How to end war

Käthe Kollwitz, "Grieving Parents". 
Roggeveld German Military Cemetary, Vladslo, Belgium

“While nations go to war expecting quick decisive results they habitually find themselves mired in protracted conflict.” (source)

It is almost three years ago that Russia invaded Ukraine, and although Russia expected a quick victory, also in this case the statement just quoted proved to be true: The war has reached a stalemate and, despite slowly moving front lines, no end of the fighting is in sight, nor seems a quick solution possible. Nevertheless, US president Trump thinks that he can end the war within one day. At least, so he said during his presidential campaign. Although this statement doesn’t seem realistic, nevertheless it is a good moment to think about the question how to end the Ukraine-Russia War (and isn’t any moment a good moment for this?). Here I want to mention some problems that make a solution of the conflict difficult, and that certainly will make it difficult to lay the basis for its end in one day.

- No war of this type ends without a truce as a first step to peace. But making a truce is not simply a matter of calling each other and saying “We are both fed up with this war. Let’s stop fighting tomorrow at ten o’clock.” The fighting parties must agree on demarcation lines (what is in my hands, what is in your hands; what if my troops are located behind your troops; etc.). Soldiers must be informed about the truce. Front lines must be disentangled. And certainly in this Ukraine-Russia War, we need a mediator.
- Which country or organisation or person can take the role of mediator? The USA/Trump? The USA is a party in the conflict, but Trump as a person seems to distance himself from the war. Will he really do? Is he acceptable for Russia/Putin? Most likely, he is not. Who will then be an acceptable mediator? China? But till now China has chosen – more or less – the side of Russia. Turkey? But Turkey is a NATO member and supports Ukraine, but on the other hand the country behaves itself often in quite an independent way. Another option is India. India seems to be acceptable for both parties and president Zelensky has asked unofficially India already to play this role.
- Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. That is, then the present phase of the war started, but actually the war began already with the occupation of the Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the fighting in the east of Ukraine and the “independence” of the region since then (followed by its annexation by Russia). As a consequence, there is great distrust between the two countries, especially from the side of Ukraine. So, what we need are so-called confidence-building measures. What should they involve?
- Once negotiations have started, what should the parties talk about, besides of a vague “bringing peace” or “ending the war”? In view of the present military situation, what Russia probably wants is keeping the regions conquered, the withdrawal of the Ukrainian troops from Russian territory, and turning Ukraine into a vassal state. On the other hand, Ukraine will want to have its territory restored, if possible including the return of the Crimea. Moreover, it will not want to have to give up its future membership of NATO and the European Union, which it sees as essential for its security.
- This, security, is maybe the key word of the peace negotiations. In order to avoid another invasion by Russia in future, Ukraine will ask security guarantees. What must such security guarantees involve? That Ukraine will become a NATO member? (unacceptable for Russia) Foreign peacekeeping forces? If so, from which countries? Only a treaty saying that Russia and the USA etc. will guarantee the inviolability of Ukraine’s territory will not be enough. For didn’t Russia, the United States and United Kingdom sign the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, in which these countries formally recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty within its then-existing borders and undertook not to violate them? Even more, they promised to “respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine.”

This short list – and certainly more points can be added, like about the war damage and the war crimes – makes clear that this war cannot be ended in one day and also that it must end in a compromise at the negotiation table. And then, how often hasn’t it happened that such a compromise has been the prelude to a new war. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World and was followed by the Second World War, is a case in point. Nobody is waiting for a new Big European War, which certainly be a Third World War.
As Thania Paffenholz, an expert in international relations, remarks in an interview: “The war goes on until one party feels, ‘If we continue, we will weaken our position’ – or rather ‘What we want is now better achieved at the negotiating table.’ When a conflict reaches this point, we call it ‘ripe for resolution.’ ” The question is: Have we reached that point already? If we would ask the people of Ukraine and Russia, without a doubt the answer would be “yes”. Even more, the war would never have started. However – adapting Ms Paffenholz’s words a little bit – “The current system allows those in power to act like kings in the Middle Ages sending their peasants to war.”