The world faces a concept challenge with Ukraine and Russia. Hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed in this disastrous war. Our best information is that Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation. Most people further fear that President Putin is ambitious to conquer other parts of Europe. Everyone wants the war to end. Nobody wants Ukraine left as an orphan state, part conquered, waiting to be suborned by Russia. We all agree that a nuclear war would potentially destroy humanity and / or the planet.
John Steinbeck, in The Grapes of Wrath, said “Fear the time when manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of man’s nobility.” Steinbeck’s book made a big impression on me. Making all the allowances we must for the validity of people’s points of view, and being as aware as possible that our own beliefs may be wrong, I still think that there are some things in life that are sacrosanct and which, when threatened, should be fought for. You might think that your family would be one of them.
It is easy to see the case for the surrender of part of Ukraine to bring the killing and maiming to an end, whatever the long-term consequences. You and I don’t live there nor do our families. To expect continued resistance is to ask people to suffer for an imagined future that may never happen, however probable it seems today. For believers in any Conclusive Faith – ‘concept’ – the idea of killing and dying is testament to their beliefs, proof of their honesty. Those who don’t hold such beliefs understandably deny the validity of armed support for them.
So the question is “Short term peace to stop the pain OR Long term battle to prevent later, fiercer, aggression, potentially leading to world dominance?” I find it incredibly difficult to answer this dilemma. Apart from anything else, like most people, I know very little about Ukraine and not much more about Russia. A brief chat with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko some years ago told me his worries were his neighbour, who he thought he could contain, and corruption which he was more doubtful about. Hardly a basis for policy.
Strategically we should resist further Russian or any other aggression designed to take over land that belongs to other people. Tactically the fighting can perhaps be brought to a stop to allow those caught up in it to recover and rebuild their lives. The inevitable compromise is bound to be a pot pourri of both, so where are the sticking points – the double red lines?
Against all our better judgments the world is forming itself into power blocks despite the pathetically obvious need for cooperation to handle the common enemy, climate change. That these now appear to be largely trade blocks does not disguise the fact that they are, in practice, political. It should therefore be a sticking point that Ukraine can have a credible military force and be a member of NATO.
Since this is a negotiation it is “reasonable” that Ukraine surrenders part of its territory to Russia as a balance. But of what purpose and value is part of Ukraine unless the Russian intent is eventually all of it? This is ‘a negotiation without end’ is my, and many other people’s, judgment. As Churchill said ‘Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War’. Sadly war still rages and present evidence suggests it will continue to go in Russia’s favour unless the might of US and European forces is brought to bear. If that happens, Russia will call on her real or imagined allies.
The consequence of that would be WWIII.
If there is a Deity its presence and help is needed now.
Good morning
John Bittleston
You are more than welcome to express your views at [email protected]
Please do.
25 November 2025
