Ukraine – redefining victory

Solid commitments

Sir, – Fintan O’Toole correctly describes the current aims of Ukraine: the recovery of all of its territories, a mechanism for penalising war crimes and a rebuilding of its infrastructure (“The West must help Ukraine to define victory differently”, Opinion & Analysis, September 5th).

He also notes, correctly, that such aims would likely take so much time that the unity and support of the western democracies might erode.

He concludes that the West should help persuade Ukraine to modify its aims to acknowledge reality. But there the argument falters.

It is possible that the West could be persuaded to foot the costs of infrastructure repair. It is probable that Ukraine could be embraced as a member of the European Union with a promise of an immediate guarantee of the security of its currently held territories, including a guarantee of shipping security, and eventual membership in Nato.

READ MORE

It is even possible that a less stringent form of accountability could be agreed upon in which, for example, an international body would identify perpetrators of war crimes and make them subject to arrest if they were to enter any alliance country.

But surely the stumbling block is the territorial status quo.

Where would the new boundaries be drawn so as to ensure that the unrecovered territories were not used as a constant threat and disruption to a new and democratic Ukraine? How would the peoples of the Russian held regions be accommodated?

Could an independent Ukraine live with the continuation of the annex of Crimea?

I don’t pretend to have the answers. But I do believe that it would be wise to take Fintan O’Toole’s suggestion seriously but with much more pragmatic and achievable territorial goals which include sensible and defensible boundaries and solid commitments to ensure security, to rebuild and to find some credible means to hold war criminals accountable. – Yours, etc,

ALAN C NEWELL,

Downings,

Co Donegal.