Excellent debate on the Ukraine war between realism and freedom.
The question posed to the audience was badly formulated – “ending the war starts with acknowledging Russia’s security interests”.
In essence both sides accept the proposition.
Everybody agrees that we must strive to end the war as soon as possible.
The discusion then is about what are these interests? Can we define them with certitude? Where do they stop being legitimate?
The realists are two prominent academics of this school of thought – John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
On the other side (non realists?) two debaters who held office and took part in negotiations with Russia – Michael McFaul, ex Ambassador to Russia, and Radoslaw Sikorsky, ex Foreign Minister of Poland.
Curiously I feel the academic realists come out as wishful thinkers about “Russia’s security interests” that would allow for an end to the war – a neutral, no Nato Ukraine within its pre-February 24 borders.
In practical terms this wishful thinking would simply lead to appeasement.
The other side’s main point is there is no clear definition of “Russia’s security interests”, it depends on the ruler of the moment.
What has been happening since the debate seems to support their views. Putin does not seem to settle for what the realists said. He wants more. This doesn’t seem to be about simply Ukraine’s defense neutrality status.
Great closing remarks from Sikorsky, with a joke poles used when they were under the Soviet Union – “a secure borders for the Soviet Union is a border with soviet soldiers on both sides”.