Stop the Doomsday Clock: Why We Need a Ceasefire in Ukraine

It's time for less empty cheerleading and more compassionate realism..

Ukraine has received $232 billion in assistance in the two years since Russia’s illegal invasion. That includes $90 billion in direct military aid, $130 billion in financial aid, and $12.2 billion (only 5 percent of the total) in humanitarian aid. The US has provided $75.4 billion, mostly for weapons funding and security. Military aid to date, $90 billion, exceeds Russia’s reported annual military budget of $66 billion prior to the war.¹

In 2022, US officials and Democratic leaders insisted Ukraine would defeat Russia.² The hawkish Atlantic Council even issued a paper entitled “Preparing for Victory.” Instead, the war has become a lethal stalemate.

By early 2023, US officials knew that an estimated 130,000 Ukrainian troops had been injured or killed but withheld that information from the public, instead promising great results for Ukraine’s upcoming counteroffensive.³  It failed, by Ukraine’s own admission, amidst reports of “heavy casualties” (the Ukrainian government does not publish casualty reports) and finger pointing all around.

It's 2024. It's time for less empty cheerleading and more compassionate realism.

The victory talk was misguided at best and cynical at worst. A quarter of a trillion dollars has already been spent on this war and The World Bank estimates that it will cost another $411 billion – nearly half a trillion dollars – to rebuild the war-torn country.  As the fighting drags on, the deaths increase and so do the dangers.

The risk of nuclear war remains very real, as the US crosses one red line after another on the road to superpower brinksmanship.⁴ A related threat is posed by the six nuclear reactors at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Power Plant, which have already been damaged in the fighting and are currently under Russian control. Their present status remains unclear.⁵ And Ukraine’s terror tactics in Russia could further undermine the world order, risking retaliation against Ukrainian and even US targets.

Time is against Ukraine. In the words of a retired top Ukrainian general, “This is not our war because resources-wise, economically, Russia looks stronger and has a four-fold advantage in manpower.” (Russia’s economy is also fourteen times larger than Ukraine’s.)

The Biden Administration has also undermined its own goals by driving China and Russia closer. As a result, writes historian Jake Werner, “China has provided some diplomatic cover for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and refused to impose sanctions ...” This helps Russia hold out even longer.

Now, Politico magazine reports the Biden Administration is “quietly shifting” toward strengthening Ukraine’s position for future negotiations to end the war – negotiations that “would likely mean giving up parts of Ukraine to Russia,” according to American and European officials. For his part, Putin has “quietly signaled” that he’s open to a cease-fire.

And yet, bizarrely, the administration is also proposing to send another $50 billion in military aid – more than has been sent in the last two years (details here). There are no signs that the White House is pushing for negotiations.  Instead, it seems to be escalating the war. Worse, its decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine⁶ violates international norms and will harm countless innocents – many of them children.

It's time to call for a ceasefire, end the bloodshed, and work for a negotiated end to the war.

Instead of acknowledging reality, however, the White is still pushing $110 billion in supplementary spending, which includes $50 billion in new military aid to Ukraine. Only this massive weapons package will suffice, sys the White House, and it must be passed now. It’s “urgent,” says President Biden. It’s “urgent,” says Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. It’s “urgent,” says National Security spokesman John Kirby. (That’s what they call a “talking point.”)

But why is a commitment of this size so urgent? Certainly, targeted aid is called for. A collapse of Ukraine’s defenses would weaken its negotiating position. But the administration hasn’t explained why this limited goal requires more weaponry than Ukraine has received in two years of full-scale war.

Could there be another reason? Also from Politico:

For Biden, navigating the nearly two-year-old war in the middle of a tough election campaign ... will prove tricky at best. As it helps Ukraine shift to a more defensive posture, the Biden administration can’t appear to be handing the advantage to Putin   ...

“Those discussions [about peace talks] are starting, but [the administration] can’t back down publicly because of the political risk” to Biden, said a congressional official who is familiar with the administration’s thinking ...

