On Ukraine

A lasting peace requires moral clarity

Screenshot from a video published by the National News Agency of Ukraine showing Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers in 2022. Source: Wikipedia.

In October 2023, I flew to Halle, Germany, to speak at a gathering of documentary filmmakers that was called the “Progress History Summit” (Progress being the name of an East German archival film company).

It was a wonderful conference, and included some of the most remarkable film footage I’ve ever seen. One example was footage from the Iran-Iraq War shot behind the Iranian front lines, the only time I’ve seen such footage from that 1980s-era conflict. There was also color footage of nuclear tests conducted by the U.S., Great Britain and France during the height of the Cold War.

But, by far, the most harrowing footage was from Ukraine. Shot by Anton Yaremchuk, a Ukrainian cinematographer and filmmaker based in Kramatorsk, the footage he showed was from Bucha. It was too ghastly to describe, and, quite frankly, so awful that I’m loathe to say much about it. In one scene, the cameraman descends into the basement of a building to find civilians massacred with bullets through their necks.

In the early days of the Ukraine war, the massacre in Bucha was supposed to be a wake-up call to the world about the true intent of Russia’s full-scale invasion. This was not about alleged provocations by Ukraine or supposed expansions of NATO. Had it been, those could have been resolved diplomatically. This illegal and immoral invasion was about something more sinister: the complete erasure from the map of the Ukrainian people, history and heritage. It was an invasion with genocidal intentions that had poisoned the minds of its aggressors to the point that binding the hands of unarmed civilians, executing them, and burying them in unmarked graves was justifiable within the first months of fighting.

Bucha was only the tip of the iceberg of the atrocities committed by the Russian military in Ukraine since February 2022. A few months after Halle, I was in Kosovo with the U.S. Department of State for a screening of 20 Days in Mariupol, another heartbreaking and sickening documentation of Russia’s actions. In this film, Mstyslav Chernov documents, among many scenes, the Russian bombing of a Ukrainian maternity hospital, including a pregnant woman with her stomach and uterus blown in half (neither she nor the baby survived). It also films two parents watching their son die in the hospital after the Russians detonated missiles on his soccer field.

---

For three years, the United States and Europe have supported Ukraine’s defense against this evil with funding, weapons and words. I was part of that defense; in the 14 public diplomacy missions I undertook with the U.S. Department of State to 12 different countries, Russia’s action in Ukraine came up on nearly every visit. I had no role in the funding or the weapons, of course. But part of the Russian aggression included a war against Ukrainian history—and the history of Europe, NATO and the U.S. more broadly. Russia distorted the historical record to perversely suggest that Ukraine had always been part of Russia, owed its independence to Russia, and had no future without Russia. Russian propaganda lied about NATO expansion, used long-settled past grievances among European countries to stoke divisions between them, and fabricated claims against the U.S. and its role in guaranteeing European security and democracy.

My role in the war was to try and help counteract these Russian lies. Sometimes it was to help military officials or lawmakers in European countries devise strategies to combat the disinformation and propaganda. Other times it was to build media literacy skills among high school and college students in Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria or North Macedonia. I loved the work because it demonstrated how being a historically literate and media literate citizen mattered in the real world and geopolitics. But I also loved the work because as the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, as well as the grandchild of a soldier who served in the Second World War, I had made a promise to my ancestors that what happened in Europe 80 years ago could only happen again if people around the world believed the lies, turned a blind eye and said nothing. I could not be such a person.

---

It is with this background that you can surmise how I have felt about the President of the United States recently suggesting that Ukraine somehow bears responsibility for its own slaughter; about an American special envoy equivocating that Russia was “provoked” into war; about the Vice President of the United States telling Europeans that their own governments are more of a threat than a dictatorial nuclear power at their doorstep that slaughters indiscriminately; and the American representation at the United Nations refusing to condemn Russia for its actions—let alone the conduct of our President and Vice President at The White House this past Friday during their meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. These are not the actions of a staunch defender of democracy, human rights and freedom who upholds those values on the world stage for all to see. On the contrary, they are the actions of a transactionalist who peddles the fibs of an autocrat in order to try and strike a deal.

Americans and Europeans have tried to make deals with Russia before. In 1945, at the Yalta Conference, the Americans and the British thought they had struck a deal with Russia to allow free elections throughout the war-ravaged nations of eastern Europe. Stalin never kept his promise; communist governments were established in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, and genuinely democratic elections were not held until after the Cold War.

In 1920, Moscow signed a deal with Georgia recognizing its independence, only to see Russia invade the country the following year and subsume it under the U.S.S.R. for 70 years. Today, once again an independent nation, Georgia has asked Russia to recognize that treaty, and in exchange Russia has tried to destabilize Georgia through sham elections and military force.

In recent years, the number of treaties and agreements that Russia has broken includes the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty; the Open Skies Treaty; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Geneva Conventions; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to former American Ambassador Michael R. Carpenter.

History suggests, then, that whatever deal is brokered by the United States to end the war in Ukraine, the likelihood that an imperial Russia will abide by its terms is slim. That is why Zelenskyy has insisted on any peace deal including security guarantees from the United States. Without such guarantees, it will only be a matter of time before Putin breaks his promise and attacks again. Appeasement is rarely a precursor to a lasting peace.

History suggests that whatever deal is brokered by the United States to end the war in Ukraine, the likelihood that an imperial Russia will abide by its terms is slim. Appeasement is rarely a precursor to a lasting peace.

