Ukraine fatigue debate – January 2024

In the Ukraine fatigue debate, the Sylvans considered whether the West should pursue a stalemate in Ukraine while Putin rules, and disagreed.

The Sylvan Ukraine fatigue debate considered the following motion:

The West should pursue a stalemate in Ukraine while Putin rules.

The debate took place on Monday 8th January.  Stan Billington proposed the motion and Tom Warner opposed it.

The proposition arguing that we should pursue a stalemate in Ukraine

The proposer pointed out that the cold weather here pales in comparison to the cold nights in Ukraine.  The debate centres on whether we should fight for a stalemate or fight to retake Ukraine’s lost land.  The war actually began in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, followed by 2022’s full-scale invasion.  Ukraine mounted a successful counteroffensive later in 2022, but since then little movement.  Real politik suggests we should pursue a stalemate to hold these lines while Putin lives.  Ukraine cannot successfully re-take territory, as shown by 2023’s failed attempt to break the Russian lines.  We do have war fatigue, with Ukraine out of the headlines, especially post the Gaza war.  

The proposer continued

Politically we need to choose an achievable goal, which is to stop Putin.  This would humiliate him, since he thought he would take all of Ukraine.  The US Congress has failed to pass a new aid package, and we need to show that stalemate has real value.  Victor Orban has blocked EU aid also.  We also need to preclude nuclear escalation, after Putin’s threats.  Though we do not know how long he will live.  He could get ill or die, the Kremlin had to deny he had a heart attack.  Could there be another coup attempt following that of Prigozhin?  It is possible that Russia could wrestle democracy back, or the next ruler could be more sensible.  50% of Russians say they are undecided about the Ukraine situation, suggesting they oppose the war, given their inability to speak freely.
The opposition against the Ukraine fatigue debate motion
The opposer used to live in Belarus for one year, and has an affinity for eastern Europe.  A range of potential outcomes exist.  Total victory would have the greatest popularity, but would require extensive action and a political earthquake to gain public support.  We could push Ukraine to cede 20% of their land, or abandon them completely.  Then stalemate, which is unambitious and would be extremely expensive, potentially more so than a complete victory.  Stalemate differs from an armistice, it entails two forces grinding against each other, driving loss of life and high costs.  This cost of stalemate includes attacking to defend territory.  All the while Moscow can trim its troop allocation, increase fortifications and attempt to maximise attrition.  We can’t equate stalemate with peace.  

The opposer continued

Will Putin lose power?  No guarantee, Russian politics are famously opaque.  We would need to believe it will happen soon and that his replacement would be friendly to the West.  Ukraine can pursue a stalemate, but how can the powerful West do so?  Let’s look five years forward.  A loss would be better for Ukraine than stalemate.  A loss would mean occupation but no violence.  Ukraine has lost 25% of its GDP.  Stalemate is the worst outcome and most costly – we are spending £6 billion a month propping them up.

Floor speeches from the audience of the Ukraine fatigue debate

Floor speakers brought a range of perspectives. We cannot count on Putin’s death or overthrow, and most Russians are behind him. He represents a deep Russian political tradition. Don’t pursue total victory, push for a settlement. Russia has overcome Western sanctions. The Ukrainians face significant challenges taking military hardware from myriad allies with different standards. They can only sustain about 2,000 artillery shells per day versus Russia’s 10,000. Ukraine needs a large push, but it won’t happen in 2024 and likely the West will betray them ultimately. The West is tired and have no troops on the ground.

Floor speeches continued

However, there is a moral case to avoid a stalemate. Russia clearly acted as an aggressor. Our interests align with stopping Putin, given his destabilising actions such as with elections. Stalemate represents the reality on the ground, yet we need to send the right message by punishing bad actions. In any peace deal we will give up Ukraine. Both sides have completely different perspectives, and war makes finding a universal truth difficult. What if the Second World War had ended with the Nazis still controlling part of Europe? We need to set an example to protect the sovereignty of European countries. Do we have the will to pursue total war?

History tells us that stalemates don’t work – remember Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in Our Time’? We cannot appease Putin. Yet a stalemate is not a ceasefire, you have to fight to maintain the current stalemate. Very difficult to achieve a total victory – we can’t abandon Ukraine to their fate and a stalemate represents a good deterrent.

The opposer’s rebuttal

In rebuttal, the opposer pointed out that winning a war is favourable, but we need a strategy, as stalemate is expensive.  Voting for the motion means setting a strategy to contain Russia – not a reasonable prospect.  People who should vote for the motion either believe Putin will soon lose power, or have a stake in arms manufacturing.  We need to avoid a horrible, costly stalemate, which represents a feeble goal.  All others should vote against.

The proposer’s closing speech

In closing, the proposer challenged an axiom of debating circles.  The onus rests not only with the proposition to make a positive case.  The opposition also must state a position other than refuting the proposition.  Tom said we should prop Ukraine up properly, but we have been trying to do it for two years already.  Counteroffensives mean tricky warfare, and we’re already pursuing a stalemate.  £6 billion a year represents 0.6% of our spending, and a winning counteroffensive would cost much more.  Would a loss be superior relative to holding the front line?  Many negative regimes have been overcome.  Ukrainians don’t want a ceasefire negotiation.

Result: the Ukraine fatigue debate motion did not carry

In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that the West should not pursue a stalemate in Ukraine while Putin rules.

See information on other Sylvan debates here.

More posts