Could the best interests of Ukraine and the world be taking a back seat to politics? Let’s hope not. But Biden now has the lowest approval rating of any president since George W. Bush, according to recent polling, and Donald Trump clearly senses that he is vulnerable on the war issue.

The administration insists, in John Kirby’s words, that “we are not dictating terms to President Zelensky.” That’s not true and never has been.  Western allies blocked a 2022 peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that could have ended this war in its early months. We learned that, not from some underground journalist, but in an anti-Putin article co-written by neocon national security insider Fiona Hall.  As Ukraine’s chief negotiator confirmed to a Ukrainian newspaper, Britain’s then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson showed up and nixed the deal on behalf of the West.

Zelensky has been criticized, sometimes by his own generals, for clinging to a grandiose vision of “victory” that is at odds with the military stalemate on the ground. But even Zelensky is returning to the idea of negotiations. An article in today’s New York Times (January 17, 2023) is headlined “Zelensky Calls for Peace, Not More Weapons, in Davos.” Zelensky told business leaders at the World Economic Forum, “We need you in Ukraine to build, to reconstruct, to restore our lives.”

Besides, the talking point that we won’t tell Zelensky (or Netanyahu) how to run their wars never made sense. The US has a right to make its own decisions about external conflicts. That’s not telling them how to manage their affairs; it’s deciding how to manage our own.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian people keep paying a heavy price, losing their homes, their health, and their lives – as their children lose their childhoods.

They’re also losing their human rights. Amnesty International reports that the Zelensky government is using the war as a pretext for cracking down on workers’ rights and freedom of expression. A report to the United Nations Human Rights Council expressed concern about the nearly 6,000 Ukrainians targeted for crimes of collusion.

Democratic freedoms are also being eroded. “Political persecution of leftists and other dissidents has not become something new since February 24, 2022,” a Ukrainian human rights leader told Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic. “It’s just that since February 24, they have acquired a larger scale.”

There have been large-scale crackdowns on writing and even speaking Russian, which remains the primary language of millions of Ukrainians. And a notorious website run by a Zelensky insider doxes people deemed unfriendly to the Ukrainian states, some of whom wind up dead.⁷

Corruption is worsening at all levels of government. A September 2023 Reuters headline reads, “Corruption accusations continue to plague top Zelensky aides.”  The article describes a construction company president who kept rolls of bills in a safe behind a desk to, in his own words, “bribe public officials to approve building projects.”  Reuters reports:

“The task of handing over the cash, (the construction executive) said, was entrusted to a lawyer named Oleh Tatarov, now a senior adviser to Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky.”

Tatarov, who the Kyiv Independent calls “the symbol of Zelensky’s tolerance of corruption in his inner circle,” is now his adviser on law enforcement and security agencies.  (There is more on Tatarov’s checkered career here.)  

Corruption has diverted humanitarian aid, specifically food aid, as well as weapons purchased with foreign (including US) aid. “Corruption can kill,” an anti-corruption activist told the New York Times. The corruption problem will get even worse under Zelensky’s rumored plan to take corruption investigations away from law enforcement and place them under the Security Service (SBU), a force controlled directed by his office (and presumably coordinated by Oleh Tatarov).

Aid scandals have engulfed the Defense Minister, as well as the energy sector, high-ranking civil servants, and all heads of regional military recruitment centers.

Those recruitment centers implicated in corruption are another source of anguish for Ukrainians. The New York Times reports that their so-called “people snatchers” have “confiscated passports, taken people from their jobs and, in at least one case, tried to send a mentally disabled person to military training,” according to sources.

The Times adds, “Videos of soldiers shoving people into cars and holding men against their will in recruiting centers are surfacing with increasing frequency ...” and that “the harsh tactics are being aimed not just at draft dodgers but at men who would ordinarily be exempt from service,” including the injured and disabled.

Professors Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko write that the conflict is increasingly seen as a “war fought by the poor.” They note that the government is proposing “coercive measures” that “range from high fines for draft dodging, to seizure of real estate and the freezing of private bank accounts, to the cancellation of passports of Ukrainian refugees abroad.”

