Forcing Ukraine to cede its territories will set a dangerous precedent
Dhanuka Dickwella
‘Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict—alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence’
―Dorothy Thompson
When the means of European peace funds become purchasing weapons, when providing weapons is interpreted as the way for an end to a conflict, when those who sue for peace are branded as disruptors, when the conflicting parties are adamant about having a pound of flesh, when external players have a bigger skin in the game than those who are actually fighting, it is only a nightmare to even suggest a solution for a conflict in the magnitude of Ukraine. The fundamental reality is that no resolution could be perfect, or a fit-for-all sizes type of solution to this exists. The compromises, sacrifices, and injury to pride are unavoidable costs that will have to be borne by the warring parties. Against that backdrop, a nouvelle effort to find a solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is sought in this article.
The objectives of Moscow and Kyiv in the current war are polar opposites. The idea of ceding land for peace has now been floated by all stakeholders involved to silence the guns. From Washington to Brussels, Moscow to Kyiv this idea has been gaining traction. Russia has even mentioned which of those lands are up for grabs. But is there any justification to have peace for the land of a sovereign country however you twist its history? Russia’s demand of forcing Kyiv to cede its sovereign territories will set a terrible precedent for every future conflict. The world is full of such conflicts as well as flashpoints from East to the West which will demand pursuing the same modality of conflict resolution. Is there a way out of this quagmire of a solution? Can Ukraine retain its territories while considering Russian core demands of security? There seems a way around it which has an economic and security aspect.
In a realist approach, as a big power, the Russian need for strategic depth and the respect for its sphere of influence is understandable. The remaining non-Nato, non-European Union (EU) post-Soviet spaces are its soft underbelly that Russia sees as vital for its national interest. Moscow has shown its willingness to take extreme measures to quell any disruptions in those territories. To keep those spaces sans the undue influence of external players with ulterior motives, Russia has created two modalities. Those two integration models for its post-Soviet member states are twofold—economic and security. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) serves the economic domain while the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) takes care of the security aspect.
The EAEU has been steadily growing with global players entering into free trade agreements with the block. The newly unveiled communication lines, and trade routes that connect Asia with Europe function as alternatives to the Suez Canal route. With the expansion of BRICS and India becoming a key energy partner of Russia, this route’s vitality, value, and capacity will keep growing. This is where the solution for Ukraine lies.
Instead of sacrificing its sovereign regions which amounts to 20 per cent of its lands, Ukraine could opt for economic integration with Russia. The economic segment is that Ukraine decided to be fully integrated into Russia-led EAEU and plays as the connector partner with the EU. There is a price for this economic integration Russia has to pay. If Ukraine is to join this organisation, Russia should agree to withdraw from all the Ukraine territories that it has captured and occupied. Ukraine could become the hub of trade between the EU and EAEU economies. A Ukrainian-based EU-EAEU council could be formed to manage this trade. Ukraine could prosper with this unique connector economy while retaining its sovereign lands. For the Russians, this integration makes both economic and political sense since it does not have to worry about colour revolutions or what political modality Ukraine follows. Whether it’s Western democracy or otherwise, Russia has its sphere of influence respected and protected.
As for the security option, Ukraine does not join any military organisation but becomes an observer and partner state of both Nato and CSTO. Neither Russian nor any other military base or training centre is established in Ukrainian territory. Kyiv gets to participate both in Nato and CSTO-led exercises to improve the quantitative aspect of its armed forces. As an experienced combat-tested force, they could very well take part as UN Peacekeepers worldwide. As for weapons, Ukraine does not import or buy weapons of Russian or Western origin. The local industry produces its defensive weapons and weapons for international markets. On a further note on security guarantee, both Russian CSTO and Nato could declare the immediately adjacent land bordering Ukraine as DMZs. Heavy weapons and military installments could be withdrawn from those zones on a mutually agreed term both on Russian, Belarussian, and Nato territories. This could further reduce the tension between Nato and Moscow.
As for Crimea, a long-term discussion would be required. Until such times that a solution is found, Russia could be asked to jointly share the tourism revenues as well as revenues from the Crimean-based product exports.
A UN-led empowered secretariat could be established in Kyiv with a fair representation of both global south and north members to address issues such as reconciliation, reconstruction, war crimes, repatriations, language issues, and resettlements. No one party should be given undue influence and have an exceptionalism in this body.
While no solution is perfect and not every party can be made happy in the end, one must realize that the continuation of the conflict brings nothing other than death and destruction. No amount of weapons, manpower, or technology could alter the balance of power in this theatre. This model is just a suggestion that could probably be based as a format to spearhead a future peace process without sacrificing Ukranian sovereignty.