My main objection is that all of these concessions are things that, morally, should only be offered by Ukraine itself:
Ceding Ukraine’s separatist regions (Donetsk, Luhansk) to Russian control
Committing to Ukraine not joining Nato
Committing to Ukraine not joining the EU
It reminds me of the “fat man” problem:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
My answer is that this is the fat man’s decision to make, not yours. Similarly, even if we knew these concessions would stop Russia (which isn’t clear to me, like it isn’t clear whether a fat man can stop a trolley!), it should be Ukraine, not NATO or EU, who makes them.
If I was Ukraine, I wouldn’t want to unilaterally concede while getting nothing in return. Ukraine could have maybe said “okay, we will give you Crimea and Donbas if you withdraw forces immediately and let us join the EU”.
As for NATO, I wonder if they could’ve offered Russia membership, but letting a dictatorship into the NATO club is a bit of a hard sell...
I am consistently bewildered by how many people seem to think Ukraine’s membership in NATO is something that should be decided by Ukraine alone. NATO is a mutual defense compact: an international commitment involving multiple parties. So it inherently affects the United States and other NATO member nations. For the United States (or France, or anyone) to decline a military alliance with Ukraine—that is, to “shut the door” on Ukrainian membership—would not be a denial of Ukrainian sovereignty, but an EXERCISE of American/French sovereignty. That’s absolutely within the West’s moral right to offer if it feels it would serve their interests (and in my personal opinion, it would be in Ukraine’s interests too).
It’s complicated because seeking NATO membership is literally in Ukraine’s constitution. So even if Zelensky estimated it to be in his interests to pledge neutrality, his mandate does not allow him to do so. The West kind of hung him out to dry by opening the door, except not really, giving them false hope while gratuitously provoking their neighbor. We were the only ones who had the leverage and domestic political situation to close the door these past few months, and we should have.
Either side (Ukraine or NATO) can make the decision unilaterally, but if in fact “it would be in Ukraine’s interests” then Ukraine could rationally make that call. If NATO had said “we’re permanently shutting the door on you and it’s for your own good!”, the world would rightly question the “for your own good” part.
Hmm, I think I disagree. It’s different to the ‘fat man’ case because in that case the fat man would otherwise survive if you didn’t push him. In this case, the regions will be taken anyway. So the trade-off seems more similar to the classic trolley problem where you are diverting the trolley to save the five.
I agree, however, that Ukraine should be involved with the decision process. My worry is that Nato allies and Ukraine were too quick to close down those channels last week, and that concessions would have been preferable to the current situation (including for Ukrainians).
It wasn’t meant as a direct analogy. A more direct analogy would be, we’ve got a nation of fat men who elect popular leaders who then decide whether (A) some unknown (quite low or quite high) number of fat men will get run over by trolleys, or (B) a large and predictable number will be forced to live under an autocratic regime from now on, reducing the risk of trolley fatalities for at least a few more years. Mind you, I’m told that only 20% of Ukrainians are obese, so even this analogy is a little strained.
My main objection is that all of these concessions are things that, morally, should only be offered by Ukraine itself:
Ceding Ukraine’s separatist regions (Donetsk, Luhansk) to Russian control
Committing to Ukraine not joining Nato
Committing to Ukraine not joining the EU
It reminds me of the “fat man” problem:
My answer is that this is the fat man’s decision to make, not yours. Similarly, even if we knew these concessions would stop Russia (which isn’t clear to me, like it isn’t clear whether a fat man can stop a trolley!), it should be Ukraine, not NATO or EU, who makes them.
If I was Ukraine, I wouldn’t want to unilaterally concede while getting nothing in return. Ukraine could have maybe said “okay, we will give you Crimea and Donbas if you withdraw forces immediately and let us join the EU”.
As for NATO, I wonder if they could’ve offered Russia membership, but letting a dictatorship into the NATO club is a bit of a hard sell...
I am consistently bewildered by how many people seem to think Ukraine’s membership in NATO is something that should be decided by Ukraine alone. NATO is a mutual defense compact: an international commitment involving multiple parties. So it inherently affects the United States and other NATO member nations. For the United States (or France, or anyone) to decline a military alliance with Ukraine—that is, to “shut the door” on Ukrainian membership—would not be a denial of Ukrainian sovereignty, but an EXERCISE of American/French sovereignty. That’s absolutely within the West’s moral right to offer if it feels it would serve their interests (and in my personal opinion, it would be in Ukraine’s interests too).
It’s complicated because seeking NATO membership is literally in Ukraine’s constitution. So even if Zelensky estimated it to be in his interests to pledge neutrality, his mandate does not allow him to do so. The West kind of hung him out to dry by opening the door, except not really, giving them false hope while gratuitously provoking their neighbor. We were the only ones who had the leverage and domestic political situation to close the door these past few months, and we should have.
Either side (Ukraine or NATO) can make the decision unilaterally, but if in fact “it would be in Ukraine’s interests” then Ukraine could rationally make that call. If NATO had said “we’re permanently shutting the door on you and it’s for your own good!”, the world would rightly question the “for your own good” part.
Hmm, I think I disagree. It’s different to the ‘fat man’ case because in that case the fat man would otherwise survive if you didn’t push him. In this case, the regions will be taken anyway. So the trade-off seems more similar to the classic trolley problem where you are diverting the trolley to save the five.
I agree, however, that Ukraine should be involved with the decision process. My worry is that Nato allies and Ukraine were too quick to close down those channels last week, and that concessions would have been preferable to the current situation (including for Ukrainians).
It wasn’t meant as a direct analogy. A more direct analogy would be, we’ve got a nation of fat men who elect popular leaders who then decide whether (A) some unknown (quite low or quite high) number of fat men will get run over by trolleys, or (B) a large and predictable number will be forced to live under an autocratic regime from now on, reducing the risk of trolley fatalities for at least a few more years. Mind you, I’m told that only 20% of Ukrainians are obese, so even this analogy is a little strained.