Good intentions alone won't end wars

This refers to the hypothetical formula of “exchanging territories for NATO membership,” with some suggesting that the example of divided Germany might be applicable. 

However, this is not an analog at all.

At least for three clear reasons:

1. First, Germany was divided before the issue of security guarantees for Germany and West Berlin was addressed. In Ukraine's case, the opposite is true: a “compromise solution” would divide the country - perhaps permanently.
2. Second, the borders in Germany were clearly defined by the Allies, and all subsequent decisions followed that. In contrast, Ukraine's recognized borders are the internationally established state borders, which are not fully controlled by Ukraine at this moment. Moreover, any demarcations along the contact line are purely hypothetical in light of the aggressor's persistent aggressive aims.
3. Finally, the German people lived under occupation, with all military structures dismantled or disbanded. While Ukraine faces a very challenging situation, it is not completely occupied or demilitarized, no matter how much some may wish it were.

It's clear that various ideas for ending the full-scale war will continue to emerge and be discussed by journalists, commentators, and scholars.

However, when these discussions spread into the official sphere and are echoed by official sources, it becomes very dangerous. There is unlikely to be any positive outcome, and the shared commitment to the goals of de-occupation, Ukraine's victory, and the restoration of international law is already beginning to erode.

Therefore, we must proceed with caution. Wars don’t end simply because of good intentions - or what may appear to be good intentions.

Source

About the author. Valeriy Chaly, Ukrainian diplomat, Former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.