How do we end the war of Vlad the self-impaler?

There are moments when one almost dares to hope. Who actually wants this war? Many conflicts start with strutting and self-assertion on all sides, so that belligerence seems popular and there are few people to echo Walpole at the beginning of the War of Jenkins’ Ear: “They may ring their bells now. Before long, they will be wringing their hands.” But we are now in the hand-wringing phase, everywhere. To adapt Wilfred Owen, there are no passing bells, “only the monstrous anger of the guns.” Would Putin himself have agreed with the invasion if he had known the consequences? Attempts are clearly being made to mediate and promote a ceasefire, perhaps using the G20. China appears to be taking a significantly more nuanced position than it did before the conflict began. A few months ago, asked whether it was more likely that Taiwan or Ukraine would be attacked, most seasoned geopoliticians would have plumped for Taiwan.

But Beijing now has food for thought. Taiwan is one hundred miles from the Chinese mainland. That gives the defenders time and space to shoot down planes and sink ships. We could presumably expect a massive Chinese bombardment to try to suppress Taiwan’s defences, but the Taiwanese have anticipated this and made dispositions accordingly. Moreover, and crucially, they would almost certainly be able to rely on American help. Beyond that, Taiwan is mountainous. That is good terrain for guerrilla warfare – and most assessors believe that the Taiwanese would fight. Ukraine has reminded us that when it comes to force of arms, a fighting spirit is essential.

There is also the economic factor. It is not only armies that march on their stomachs. So do nations. For the first time in China’s history, no one is dying of hunger or hunger-related diseases. This plus national pride has enabled President Xi Jinping to deploy his version of bread and circuses. But he is also dealing with rising expectations. Evidence of popular protests at regular intervals lead to a tentative conclusion. The Chinese people no longer fear their government as much as their forebears did, while the government has learned to fear the people.

Xi may be an autocrat, but that will only work if he is also a growth-ocrat. He has to appease his populace with higher living standards. If he attacked Taiwan, China would face exclusion from the world economy.

Up to now, President Xi may have felt that there were few limits on his freedom of action. He brought down the dragon’s paw on Hong Kong and has been roundly reproached: nothing more. He is doing what he likes with the Uighurs. Who seems to care? A Chinese laboratory may well bear a heavy responsibility for the spread of Covid. The consequence: muted criticism. So why stop?

For one simple reason. After Ukraine, everything is different. Although it is not quite a case of “a terrible beauty is born”, there is now a new strategic and moral climate. So the Chinese leader should learn from Alexander the Great, Napoleon and Hitler. Do not go too far. It is in Xi’s interests to help broker a peace, especially as he has a Covid crisis to deal with. Silencing critics is not a way of dealing with diseases.

A few weeks ago, Henry Kissinger wrote a characteristically wise piece about Ukraine. He pointed out that it had only been independent for 23 years, not long enough for its politicians to learn the art of compromise, especially as there are deep sectarian divisions between the European-orientated West and the pro-Russians in the East. Neither side seemed prepared to accept the other’s legitimacy. and there were upheavals in the streets, in which the populace was often responding to political incitement, by rival politicians who had spent more energy in quarrelling with one another than in trying to unify their country.

Dr Kissinger recommended that the Western allies should understand the strength of the Russians’ feelings about Ukraine. Because of historic ties, they could never accept that it was really a foreign country. But the Russians should understand that any attempt to coerce Ukraine back to satellite-hood would restart the Cold War and bring decades of instability.

In the Kissinger plan, Ukraine should be allowed complete freedom on external economic links, including with the EU, but not NATO membership. The Russians should, however, acknowledge Ukrainian sovereignty over the Crimea, where there ought to be free and fair elections under international supervision. As for elections, Ukrainian politicians must try harder to use democracy to unite their country and not as a cockpit for factional combat.

As the great Doctor sardonically acknowledged, his proposals would have at least one merit. Almost no one in Russia or Ukraine would agree with all of them. He was aiming for balanced dissatisfaction. Perhaps we should call it “mutually assured dissatisfaction”.

It was a laudable goal, although it is hard to see how the Russians would ever have renounced the Crimea. But since the article was published, everything has changed. It may be that a Ukrainian terrible beauty has now been born.

Is it possible that Putin’s army has prevailed where Ukraine’s politicians have lamentably failed and created one nation? There is a precedent. In 40 years after 1945, in Czechoslovakia, the Communists virtually succeeded where the Hapsburgs had failed for more than 400 years, and made Catholicism a popular religion. So in their adversity, will the Ukrainians accept Volodymyr Zelensky as the leader who can transcend divisions? There has rarely been a better example of cometh the hour cometh the man. That said, Walter Scott’s Meg Merrilees put it even more strongly: “The hour’s come, and the man”.

But would it be possible for this new heroic leader to persuade his equally heroic fellow countrymen to make concessions, such as a plebiscite in the Donbass? Even if Kyiv might now win such a contest, would the whole matter not be seen as a humiliation?

Sunk capital has often induced politicians – and businessmen – to persevere with failing policies. Sunk blood is even more potent. Could any Ukrainian advocate a compromise without being accused of dishonouring the glorious fallen?

Yet the sunk blood factor does not only apply in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin might want to get off the back of the tiger. But how can he? He has been virtually renamed Vlad the self-impaler. If his triumphalist objectives just peter out into body bags, what would be his political life expectancy? What indeed would be his personal life expectancy?

In that regard, we in the West should concentrate on the big goals. How do we stop this war altogether? At the very least, how do we prevent escalation and the threat of a nuclear exchange?

Putin’s own fate is much less important. If he could be persuaded to leave the Kremlin by a guarantee that he would not be taken to the Hague, that would be a price worth paying, and the same applies to his henchmen. If it would help to bring about stability, let us pretend that the evil deeds were Putin’s sole responsibility, especially as this tragedy was planned by a small, tightly-knit circle. Equally, if Putin did stand down, he might prefer to seek refuge in the Hague. He would almost certainly be safer.

Those of a praying disposition should now wish Godspeed to the mediators, who might be able to end Ukraine’s journey to Calvary. Those of us who regretfully accept that mankind is responsible for its own misfortunes must cling on to such optimism as has escaped the tank tracks.