The U.S. and Europe have their own treaty that they have held steadfastedly to in order to try and maintain peace: NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization founded in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II was created, as friend and historian Jeremi Suri has said, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” quoting NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay. For nations in Eastern Europe, keeping “Russia out” is, quite literally, a matter of life-and-death. European countries such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have vivid memories of what it means to live under Russian occupation as a “Soviet Republic.” Other countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria intimately understand how the grip of the “Iron Curtain” stifled individual liberties, political dissent and free speech during the Cold War. In the aftermath of a madman rampaging across Europe slaughtering millions during World War II, the U.S. and Western Europe determined that another totalitarian force in the form of the Soviet Union could not be allowed to do similarly in the second half of the 20^th century.

The NATO military alliance, backstopped foremost by the United States, managed to keep the Soviet Union and other authoritarian influences from spreading fully across Europe. Over the past 35 years, it has guaranteed the security of many European countries. To put that in layman’s terms, countries such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—each colonized by Russia during the Cold War—remain free and independent today because of the presence of NATO and the United States. Vladimir Putin has spoken openly about reconquering each of these nations by force. Small countries with limited armed forces, they would be no match for Russian aggression. It is only American and NATO forces that keep Russia at bay.

I have felt this reverence for the U.S. in my trips to the Baltics. When Russian jets scramble above the skies of Lithuania or threats by Putin are made on Russian TV and broadcast into Latvia and Estonia by Russian satellites, people know that their lives are safe, for the moment, because of the U.S. and NATO. Similar feelings exist in Romania and Bulgaria, both countries where Russia is interfering politically in order to establish a renewed sphere of influence. (Some readers may be familiar with the recent Romanian elections where a Russian-backed candidate won only to have the result nullified by the courts due to blatant foreign interference.) American soldiers, American weapons, American money and American diplomacy, in solidarity with our European allies, have created a forcefield of democracy around our partners and friends on the continent. It has come at a cost to American taxpayers, unquestionably. But such is the price of defending human rights and freedom.

It is worth remembering the utter disregard for human rights endemic to the Putin regime:

• A military invasion of Ukraine

• A political invasion of Georgia

• Repeated threatened invasions of Estonia and Latvia

• A puppet state in Belarus

• Murder of political opponents

• Imprisonment of political activists and journalists

• Censorship of scholars

• Assassinations of dissidents on foreign soil

• Sabotage attacks against foreign countries

• Planned and executed bombings of civilian targets in foreign countries

• Cyber-attacks worldwide

• Billions of dollars spent on disinformation and propaganda

• Documented war crimes and massacres of civilians

• Rigged elections

• State control over the media

• No freedom of speech or assembly

• Arbitrary arrests

• Excessive use of force by police and military

• Corrupt oligarchy

• Harassment of minorities, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals

These are not the characteristics of a free and fair society. The spread of such a culture across Europe and the world would be calamitous for humanity—and the United States, in tandem with Europe, remain the only entities strong enough to counteract it.

---

I will give President Trump credit for trying to end the war. It has been a senseless conflict, with hundreds of thousands of people dead who did not need to be. Yet it is one thing to negotiate with a tyrant for the sake of a greater good. It is another to peddle the lies of such a tyrant in hopes of currying favor for future transactions (oil and gas deals, mineral rights, passage through the Arctic Circle, etc). The values embedded in our Constitution and Bill of Rights should never be betrayed for short-term expediency… and America should never turn its back on its allies on the world stage, preposterously suggesting that overzealous bureaucrats are a greater threat to the world than a genocidal dictator with a nuclear arsenal. That would be the equivalent of telling your friend that binge eating during the holidays is a greater risk to their long-term health than decades of toxic chemicals in the food supply.

In my research on the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) prior to my trips with the State Department, I came across information that illuminated starkly the legacies of Russian imperialism in Europe and Asia. Estonia was occupied by the USSR throughout the Cold War, and part of that occupation was a sprawling complex of Russian military bases. As the Soviet Union collapsed and Soviet troops withdrew, they dumped hundreds of thousands of tons of jet fuel into the ground, improperly disposed of toxic chemicals, and discarded explosives and weapons in coastal and inland waters. Upon regaining independence, the Estonian government realized that its topsoil and underground water supply had been utterly contaminated. Clean-up operations cost tens of millions of dollars to reclaim drinking water for the local population.

You might argue that 1993, 1945, and 1920 are a long time ago. Yet these are precisely the histories that Putin looks to for inspiration. Putin served as a KGB agent who came of age during the Cold War. He maintains open reverence for the Soviet-style system of repression and surveillance, stating publicly that “there is no such thing as a former KGB man” and reconstituting a Ministry of State Security that shares the name of Stalin’s secret police from 1943 to 1953. Putin has been quoted on the record as longing to re-establish Russia’s influence in Europe. He is not deterred by international treaties, environmental protections or individual liberties. He is not interested in the welfare of any of the tens of millions of people within his capacity to invade or attack. He is interested in conquest, empire and ego—his own and the Russian nation’s. He has proven that he will take the darkest episodes of the Soviet past and re-apply them today if they grant him more power internally and globally.

During the long 20^th century, the United States of America fought to safeguard freedom and democracy around the world from such enemies—even when we failed to do so at home. In so doing, we offered protection, hope and inspiration to billions of people striving to live free. The choice between securing a peace deal and abandoning our decades-long commitments is a false one, and we as Americans must have the historical literacy to recognize that we can use our leverage to end the war as well as use the power of our ideas to condemn the parties responsible for it. Bringing to justice those who committed war crimes, and upholding the principles of human rights and democracy, are part of how we prevent such barbarism from happening again.

A failure to stand up for these principles costs us far more than any funding or weapons we may send.

-JS

---

---