The Two Futures (actually 3)

Land for Peace is a bad deal for Ukraine, Europe and the USA

Hi All,

I’m going to expand on why I think its so important that Ukraine ‘win’ this war and that means not only being admitted into NATO, but also liberating all of its territory as internationally recognized—and that includes Crimea. Indeed the two questions of NATO and Ukraine’s territorial integrity work together, almost symbiotically. I also think these two questions will determine the basic outline of any peace deal at the end of the war. As such we can divide the possible peace deals into the 3 most likely scenarios. When the war is over (and it will end at some point) it can be said that the main 2 questions will break down in one of these ways.

The 3 scenarios are (and I’m listing them from what I consider best to worst).

1. Ukraine liberates all its legally recognized territory and is admitted into NATO after the war.

2. Ukraine is forced to make territorial concessions to Russia and is admitted into NATO after the war.

3. Ukraine is forced to make territorial concessions to Russia and is given a second-class relationship with NATO for an indefinite period at the end of the war.

(Note: I consider it unlikely that Ukraine would liberate all of its territory and then be strung along for a long time on NATO membership.)

Of course there will be many other questions that will need to be settled before there will be any kind of peace between Ukraine and Russia (reparations to be paid, how sanctions can/might be lifted, the return of abducted people, etc)—however these two issues (NATO membership and territorial control) I would argue are the crucial ones for determining the future of Ukraine (and of Europe and even of the USA if I’m being honest).

Last week I talked about the importance of the NATO question first and foremost because I believe that will make the greatest difference for stability for Ukrainian and Europe.