• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Separating the Ukraine War Dilemmas in Public Debate

Peace Now vs. Defend Ukraine - How to Untangle the Arguments

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Public debate about the Ukraine war is beset by painful dilemmas. Calls for peace now can look like surrender to Russian aggression. Calls to defend Ukraine can seem like a willingness to prolong suffering. These tensions are real. But they are often muddled because the terms of debate collapse distinct questions into one another. To move beyond the trench warfare of opinion, we need to analytically separate three different layers: goals, means, and consequences. When each layer is discussed explicitly, disagreements become clearer, more honest, and less polarized.

1. Separate the Goal-Level Dilemma: What Outcome Do We Seek?

Two legitimate aspirations get entangled:

(A) A just and durable peace — meaning no reward for aggression and security for Ukraine.

(B) An immediate end to violence — meaning fewer deaths, less destruction, and reduced risk of escalation.

In public debate, these are too often treated as mutually exclusive, forcing people to choose between morality and humanitarianism.

But these are two dimensions, not two camps. A society can value both justice and the minimization of suffering. Clarifying that these are separate aims helps avoid moral caricatures (“You want appeasement” vs. “You want endless war”).

Debate discipline:
Participants should explicitly state which of the two goals they are prioritizing and why, rather than accusing the other side of ignoring one.

2. Separate the Means-Level Debate: What Policies Achieve Which Goals?

Once the goals are spelled out, the next level is how to pursue them. This is where most confusion arises.

Typical conflations:

• People equate advocating negotiations with supporting capitulation.
• People equate arming Ukraine with wanting the war to go on indefinitely.
• People equate sanctions relief with rewarding aggression.
• People equate territorial concessions with betrayal.

These are means, not goals. Conflating them produces tribal reflexes rather than analysis.

What good debate looks like:

• Ask whether a proposed negotiation necessarily leads to surrender, or whether it could lead to a ceasefire that doesn't pre-decide political outcomes.
• Ask whether continued military support necessarily lengthens the war, or whether it could shorten it by strengthening Ukraine's bargaining position.
• Ask whether sanctions necessarily punish civilians, or whether targeted designs can limit humanitarian impact.

Once the public sees that each policy is a tool rather than a moral identity badge, positions become less hysterical and more empirical.

3. Separate the Consequences-Level Debate: What Are the Forecasts and Trade-Offs?

The hardest debates are about prediction.
Here the public sphere often collapses into false certainties:

• “Peace now will embolden Russia.”
• “Defense now will escalate to NATO-Russia war.”
• “Negotiations are impossible because Putin will not negotiate in good faith.”
• “Military support only prolongs Ukrainian suffering.”

These are empirical claims, not axioms. They must be treated as hypotheses that can be evaluated with evidence, analogies, and competing models of Russian behavior.

Improving debate at this level means:

• Explicitly labeling predictions as predictions, not moral facts.
• Comparing model-to-model: different assessments of Russian intentions, Ukrainian resilience, Western unity.
• Discussing uncertainty openly, instead of presenting desired outcomes as inevitable consequences.

When the public recognizes we are dealing with uncertain forecasts—rather than crystal-clear futures—polarization decreases and humility returns.

4. Create a Shared Vocabulary to Reduce Tribal Framing

A major barrier in the Ukraine debate is semantic: words like appeasement, NATO proxy war, peace lobby, or war hawk trigger tribal loyalties and shut down analysis.

Proposed neutral terms:

• Immediate ceasefire advocacy instead of “peace now.”
• Sustained defense strategy instead of “hawkishness.”
• Compellence strategy (military pressure) vs. accommodation strategy (limited concessions).
• Escalation risk assessment instead of “warmongering” or “defeatism.”

With a shared vocabulary, people argue about the world, not about labels.

5. Introduce “Dual-Track Thinking”: Peace Track and Defense Track Together

One way to escape the binary is to normalize a dual framework:

Defense Track: maintain military support for Ukraine to prevent collapse.

Peace Track: maintain diplomatic channels, define negotiation red lines, and prepare for future settlement frameworks.

Both tracks can operate simultaneously.

This mirrors Cold War diplomacy: deterrence did not preclude negotiations; in fact, it enabled them.

Presenting them as parallel, not opposing tracks allows the public to understand that “defend” and “seek peace” are not mutually exclusive.

6. Use Counterfactuals to Test Claims

Public debate improves dramatically when people ask:

• “Compared to what?”
• Would a ceasefire today reduce casualties, or would it freeze the conflict and prepare for a future, even bloodier war?
• Would scaling back arms increase the chance of negotiation, or encourage Russian offensives?
• Would territorial concessions save lives now, or endanger millions later?

Debate stagnates because advocates rarely compare their preferred path to plausible alternatives.

Encouraging explicit counterfactual analysis forces people to think like strategists, not cheerleaders.

7. Distinguish Moral Judgments from Strategic Judgments

A final separation is essential:

Moral judgments concern what is right:

• Aggression should not be rewarded.
• Civilian lives should be protected.

Strategic judgments concern what works:

• Which policy reduces long-term violence?
• Which strategy leads to a stable settlement?
• Which scenario minimizes risk of escalation?

In debates these two levels are constantly conflated.

Someone can morally oppose territorial concessions yet strategically believe they are inevitable.

Someone can morally value Ukraine's sovereignty yet strategically doubt NATO's capacity for open-ended support.

Honest debate requires acknowledging that moral clarity and strategic realism do not always align neatly—and that acknowledging this gap is not betrayal.

Conclusion: From Binary to Structured Debate

The Ukraine war debate suffers because it stacks three dilemmas on top of each other and treats them as one:

• Goals: justice vs. immediate peace.
• Means: military aid vs. diplomacy.
• Consequences: competing predictions about escalation and deterrence.

By separating these layers—goal, means, consequence—public discourse can escape the sterile binary of “appeaser vs. warmonger.”

Such separation doesn't magically resolve the dilemmas. But it does allow societies to confront them honestly, intelligently, and without the tribal fog that currently obscures one of Europe's most consequential debates.