A possible solution to Russia-Ukraine war

Russia-Ukraine war: A historic devastation

The Russia-Ukraine war, now one of the most devastating conflicts in recent history, has resulted in immense human suffering, economic disruption, and geopolitical instability.

As the war carries on, the question arises: can a solution be found that ends the bloodshed while preserving the dignity of both warring sides?

One potential framework for resolution involves creating a temporary buffer zone in the contested territories, balancing Russian security concerns with Ukrainian sovereignty.

While there’s nothing wholly new about it, this proposal could offer both sides a practical yet face-saving way to halt the conflict.

If presented by a neutral party or an influential mediator, such as US President-Elect Donald Trump, who has expressed interest in ending the war, it may gain enough momentum to lead to meaningful negotiations.

The proposal

The key elements of the proposal could include:

1. Buffer Zone protecting the interests of both sides: The Ukrainian regions currently under Russian occupation would be designated as the buffer zone. Russia would maintain military oversight to address its security concerns. Ukraine would retain civilian administration, ensuring its sovereignty over the region. Other details have to be worked out.
2. Interim Period for Negotiations: This arrangement would last for 1–5 years (to be discussed and agreed upon), serving as a cooling-off period, while the two nations negotiate a longer-term solution. International monitors, such as those from the UN, would oversee compliance by both sides.
3. NATO Non-Membership Clause: Ukraine would commit not to seek NATO membership for 99 years (by which time geopolitics would have changed so much that this agreement should not matter), directly or indirectly. In return, Ukraine would receive legally binding security guarantees. The UN and the major global powers to ensure compliance to both these assurances by all concerned.
4. Economic Restoration and Cooperation: Trade routes would be reopened, and joint reconstruction initiatives would begin under international supervision. Reconstruction funds, backed by global powers, would be used to rebuild damaged infrastructure and stabilize the economy.
5. Confidence-Building Measures: Initiatives such as prisoner exchanges, cessation of hostilities, and the removal of landmines should build trust.

Why this proposal deserves consideration

The proposal seeks to strike a balance between Russian and Ukrainian demands, offering both sides a dignified way to de-escalate:

1. For Russia: Military oversight of the buffer zone should provide a face-saver to claim it has achieved its security objectives without outright annexation. The NATO non-membership clause should address Russia’s core concern about possible Western/ NATO encroachment.
2. For Ukraine: Civilian governance should offer a face-saver that Ukraine’s sovereignty over the buffer zone is not entirely compromised. Binding international security guarantees should offer Ukraine protection without relying on NATO membership.
3. For the Global Community: Stabilizing the region would reduce global energy prices, ease food shortages (over time), and mitigate the economic impact of the war. A resolution would reduce the risk of further escalation involving NATO and Russia, potentially averting a global conflict, a world war or even a nuclear war.

Challenges to implementation

Despite its potential, this proposal is not without challenges that must be addressed to make it viable:

1. Deep-Seated Mistrust: A long period of conflict, accusations of war crimes, and broken agreements from both sides have left both sides skeptical of each other’s intentions. Effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms will be critical to building trust.
2. Political Backlash: In Ukraine, some may view the proposal as rewarding Russian aggression and compromising Ukraine’s national sovereignty. In Russia, some may see the plan as an incomplete victory that falls short of their goals. In fact, this perception of almost equal levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction on both sides is what should work in favour of this proposal.
3. Complexity of Enforcement: Ensuring Russia, Ukraine, and NATO respect their promises as part of the agreement would not be easy and would require robust international guarantees. Any violations could derail the agreement and reignite the conflict. The UN and the countries not directly impacted should monitor and ensure that no such derailing is allowed to happen.
4. Geopolitical Sensitivities: NATO and Western allies may be hesitant to endorse a plan that limits Ukraine’s long-term security options. Non-alignment with NATO could leave Ukraine vulnerable, despite security guarantees, but this constraint was always there.

On the other hand, giving back administrative control of the captured Ukraine territories in good faith could work against the interests of Russia if Ukraine and NATO nations go back on their promises as part of the agreement.

But given Trump’s call to halt the war, both sides should realize that there may be no other options. Having painted themselves to corners, the current opportunity provides a way out for both Russia and Ukraine.

The role of neutral mediators

For this proposal to gain traction, it may be presented by one or more neutral and respected mediators. US President-Elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called for an end to the war, could serve as one such mediator. His willingness to take bold, unconventional steps might allow him to broker an agreement that other leaders cannot.

Additionally, countries like India, Turkey, and Switzerland, known for their neutral stances, could act as co-mediators to build trust and ensure balance in the negotiations.

Addressing Public Concerns and Building Support

1. In Russia and Ukraine: The respective leaders must communicate transparently with their citizens about the benefits of peace and the compromises involved. UN bodies, grassroots organizations, and civil society groups can foster reconciliation and reduce public resistance.
2. In the Global Arena: At least most of the international community must unite behind the proposal, providing incentives for compliance and consequences for violations. A united front would increase pressure on both sides to negotiate in good faith.

How the proposal aligns with Trump’s vision

Trump’s interest in ending the war aligns with this proposal’s goals:

1. For the US: Reducing military aid to Ukraine, weaning Russia away slowly from the current grip of China, stabilizing global markets, and reasserting the Numero Uno position of the US in geopolitics would be politically and economically rewarding. Trump could even stand a good chance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, alone or along with the other key people involved in arriving at the settlement.
2. For Russia and Ukraine: Trump’s bold diplomacy could lend credibility to the plan, appealing to both sides as a neutral solution.

Trump’s support would help both Russian and Ukrainian economies rebuild themselves.

Conclusion: A pragmatic path forward

Ending the Russia-Ukraine war requires an innovative approach that balances the needs and concerns of all parties.

While the buffer zone proposal is ambitious and imperfect, it offers a good starting point for dialogue and de-escalation.

Details have to be worked out, but since its various aspects have already been discussed on many occasions by both sides with the involvement of many experts in the last 2+ years (including in my own previous articles,[1],[2]), it should be possible to iron out the details quickly.

Its success depends on the willingness of all the parties to compromise, the involvement of credible mediators, and robust international support.

Though the road ahead is fraught with challenges, the potential rewards – a renovated and stable Ukraine, a secure Russia, and a peaceful world – make this proposal worth pursuing.

In geopolitics, even the wildest ideas can sometimes lead to breakthroughs. The buffer zone proposal, if presented and negotiated effectively, could be the first step toward a lasting peace.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

References:

[1] Can the Russia – Ukraine war be ended soon? – Apr 18, 2022, PGurus.com

[2] Can Indian PM Modi Ji mediate in the Russia-Ukraine war? – Feb 27, 2022, PGurus.com

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post A possible solution to Russia-Ukraine war appeared first on PGurus.