Peace as Rearmament

or Negotiating for War

What exactly are Ukraine’s European partners doing   - having lost the war and now being saved from disaster at the last moment by Trump?

Let us leave aside the fact that not a single Russian demand made it into their “plan.” Perhaps they intend to bargain further at the negotiating table. But to sit at that table, they first have to convince Russia that there is any point in substantive negotiations over the Ukrainian crisis. Exchanging plans remotely can continue forever. If Trump is interested, he can read them.

They propose that negotiations begin with Ukraine retaining an 800,000-strong peacetime army, armed and trained by the West. Ukraine’s army is currently smaller. The Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Syrsky recently complained that it needs to be increased at least to 700,000. I will not even discuss the shortage of weapons and ammunition, or the grim prospects for solving these problems.

In other words, they are openly telling the Russians that “peace” is needed exclusively to expand the Ukrainian Armed Forces, train new contingents, rearm them, stockpile supplies, and then begin again.

Note carefully: this time it is not the Russians saying this. They have been saying it all along. Now it is being stated by those who supposedly want to negotiate some form of peace or at least a ceasefire, a freezing of the conflict.

I will not moralize. War is the path of deception, and international politics is no different. Professionals deceive without ever uttering a lie. They allow their opponent to deceive himself about their true intentions. The lower the level of professionalism, the more a politician resorts to crude lying. Lies are costly in politics. Deception is acceptable, even welcome. A liar loses credibility. If you told the truth and your opponent deceived himself, then he is the fool and you remain an honest man.

But this is the first time I have seen a side that has lost completely and is trying to negotiate a less humiliating peace through deception demand that its deception be written directly into the text of the treaty and ratified through all official procedures, without even attempting to conceal its real intentions.

If this idea had come solely from Ukraine, I would not be surprised. What can one expect from a band of bloodstained clowns? The West should have explained to the proud “Ukrs” (as they like to call themselves) that the treaty must say “army of 80,000,” and then one can create adjacent “volunteer structures” outside the official armed forces. One can rotate the population massively through the army to build a trained reserve. One can fully professionalize the NCO corps, on which any army depends, assuming that the rank and file can be recruited once hostilities resume. One can transfer certain units to the border service or national guard. One can form volunteer brigades for NATO operations abroad, gaining combat experience outside the formal structure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. One can relocate especially sensitive branches such as the navy, air force, and air defense to allied territory. One can create stockpiles that allow a million-man army to be mobilized quickly. Methods for bypassing limitations have been known since the early nineteenth century, when Prussia circumvented Napoleonic restrictions, and were perfected by Weimar Germany.

Finally, do they not know that no restriction lasts forever? If you escape catastrophe, and if you are confident that no one will immediately start a new war over violations, then you can begin rebuilding under any pretext. Starting a war is more complicated than it appears, even if there are reasons and even if the desire exists.

Had they chosen such a path, it would have been fully consistent with the long-standing military-political traditions of humanity.

Instead, they decided not to trouble themselves. They simply wrote into the proposed agreement that Ukraine, with Western assistance, will prepare for revenge and, once ready, begin a new war. No one seriously believes that Ukraine   - which in 2014 maintained roughly 120,000 troops, and by 2022 had about 250,000 under arms including those deployed in Donbass, at enormous cost   - that this same Ukraine, devastated and bankrupt after a major war, will maintain 800,000 soldiers indefinitely without purpose. Nor will the West finance nearly a million idle men.

Such an army exists for only one purpose. War. And not war years from now, but months from now.

They are saying this openly.

One can understand the Europeans. Like the Ukrainians, many of them prefer the continuation of the conflict and are not enthusiastic about a durable settlement. One might argue that they are deliberately laying additional mines under the negotiating process. But the Americans also remained silent regarding Zelenskiy’s plan, merely noting that “Trump has not yet approved it.” That means the plan, in its current form, has been submitted to the president of the United States, and therefore all its provisions are intended to be discussed with the Russians.

If Trump wishes to signal that nothing serious can be cooked with the EU and Ukraine, and that durable peace requires their destruction, then first, such a message can be delivered privately and directly. Second, with a clearly expressed joint will from Russia and the United States, both Brussels and Kiev would be compelled to accept and implement almost any conditions. No one would need to be eliminated.

They appear sincerely convinced that this “plan” can serve as a basis for negotiations.

That is worse than clumsy lying. It is easier and safer to deal with a fool than with a madman. What they are proposing cannot be the product of a normal mind.