Lying Neocons Have No Idea How To End Ukraine War

The neocons have been wrong about every war in my lifetime, so why should Ukraine be any different? Richard Land was a detriment to Southern Baptists for decades, as the head of their Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission before passing the baton to Russell Moore. Since then, he has been entrenched in Christian media, peddling neoconservative lies. His latest lies are about his proposal to bring “genuine” peace to Ukraine.

Richard Land frames the war as one of attrition and stalemate. While attrition is an accurate designation, ever since Ukraine lost Bakmuht, the war has been a slow collapse of Ukrainian lines. The Kursk offensive, which was strategic insofar as it was a geopolitical bargaining chip, ended in a humiliating defeat, which cost Ukraine resources that should have defended other fronts. 

First, perhaps the most universally accepted value in the world today is the principle of “self-determination” — the belief that people in a particular region have the right to determine for themselves how they will be governed and by whom. A close corollary to this is the principle that a region’s sovereignty cannot be changed by military conquest (i.e. Crimea being annexed as part of Russia after having been taken by military force). To this point, most countries do not recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Russia already held a referendum in Crimea and the other disputed oblasts. They may not have been legitimate, but the people of Donbass have been fighting a war against Ukraine since 2014. Richard Land would later erroneously assume that these oblasts value democracy above their Russian identity, which is rather idolatrous.

So, where do we go from here? I believe we should have the overwhelming majority of the international community come together and support a peace plan as follows:

1. A cease-fire is put into place, monitored and enforced by a multinational U.N. military force with a complete stand down and garrisoning of Russian and Ukrainian troops.

2. This would be followed by a U.N. policed, monitored, and supervised election in each of the occupied regions of Ukraine. In other words, the people living in Crimea, the Donbas, and the other occupied regions would have the opportunity to vote for:  a. remaining part of Ukraine; b. becoming part of Russia; or c. becoming an independent entity. This way the people will decide their own fate and the international community will demand that their decision will be respected.

Part of the peace plan must also include an internationally supervised investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity by both sides with war criminals being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I realize that many will say this is unrealistic and Russia will never agree to such a plan. (I suspect the Ukrainians would agree because I am confident that in free and fair elections, majorities are going to vote to live under Ukrainian democracy as opposed to Russian dictatorship.)

There is no realistic solution here, and the only things addressed are some of the land disputes. It does nothing to address Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, which were one of the biggest causes of the war. he does not address the mineral rights, which both America and Russia are vying for. It does not address the fate of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, other than that they would prefer the democracy that has made Russian illegal.

The neocons have no grasp of history. Their warmongering has made them incapable of negotiating a peace.