How Ukraine is Like Hamas
Both Ukraine and Hamas are bent on capturing territory they do not control, and both are willing to sacrifice large numbers of lives to achieve this goal. Ukraine is prepared to hurl as many weapons as the West will supply at Russian forces, while Hamas uses Iranian weapons to kill Jews. Each entity controls territory under attack by a larger neighbor, supported by powerful allies who sometimes assist it but have never fully committed to their goals.
Why are these similarities important? Ukraine's ambitions, like Hamas’s, require military victory over a nuclear-armed foe. Both strategies demand the deaths of hundreds of thousands and risk killing millions more. Left to its own devices, Ukraine will continue killing Russians just as certainly as Hamas will continue killing Jews. Ukraine only committed to the peace process when Trump paused war subsidies. So long as the U.S. held out the possibility of recapturing Zaporizia, Ukraine was happy to send its young men to fight and die.
Moralists will argue that Ukraine is fighting a just war after being invaded. This is not irrelevant—there are significant reasons why allowing Russia to change international borders through force would set a bad precedent. It might embolden China to seize Taiwan. However, it is important not to overstate the badness of bad precedents. A peaceful resolution in Ukraine won’t significantly alter the industrial dynamics between the U.S. and China, nor will it change how many warheads or ships each country has. It would not change the long-standing historical factors motivating China to control Taiwan. It’s difficult to know whether peace in Ukraine would prompt Taiwan to further invest in its self-defense or lead to a sense of defeatism. Either way, China is not a trial court bound by the precedents of a superior tribunal; it is a great power that can either throw the iron dice or choose peace as it deems fit. Allowing an aggressor to adjust international boundaries is bad, but killing too many people in fruitless attempts to reverse the tides of war is worse.
I value human life more than abstract principles. I care deeply about the lives of the young Ukrainians and Russians who are slaughtering one another, far more than I care about lines on maps. A rules-based international order is a fine thing to the extent that it promotes trade but a monstrosity if enforcing the rules triples the carnage. I hope any peace settlement grants the right of relocation to the people living in annexed areas, allowing them to move to the country they lived in during 2013 or 2021. I want Ukraine to develop a free and vibrant economy, deeply integrated with Western Europe. Ukraine is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe. Trading land for peace would be vastly better than the status quo.
Failed peace efforts may not worsen the situation. Suppose Ukraine offered to let Russia to retain all the territory it occupies. Russia might accept a peace agreement that legitimizes its territorial gains. Both Putin and the West thought the invasion would be a walkover. It’s far from clear that Putin would have chosen to invade if he had understood Ukraine’s ability to resist. Rejecting such a generous offer would galvanize Western support and clarify the situation even further. If Putin is plainly bent on the destruction of Ukraine and won’t settle for 20% of it, Europeans are unlikely to simply acquiesce. An aborted peace process that cements European solidarity would be a positive good.
Eighty years ago, Finland traded land for peace. Today, it is one of the happiest countries in the world. Finland did not join NATO until after the Cold War ended, yet Russia never added it to the Eastern Bloc. It prospered during the Cold War as a free and neutral country and joined NATO in 2023. Ukraine might follow a similar path if it prioritizes human flourishing over reconquest. A weaker power can rarely get ironclad guarantees from stronger neighbors. Continued war means continued slaughter. Whether the chances of enduring peace are 20% or 80%, it’s time to give peace a chance.
Neville Chamberlain cut a deal with Hitler to trade land for peace. We all know how that turned out. Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for signing a peace treaty with North Vietnam, which then broke the treaty three years later by launching yet another invasion of South Vietnam.
Putin will take all of Ukraine if he can. A peace deal, absent an enforcement mechanism - such as stationing American, French, or British troops in what's left of Ukraine - will just be a chance for Russia to rearm and invade again in a few years. And all signs point to Putin being unwilling to take a deal that doesn't leave Ukraine disarmed and ready to be conquered.
Ukraine and Hamas have nothing in common.
1. Their goals and motivations are fundamentally different. Ukraine only wants to be left alone by Russia, whereas Hamas is bent on destroying the state of Israel and killing/enslaving its Jewish population.
2. Ukraine is recognized as a sovereign country by virtually every nation, whereas the Gaza Strip has never been an independent political entity, and Hamas has little diplomatic support outside the Middle East (and even there it’s limited).
3. Hamas initiated the conflict against Israel, killing and kidnapping some 1400 people. Ukraine, by contrast, was attacked without provocation by Russia.
4. The Gaza Strip is of almost no strategic significance to any country, even its neighbors; it’s primarily humanitarian concerns that drive opposition to Israeli policy. By contrast, Russia now poses a significant threat to Europe, hence their support of Ukraine and scramble to rearm in the face of Russian aggression.