Debating the war in Ukraine: In defense of the conventional wisdom

This essay responds to Gerard Toal’s arguments on the possibilities for diplomacy in the war in Ukraine. I suggest that Toal is correct in identifying current debate about policy options as less open-ended and wide-ranging than it could be, and than it should be. I do, however, contend that Toal minimizes the extent to which major figures in the field of foreign-policy analysis have advocated a negotiated settlement to the war. Continuing with this point, my response to Toal is that a negotiated settlement to the conflict has been impossible to find (so far) not because of the limited debates that are being held within the governments and among experts in the West but because Russia began the war with a set of radical aims - revolving around the evisceration of Ukrainian nationhood - and that these aims are still in effect. It would in theory be possible to accommodate these aims through negotiation - and through concessions - but this would amount to something like the piecemeal surrender of Ukraine to Russian control. I conclude by endorsing the conventional wisdom among Western policy makers, which is that Ukraine should be supported militarily for the long haul.