Other proposed measures include “increase(ing) the tax burden on individual citizens and small and medium-sized businesses, while social spending will be radically reduced.”

While Zelensky is interested in negotiations, he opposes a “ceasefire” and says it “would only benefit Russia” by allowing it to re-arm and fortify its position. But it would provide the same opportunities to Ukraine. A well-planned ceasefire would include commitments from the United States and European Union to stand against its misuse.

Zelensky’s position is clearly unacceptable to the Russians, just as Putin’s position is unacceptable to Ukraine. But the history of diplomatic negotiations tells us disagreements like these are common at the start of negotiations. Diplomacy exists to resolve such differences.

The American people deserve a truthful accounting of the situation. The Ukrainians deserve an immediate ceasefire backed by balanced, rational pledges of humanitarian and other aid as all parties pursue a diplomatic conclusion to the war.

Tell your senators and member of Congress that you want a rational plan for Ukraine, not a massive giveaway to arms contractors. You can call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

It’s easy: Give the operator your zip code to be connected to your elected officials’ offices. Phone calls make a difference.

1. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

2. Some examples: In March 2022, Defense Secretary Austin said (and Secretary of State Blinken agreed), “We have the mindset that we want to help them win, and we are going to do that.” In April, an anonymous “senior State Department official” told Axios that “our strategy is working. Ukraine is winning. Ukraine will win.”  In June, President Biden said that the Ukrainians “are using (American weapons) so effectively to repel Russian attacks” and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US will “will stand with Ukraine until victory is won.”

3. See, for example:

Defense Secretary Austin: “I think Ukraine will have a very good chance of success.” [03/28/23]
National security adviser Jake Sullivan: “We believe that the Ukrainians will meet with success in this counteroffensive.” [06/04/23]
NATO Secretary General: “I’m confident that when Ukraine decides to launch new operations to liberate more land, Ukraine will be successful.” [4/21/23]
Former CIA Director, Gen. David Petraeus (ret.): "[The Russians] are going to have to withdraw under pressure of this Ukrainian offensive ...  [05/23/23] “I think that this counteroffensive is going to be very impressive.” [06/03/23]
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Ben Hodges: “I actually expect ...that [Ukraine] will be quite successful.” [05/12/23]
British General Richard Dannatt: “[A]fter Kyiv's successful counteroffensive, Putin ‘may be swept out of the Kremlin.’” [03/28/23]

4. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, for example, said this in July 2022: “There are certain capabilities the president has said he is not prepared to provide. One of them is long-range missiles that have a range of 300 kilometers, because he does believe that while a key goal of the United States is to support and defend Ukraine, another key goal is to ensure that we do not end up in a circumstance where we are heading down the road towards a third world war.” (Emphasis mine.) Those missiles arrived in Ukraine last fall and were first used in combat last October.

5. The head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported this month that its inspectors have been denied access to three of the reactors and Russia has not yet provided maintenance plans for 2024. (Ukraine has announced plans to build four new nuclear reactors this year.)

6. The White House made its decision over the objections of human rights groups and other NGOs. Ukraine’s use of these weapons is not only destructive; it is self-destructive. “Unexploded cluster munitions have maimed or killed countless civilians over the last few decades,” said US Rep. Barbara Lee, “including an outrageous number of children.” Human Rights Watch comments that this decision “will exacerbate a humanitarian crisis and break with a widely followed international norm. The move encourages the proliferation of weapons that have been banned by over 120 countries because they endanger civilians both during strikes and for months, years, and even decades afterward.”

7. Today, Marcetic writes, the 130,000 names on the site include activists, foreign politicians, pro-Russian separatists, Orthodox priests, Western celebrities, and even the two hundred-plus passengers who survived the crash of a Russian airliner bound for Crimea in 2019.  The man responsible for this website is Anton Gerashchenko, formerly Zelensky’s Deputy Minister of the Interior. He now runs the ministry’s “Office for Business Protection.”