Episode Summary
Executive Summary: A live Intelligence Squared debate examines how the war in Ukraine might end. The panel agrees Russia’s invasion has no legitimate justification, but diverges on endpoints: Anne Applebaum and Alessia Kromachuk argue peace requires a Russian defeat or major internal change plus real security guarantees for Ukraine, while Max Hastings stresses Western rearmament, skepticism about absolute victory, and the likelihood that wars end in negotiations.
Main Topics: No justification for Russia’s invasion (Priority: 5/5): All four panellists give an unequivocal 'no' when asked whether Putin’s invasion has any legitimate justification, setting a clear moral baseline for the discussion. How wars end: defeat, negotiation, or internal Russian change (Priority: 5/5): Applebaum and Kromachuk argue the war ends only when Russia recognizes it was a mistake or is forced to change course; Hastings says wars typically end in conversation and doubts outright victory; Figes sees only a much deeper political rupture in Russia as a path to peace. Western support and military aid (Priority: 5/5): Hastings criticizes Europe and Britain for doing too little while praising U.S. ammunition expansion; Kromachuk says Ukraine has repeatedly asked for weapons, air defense, and jets with dangerous delays. Security guarantees for Ukraine (Priority: 5/5): A major theme is what guarantees could prevent Russia from restarting the war. NATO membership or equivalent binding guarantees are described as the 'gold standard' needed for refugees, investment, and long-term safety. Crimea as a decisive flashpoint (Priority: 4/5): Applebaum suggests any decisive Russian defeat may need to involve Crimea, while Figes warns Crimea is central to Russian imperial and nationalist identity and could trigger escalation; Kromachuk stresses Crimea’s military and humanitarian importance. Nuclear blackmail and escalation risk (Priority: 4/5): The panel debates whether Moscow’s nuclear threats are credible. Kromachuk argues appeasement has only encouraged escalation, while Hastings says Washington has made clear tactical nuclear use would be catastrophic, though doubts remain about what Putin absorbs. Memory, propaganda, and misconceptions about Ukraine (Priority: 4/5): Kromachuk and Applebaum criticize Western underestimation of Ukraine, forgetting the 2014 start of the war and the eight years of fighting before 2022, and highlight Russia’s propaganda and historical myths as sustaining the conflict.
Key Arguments: The invasion has no legitimate justification; every panelist rejects it outright. Anne Applebaum argues the war ends only when there is a change inside Russia and the Kremlin concludes the war was a costly mistake. Max Hastings says the practical endpoint may still be a negotiation, because absolute military victory is unlikely even with more weapons. Hastings insists the West, especially Europe and Britain, has not provided enough ammunition or replacements, despite public claims of strong support. Alessia Kromachuk says anything short of full restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders is merely a pause that prolongs war. Kromachuk also argues Ukraine needs justice and accountability, not just territory, and points to the ICC arrest warrant as evidence that wartime accountability can be pursued. Orlando Figes argues Putin’s regime is increasingly militarized and secure, making regime change unlikely; he believes only a deeper revolution in Russia could bring peace. Figes says Crimea is so central to Russian imperial/nationalist thinking that no Russian establishment would easily accept losing it. The panel broadly agrees that Ukraine needs binding security guarantees, with NATO-like protection presented as the only credible long-term deterrent. The discussion repeatedly returns to Western underestimation of Ukraine in 2022 and the need to recognize Ukrainian resilience and battlefield innovation. Kromachuk argues that Russian nuclear threats have been rewarded by appeasement and that continued pressure is the only way to stop blackmail. Hastings frames the broader lesson as historic: Western governments must rearm for a long struggle, not act as if the conflict is temporary.
Data Points: Start of conflict: 2014 - Panel notes the war began with Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, not only with the 2022 full-scale invasion. Full-scale invasion: February 2022 - Referenced as the escalation point that followed the earlier war starting in 2014. Ukraine’s early resistance prediction: 72 hours - Kromachuk recalls Western predictions that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours. Territory regained by Ukraine: around 50% - Kromachuk says Ukrainian forces had regained about half of the territory occupied since 24 February 2022. Death anniversary: 6 years - Kromachuk reads a personal extract marking the sixth anniversary of her brother Volodya’s death in action in 2017. Brother’s death year: 2017 - Her reading describes receiving news of her brother’s death in the Luhansk region. Russian retreat examples: Kherson, Kharkiv region, Kyiv - Applebaum notes Russian withdrawals from these areas were explained away by Moscow as intentional or humanitarian. Western support example: 14 Challenger tanks - Hastings criticizes Britain for sending only 14 Challenger tanks as insufficient. U.S. production increase: quadruple ammunition production in 2 years - Hastings cites a U.S. plan to expand munitions output as a serious response to the war.
Pivotal Quotes: "Absolutely not." — Alessia Kromachuk: Her answer to whether Putin’s invasion has any legitimate justification. "The war is over when there is a change inside Russia." — Anne Applebaum: Her central thesis on what would actually end the conflict. "It’s a mark of shame that our government to this day has still not ordered replacements for all the munitions that have been sent to Ukraine." — Max Hastings: His criticism of Britain and broader European underinvestment in the war effort.
Implications: The debate frames Ukraine’s endgame as dependent on sustained military aid, credible security guarantees, and Russian political will breaking under defeat. It also warns that half-measures and appeasement risk freezing the war rather than ending it.