Future Peace Deal Between Russia and Ukraine

 

 

A recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine by Anatol Lieven (August 27, 2024) highlights for me the deep cleft between how the Russian elite see a future peace deal and how Ukraine and its supporters.  Lieven, who has connexions into the Russian establishment, asked various high placed people what they see as a realistic path toward peace.  It seems that they all presume that Russia will keep what it occupies, that “a friendly regime” will be installed in Kyiv, and that Ukraine will be neutral (i.e., not in NATO).  Some even suggest a further buffer zone into Ukrainian territory along the demarcation line.  Their idea is that, while Ukraine would not be expected to recognize Russian annexations (something that Russia’s “Global South” partners in BRICS and beyond would not support, apparently), after enough decades, the matter would be forgotten by the global community and become a de facto reality, such as the Turkish Cypriot Republic established by Turkey through force of arms on Cyprus in the 1970’s.  At the same time, none of these people claimed to speak for Putin or to know what he was thinking.  They said he was ultimately a pragmatist.

 

My thoughts:

 

1) Be suspicious of all communications coming out of the Kremlin or from the circles around Putin!  Everything has a propagandistic purpose.  No one in that environment shares their real thoughts.  Rather than being a window on the personal opinions of Kremlin insiders, this set of interviews is a way for the Kremlin to get its actual negotiating points out.  By the same token, it is designed to convince anyone reading, that there is no point in fighting further because Russia will simply keep what it has, no matter the official or technical language around it.  It is also noteworthy that the envisioned future deal would be agreed upon, not only in the Security Council of the United Nations, but in BRICS—essentially a bid to give legitimacy to an alternate forum where Russia can have more leverage.

 

2) If “the West” or the United Nations, and thus, the global community, were to accept such a deal it would,

a) nullify the principle of the inviolability internationally recognized borders,

b) endorse the idea that one country can make territorial and/or historical claims on another country, and if they have the military might, to act on it, trusting in the world to stand by and let it happen,

thus c) unleashing a wave of landgrabs and attempts to retake territories held long ago.

 

3) Furthermore, for Ukraine to be forced to abandon its aspirations for membership in NATO and install a government of Moscow’s choosing would say that larger, more powerful neighbouring countries get to decide the shape of their smaller neighbour’s politics and foreign policy.  Sovereignty would become the exclusive domain of the militarily powerful; all others would become dependencies.  For all of Russia’s disparaging of former western colonial powers, the world that Russia is trying to make for itself essentially reinvigorates colonialism and "gunboat diplomacy".

 

4) While those interviewed insisted that their version of peace would be the final word, that too is propaganda.  If Russia can get away with taking 30% of Ukraine’s territory and gain global acceptance of it, then, rest assured, when they have rebuilt their military capacity, they will be back for the rest.  Failing that, they will use every subversive tool at their disposal to put a pro-Moscow administration in power in Kyiv, which will ultimately, like the one now in power in Tblisi, Georgia, enact laws to cement the country into Moscow’s orbit, regardless of the will of the people.  (Remember, the Georgian Dream Party came into power on promises of joining Europe, but it is financed by an oligarch client of Putin's who unilaterally overturned those promises and is fast-tracking enmeshment with Moscow.)  Self-determination is not a principle in Kremlin thought, only “our determination.”  With Russian success in this realm, expect both Georgia and Ukraine to become copies of Belarus.

 

No, the only hope for a lasting peace is to smash Russia’s capacity to wage war.  Western drip feeding of ammunition and weapons systems, and western limits on the use of long-range capacity being delivered by the west has severely hamstrung Ukraine’s ability to wage the kind of defence it really needs to.  I am heartened by the fact that the Ukrainian defence industry is now coming out with its own long-range weapons which they can make in whatever quantities they can swing (financially, logistically, etc.) and fire as far into Russia to destroy military assets as the technology permits.

 

The best thing for the world would be a defanged, declawed Russia.  (Perhaps, in a twist of ironic justice, we could offer them security guarantees).  The people and elites of that vast land might then have the opportunity to learn—as did Germany and Japan after World War II—that greatness need not come from military power, but can also come from economic innovation and prowess, pride in culture, and engaging constructively for peace and development in the world.