https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/06/opinion/ukraine-russia-trump-zelensky-putin/
Ukraine wouldn’t be the first country, or the last, to accept an ugly peace
A settlement with Russia now wouldn’t be just. Yet it may be wise.
By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - April 6, 2025
Wars are always ugly, but sometimes peace accords are ugly too. They often require excruciating concessions. This may be Ukraine’s future.
In the aftermath of wars, former combatants seek peace and justice. These goals often conflict. From a Ukrainian perspective, justice would mean a recovery of lost territory and the withdrawal of Russian troops. That formula, however, would not bring peace, because Russia, which has the upper hand militarily, will not accept it. Whatever peace is finally reached in Ukraine is likely to look bad to most Ukrainians. They should prepare for it.
The outlines of a Ukraine peace deal have been clear since the war began three years ago. Russia will keep Crimea, and eastern regions with Russian-speaking populations will have some form of self-government. Until recently, the United States and its allies have resisted that. They solemnly promised to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to defeat the Russian onslaught. That has changed dramatically since President Trump took office. He sees the reality of Russian military power, accepts it, and wants Ukraine to accept it as well. Although he has not used the phrase “ugly peace,” that is what he is pressing Ukraine to accept.
Korea has been divided for more than 70 years. After Chinese-backed forces seized large parts of the peninsula and fended off a counterattack by an American-led army, the combatants agreed to a cease-fire. President Eisenhower’s incoming secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, urged him to rip up the cease-fire, send troops northward across the demilitarized zone, and not stop “until we have shown, before all of Asia, our clear superiority by giving the Chinese one hell of a licking.” Eisenhower did the opposite. He concluded that no reasonable amount of force could change unfavorable conditions on the ground and agreed to make the cease-fire permanent. That has bitterly divided Korea and turned it into a global flash point, but it was the best the Americans could do at the time.
Eisenhower, however, was not always ready to accept realities on the ground. In 1954 diplomats gathered in Geneva to decide the future of Vietnam. They agreed to divide the country in half for two years, after which a national election would be held. The leader of the Communist Vietnamese nationalists, Ho Chi Minh, seemed certain to win that election. France’s foreign minister called this “an agreement to leave it to the Communists because nobody could prevent it.” Eisenhower and Dulles disagreed. They refused to allow the scheduled election and set the United States on a course to disaster in Vietnam. That could have been avoided if American leaders had been able to accept the painful accord reached in Geneva.
In 1974 Turkey launched an invasion of Cyprus, calling it a “peace operation” necessary to defend the Turkish minority on the island. It established a client state, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and has occupied part of the island ever since. Like Korea, Cyprus remains divided. Greeks, who are the majority on the island, have never accepted that. At last month’s Greek Independence Day parade in New York, one float was devoted to Cyprus. It showed a map of the island with blood dripping from the Turkish north. “Cyprus: 51 Years of Human Rights Violations,” read a sign above it. No one on the island is happy with the current situation, but at least all live in peace.
Not every ugly peace accord, however, produces peace. Countries that feel cheated often harbor resentment and seek to lash back when conditions change. Germany forced France to surrender border provinces after it won the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Half a century later, Germany was on the losing side in World War I, so France took the disputed provinces back.
Peace accords are often unjust because they reflect the relative strength of warring armies, which has little to do with justice. Smaller and weaker countries often have to swallow humiliation. That can lead to grudging acceptance of an unfair settlement. It can also provoke determination to seek revenge. Germany, for example, was forced to accept a devastating settlement after World War I. That produced Hitler and World War II.
For more than a year it has been clear that Ukraine will never return to its former borders. Crimea is in Russia’s hands and will remain so. The same is true for some regions in the eastern part of the country. With Russian troops slowly moving forward, further war is likely to lead to an expansion of the territory Russia may someday claim.
No feasible peace accord will change that. Endless American support might, but given Trump’s position, that is unlikely. Battlefield realities mean that whatever peace accord is reached will be unfavorable to Ukraine. That will be ugly — not only because Ukraine will lose territory but because it will reward Russia’s military adventurism. The sooner an agreement is signed, however, the less ugly it will be.
--
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.