The weak justification for an early peace in the Russia-Ukraine war

• Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
• the Robert Schuman Centre Seminar Series

In this RSC Seminar Series, Professor Veronica Anghel will argue that none of the major International Relations schools of thought can logically justify an end to the Russia-Ukraine War that includes even a partial Russian occupation.

The Russia-Ukraine war presents NATO and the Global West with a new set of challenges that impact its goals in the realm of human security as stated in the new Strategic Concept. To achieve these objectives, it is crucial for NATO to strike a balance between advocating for peace, protecting human lives, supporting attacked democracies, and defending threatened Eastern European allies. Under which logic can Ukraine’s decision to continue fighting or NATO’s decision to support Ukraine’s war effort be considered detrimental to the economic, political or security interests of the Global West? In other words, what world view can justify Western led calls for peace before a complete withdrawal of Russian forces? 

In this seminar, Professor Veronica Anghel will answer these questions and apply the most important international relations (IR) analytical filters to analyse whether the decision to negotiate for an unjust peace is defensible according to the internal logic of these theories. She will argue that none of the major IR schools of thought can justify Western support for an end to the Russia-Ukraine War that includes even a partial Russian occupation.