by this format, so Keir Giles,
also an author here of course, took on the Herculean task of standardizing each
chapter. Perhaps he felt guilty as this was also his idea in the first place.
Thanks are also due to Jake Statham, a tough but brilliant editor, for sharpening
language and arguments, ruthlessly seeking out gaps in logic and generally helping
create an immeasurably more rigorous final product.
Peer review remains an essential part of the Chatham House publication

process. Grateful thanks, then, to the anonymous external reviewers; and
also to Bronwen Maddox, Magdalene Karalis and Melania Parzonka inside
the institute. Perspectives and sense checks from both inside and outside
the ‘bubble’ are essential.
Anna Morgan, meanwhile, has ensured the punchy ‘look’ of this report – not least
in finding the front cover – and will surely be key to its outreach.
Open Society Foundations have, through their energies, principles and largesse,
been making the region a better, fairer place since 1993. An uphill task for sure.
But where would it be without them? Their generous grant enabled this, and
Vlad Galushko and Elena Kovalevskaya were especially supportive.
Finally, this is also the first of those six reports to directly address Russia’s war
in Ukraine. It is, of course, designed to assist in ensuring that it ends satisfactorily
for Ukraine and far beyond. Had Ukraine buckled in those first few days, or at
any time since, the world would be a very different and considerably uglier place.
It is to the Ukrainian nation that we owe our deepest gratitude. Слава Україні.
54 Chatham House
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system,
without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Please direct all enquiries to the publishers.
Chatham House does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication
are the responsibility of the author(s).
Copyright © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2023
Cover image: Seized military equipment and weapons, including tanks and motorized artillery systems
belonging to the Russian army, displayed in Kyiv on the Day of the State Flag of Ukraine, 23 August 2022.
Photo credit: Copyright © Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
ISBN 978 1 78413 578 2
DOI 10.55317/9781784135782
Cite this report: Ash, T. et al. (2023), How to end Russia’s war on Ukraine: Safeguarding Europe’s
future, and the dangers of a false peace, Report, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135782.
This publication is printed on FSC-certified paper.
designbysoapbox.com
Independent thinking since 1920
The Royal Institute of International Affairs

Chatham House ISBN 978-1-78413-578-2
10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE
T +44 (0)20 7957 5700
[email protected] | chathamhouse.org
9 781784 135782
Charity Registration Number: 208223

2023 06 27 How End Russias War Ukraine Ash Et Al - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 06 27 How End Russias War Ukraine Ash Et Al - 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 06 27 How End Russias War Ukraine Ash Et Al - 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Russia and Eurasia Programme | June 2023

How to end Russia’s

Timothy Ash, Annette Bohr, Kateryna Busol, Keir Giles,

Conclusion: Assuring the future of Europe 45

About the authors 51

— The argument for Western military and diplomatic resolve is reinforced by

— Although often well-intentioned, and despite their prominence in policy

— Backing a full and unambiguous Ukrainian victory is therefore essential not

Moscow’s war of reconquest against Ukraine has confirmed in the most

The problem with ‘realist’ arguments on Ukraine

Second, the argument for Ukrainian concessions – in effect, surrender – risks

First-order priorities are as follows:

2. Better defence across the whole Euro-Atlantic space against military

Medium- or longer-term priorities are as follows:

2. A national recognition within Russia that Ukraine is a sovereign independent

3. An admission by Russia that intolerable crimes have been committed, with

Risks to the international system

Similarly, proclamations or even initiatives emanating from Turkey, Saudi

About this report: chapter structure

The fallacies that we focus on in this report are as follows:

1. The apparently urgent need to settle, based on the factually incorrect

2. The proposition that Ukraine should give up territory – certainly Crimea,

3. That Ukraine should (again) declare itself neutral, as it was between

7. The supposedly excessive financial cost;

The intended audience for this report instead comprises reasonable,

The third deficiency of arguments to ‘settle now’ is their reliance on false

The way forward

leaders will not choose a sober and repentant path of good-neighbourliness.

But isn’t Crimea a special case? Many well-intentioned advocates of an urgent

These arguments dangerously fail to address a fundamental point: a Crimea

But the crowning unwisdom in seeing Crimea as some sort of lower-cost

An adage well used in several Slavic languages describes a situation where

The way forward

and recognizes the benefits of constructive and cooperative partnerships in

Neutrality is commonly understood to mean the sovereign right of a country

At the core of the expansionist agenda of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin,

Neutrality would create new territorial grey zones, encouraging Russia to

Moreover, even if Russia were to provide security guarantees to a neutral Ukraine,

Given these aggravating factors, expecting the adoption of neutrality by Ukraine

The way forward

Ultimately, there remains no substitute for NATO membership, which should be

35 Rating Group (2023), ‘ДВАДЦЯТЕ ЗАГАЛЬНОНАЦІОНАЛЬНЕ ОПИТУВАННЯ. ЗОВНІШНЬОПОЛІТИЧНІ

NATO membership would provide a powerful deterrent to future aggression by

Another necessary step to reinforce Ukraine’s resilience and security is to push

Russian military thinking is not exceptional in believing that a country is best

The way forward

The longer-term ambition for Western policymakers should be to make

possible damage on Russia’s armed forces – and thus is another powerful

Russia has also deliberately stoked fears of a nuclear response to defeat.47

The way forward

According to this logic, further political instability in Russia is therefore to be

52 Sannikova-Franck, M. (2023), ‘Discussing Russia’s Future’, LibMod, 17 February 2023, https://libmod.de/en/

Crucially, narratives on the impending demise of Russia are not only

defy prediction vastly overplays the West’s influence on Russia. It amounts to an

The way forward

multiple European countries (namely EU members, the UK and Norway) to

NATO’s best strategy is forward defence by stopping Russia in Ukraine now.

The way forward

Conclusion: Assuring the future of Europe 45

About the authors 51