War and Diplomacy in Ukraine

Source: Wikimedia Commons, Francisco Santos Over the last weeks, the Minsk Ceasefire has fallen apart and fighting has restarted in Ukraine, as pro-Russia separatists begun a new offensive. They took the Donetsk Airport – a former pillar of Ukrainian defiance – and have hotly contested the city of Debaltseve. The latter lies in the middle of a key railroad that crosses both the rebel-controlled regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and would be necessary if the rebels wanted to make their “republics” viable. Meanwhile, Ukraine has promised to retake all rebel territory and push back the rebel offensives. The United States is contemplating whether or not to arm Ukraine. France and Germany are pushing for a high-level diplomatic summit to end the conflict, and Debaltseve continues to be wrecked by shelling and constant fighting.

Over the weekend, the warring parties ceased fire to allow civilians to evacuate the area, but that window closed on Saturday, and there are not many signs that the fighting will stop. The rebels claim that the Ukrainian armed forces planned to “mine” the rail network through Debaltseve, though this has not been picked up in non-Russian news outlets. Rebel commander Alexander Zakharchenko announced that they would seek to mobilize up to 100,000 people for their fighting force, and many worry that this is perhaps a backdoor to increased deployments of Russian regular units into the Donbas. This escalation has led to the United States to reexamine its Ukraine policy and ponder whether to start arming Kiev. The logic has it that increased military aid for Ukraine would increase the casualty number of pro-Russian rebels and Russian soldiers, thus augmenting the costs on Russia to an unacceptable level. Although this may not tip the balance definitively toward Ukraine, it could extend the war too long for Russia’s aims.

The flip-side to this argument is that arming Ukraine would only invigorate Russia even more, and it would reply with more armament for the rebels thus causing more destruction in Ukraine. It is known that the bulk of fighters in east Ukraine are indeed Ukrainians, not Russian soldiers, and the rising death toll could serve as a rally call for Russian propaganda. Furthermore, Vladimir Putin recently accused the Ukrainian Army of being NATO’s “foreign legion”, and arming Ukraine might just give him the propaganda coup he’s desiring. A rise in armament from Ukraine would be matched or surpassed by the opposite faction, and Russia can escalate much higher than Ukraine could handle. The United States would be entering a proxy war it could not win.

In light of the recent developments, Franco-German leaders François Hollande and Angela Merkel rejected the suggestion of arming Ukraine and announced a peace plan they would propose in Kiev and Moscow. The shuttle-diplomacy produced a new summit in Minsk this week between the leaders of France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia to develop a new peace deal. Details of the plan are not widely available, and it is thus unsure whether or not this will reinforce the Minsk Accord or replace it with a new deal. It might acknowledge that Ukraine simply cannot retake its lost territories, and a new mechanism needs to be put in place that recognizes the reality.

Last week’s humanitarian ceasefire in Debaltseve had given some hope that the two factions would stop fighting, but Ukrainian military reported that the rebels recommenced fire. The wind currently favors their offensive, and if Ukraine cannot hold its current positions, it would be forced to retreat, dealing another blow to morale and casualty numbers in total. The new diplomatic summit might be one of the last foreseeable chances for diplomacy to work, but if it fails, we might have an escalating situation on our hands. The West would have to decide whether it should step in to arm Ukraine to defend itself, or let it fall prey to the advance of Russian and pro-Russian rebels and forced to make peace on their terms.