The great Thomas Sowell often notes that when looking to solve problems, there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs. You weigh the cost of your various options and look for the one that creates the fewest additional problems. You look for the best trade-off. Make your concessions based on three factors – compared to what, at what cost, and based on what evidence? Nowhere does this practice come into play more than in foreign policy. Today we’re going to look at the ongoing situation in Ukraine, and weigh the options based on historic parallels.
To understand history, you have to understand that there are no beginnings. All actions are taken based on prior events. Correcting a perceived injustice or proactively addressing an imminent threat, this is how leaders act. This is easy to forget when dealing with the villains of history. Those who weave the historical narrative like to attribute evil actions to insanity or cartoon super-villain notions of global conquest. Remember “So-damn insane” to describe Saddam Hussein in the early 90’s?
These are simple-minded views that excuse individuals from exercising critical thinking. Many of the villains of the past, or Vladimir Putin today, are not insane. The guy having a conversation with a mailbox in San Fransisco is insane. That guy doesn’t lead a global industrial power for two decades. The narrative-writers omit motivation. Putin woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine because he’s evil and that’s what evil people do. Like The Brain from Pinky & The Brain, he’s out to take over the world.
This too is simple-minded. We do not agree with their actions, but many of the villains in history acted aggressively because of a grievance or a threat. Saturday-morning cartoon “global takeover” has never been a motivation. And we need to understand motivation in order to avoid future atrocities. Today’s Ukraine crisis is eerily similar to the situation between Hitler’s Germany and Eastern Europe in the 1930’s. And as far as trade-offs go, we actually have examples for what happens when you choose between option A or option B. Let’s review the modern problem through a historical lens.
Germany was devastated after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. They lost their military, their colonies, their land, and were made to pay reparations that devastated their economy. Versailles also drew new borders that would cause much trouble in the coming years. The new nations that were created had no regard for the peoples that lived there. The new nation of Czechoslovakia placed large groups of Germans, Poles, Ruthenian Ukrainians and Hungary’s Magyar people under Czech rule. The Czechs only represented 47% of the population. The new Polish nation-state eventually controlled the Danzig port, which was 95% German, and was never at any point in history controlled by Poles.
The borders that were drawn after Versailles placed many people on the wrong side of the aisle. Nations that had no historical precedent now held rule over multi-ethnic populations where conflict became inevitable. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had similar consequences, but not as severe. The former Soviet Socialist Republics (SSRs) that broke away retained the borders that were drawn for party bosses by the Soviets. The Baltic SSRs of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were independent states prior to Soviet annexation in the 40’s so they largely returned to their pre-annexation borders. Ukraine was more complicated.
When the Ukrainian SSR became independent Ukraine, they kept the largely Russian areas of Donbas and the Crimean Peninsula. In the Soviet days, these were leant to the party bosses of the Ukrainian SSR, not necessarily Ukraine. To clarify, the Soviet Union was ruled top-down by a central government in Moscow. It was ruled by the central Communist Party, not necessarily Russia (Stalin was Georgian). It is an important distinction to make. Russia and the Soviet Union are not the same thing.
By the time the Soviet Union disintegrated, the regime was so weak that border disputes between SSRs was not a top priority. In fact, Ukraine was so corrupt and unstable that there were attempts by George HW Bush and his State Department to keep the USSR together longer to sort out some of these issues. Ultimately Ukraine kept their SSR borders, with Crimea and the Donbas. To give context on how important Crimea is to Russia, they lost over 200,000 men defending it from the Axis in World War II (what Russians call “The Great Patriotic War). Less than 25% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian. This was always going to be a problem down the road.
In the late 1930s, Hitler had eyes on the Danzig port in Poland and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Danzig was almost entirely German and wanted to return to German rule. It was also superfluous to Poland as the Poles already had the port of Gdynia. The Germans in the Sudetenland would have overwhelmingly voted to secede from Czechoslovakia and be placed under German (or Austrian) rule. The Czechs had no historic ties to the land. Were these largely arbitrary border designations, drawn by Versailles, worth going to war over? Or can they be negotiated? We have evidence of what happens in both scenarios.
Fast forward to 2014, and Russia is now strong enough to retake Crimea. This set off a new conflict that has been heating up ever since. In 2015, the Donbas voted to rejoin Russia, however Vladimir Putin declined, possibly due to Western pressure. The Kiev government in Ukraine has bombed the region on and off since 2014. This sets the backdrop for today. Putin’s demands are that Ukraine not join NATO and recognize independence of the pro-Russian regions. These concessions were not made, and as a result, the Russian military moved into Ukraine in 2022.
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Is it better to appease or to fight? It all depends on what you are fighting for. In 1938, Hitler & Czechoslovakia, with the input of Britain, France & Italy, agreed to cede the Sudetanland to Germany. Not a single shot was fired over the transfer. When World War II eventually erupted, Czechoslovakia suffered under 100,000 casualties. The capital city of Prague escaped relatively unscathed. Any loss of life is unfortunate, but in the way of trade-offs, Czechoslovakia emerged from World War II far better off than others. Was the Sudetanland worth Czechoslovakia going to war over? What would the casualties look like if they did?
Poland gives us the answer to that question. Poland may have been willing to negotiate over Danzig, however poor intelligence and catastrophic foreign policy blunders lead to the Poles taking the fight option. Great Britain gave Poland a war guarantee over the Danzig port. Britain, who had no interests in Poland, and was extremely weak militarily and in no shape to commit to a land war, entered into an alliance to protect Danzig. Hitler interpreted this as an act of war, and the rest is history. To put things into perspective, Poland suffered six and a half million casualties in World War II. All over a tract of land they had no interest in and based on a promise that Britain could never deliver. And in the aftermath, Britain, who vowed to protect Poland, left it in the hands of Stalin. Poland subsequently suffered for half a century under the most barbaric regime of the 20th century.
Fast forward back to today, and it looks like the United States and NATO are giving Ukraine the Poland option. We’re dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine, which in the eyes of Russia, would be an act of war. NATO was created to combat Soviet aggression, and the Soviet Union hasn’t existed for 30 years. In this writer’s opinion, NATO seems to have shifted its raison d’être to containing Russia at all costs.
Is this wise? If NATO does not intend to offer Ukraine membership, shouldn’t that be communicated? The mixed messaging that NATO, and by proxy, the United States gives seems like needless provocation. The situation is almost identical to Britain/Poland in 1939. It looks like we’re giving promises that we have no intention of upholding. Making Ukraine a member of NATO would obligate the US to protect it militarily. If we do not intend on doing that, it needs to be clear.
There are many who say that Ukraine must win at all costs, even if that means fighting down to the last Ukrainian. Is that the best solution, or are there better trade-offs? Is fighting over a region that probably should have always been Russian really worth the sacrifice? Is it better for Ukraine to “betray” the Donbas/Crimea or “save” the Donbas/Crimea?
To quote AJP Taylor, “In 1938, Czechoslovakia was betrayed. In 1939, Poland was saved. Less than one hundred thousand Czechs died during the war. Six-and-a-half million Poles were killed. Which was better – to be a betrayed Czech or a saved Pole?”
There are no perfect solutions. Only trade-offs.