Why peace is mutually beneficial and how it can happen
By: David Xiong
In June 2024, world leaders gathered for an unprecedented peace summit in Switzerland. The peace meeting represented a marked shift in stance from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has insisted that Ukraine fight for its rightful territory for as long as needed. Meanwhile, Ukraine has launched a counteroffensive into Russian territory, a move that foreign policy analysts have read as an attempt to gain leverage in future peace talks with Russia. What , though, has suddenly prompted this surprising shift in calculus from Ukraine? What incentives exist for Russia to sign onto such a peace deal?
Arguably, deprecation of public morale has most prominently contributed to Ukraine’s openness to peace. While Ukrainians have been adamant about protecting their territorial integrity, this resoluteness has not translated into an equally enthusiastic support of the war. A recent poll by the Ukrainian Ramzukov think tank illustrated this conundrum: 84% oppose ceding Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia regions to Russia, and 51% of Ukrainians want to see a return to pre-1991 borders, but 46% of the population holds no shame in refusing to be conscripted. This data illustrates the disconnect between Ukrainians’ hopes and the war’s present realities. On the one hand, Ukrainians do not want to cede territory to Russia, yet many, particularly those in the bloodiest war zones, are suffering from fatigue from the war. The dwindling public support for the war has brought criticism from analysts—even from the West— about a lack of sustained efforts toward Ukraine’s peace and stability. As American scholar Mark Episkopos, a Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argues, “Western policymakers fall back on oversimplified, unfounded presumptions about Ukrainian public opinion.”
Ukraine’s Zelensky has read this shift in public opinion, as evidenced by attempts at peace through the recent summit. Though Zelensky did snub Russia, the event brought unprecedented support, including from non-Ukraine allied nations. Zelensky’s decision follows a basic principle: any good, democratic government must follow the will of its people, who have negatively viewed the destructive nature of war.
A map of the most recent Russia-Ukraine war territories. https://www.dw.com/en/ukrainians-say-its-time-for-peace-negotiations-with-russia/a-69696546
Beyond the short-term destructive nature of the war itself, peace benefits Ukraine in the long term. Contrary to conventional opinion, ending the war is not a capitulation to Russia. Most obviously, seeking peace would mitigate the risk of nuclear escalation–a legitimate fear prompted by the current war. A ceasefire would also allow refugees to return to their homeland and stimulate an economic recovery and rebuilding effort that the West could possibly participate in as they did in the Marshall Plan in World War II’s aftermath. The plan would also allow the Ukrainian government to strengthen its democratic institutions by holding their previously delayed elections and rooting out corruption from the oligarchy. In doing so, Ukraine can help rebut the often unwarranted criticism of its corrupt institutions on the global stage.
In spite of Putin’s unpredictability and the difficulty of reaching a consensus on a peace deal, Ukraine can take advantage of Russia’s stronger incentive to end the war due to practical concerns. Parties will understandably fear that Putin will not negotiate in good faith. International nuclear weapons analysts have reached a consensus that Putin acts irrationally, arguing that deterrence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for preventing war. Given that Putin is a war criminal who has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the illegal deportation and displacement of Ukrainian children, negotiating with him would seem like capitulating to the aggressor. Opponents of the peace plan additionally point to past failed appeasement of dictators like Hitler as warning signs. However, Ukraine has an opportunity to leverage its advantageous position in negotiations—created by the dynamic of the current war. Ukraine has pushed back Russian territorial gains through a counteroffensive. Meanwhile, the Russian government is fighting a losing war both on and off the battlefield, as Putin must reckon with Russia’s deteriorating economic situation. Ukraine could easily add its desired preconditions of Russian non-aggression to the deal. If indeed Putin is so power-hungry as many describe, then he has every reason to revive the Russian economy by ending the war.
In fact, the prospect of a Ukraine peace deal is not new. At the war’s beginning, Ukrainian and Russian diplomatic delegations met for a little-known series of negotiations known as the Istanbul Communique. Negotiators can learn certain lessons from the Istanbul Communique—that nearly ended the war—including a peace provision that would effectively make Ukraine a buffer zone by having Russia, Turkey, and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, sign on as signatories to a security guarantee. Negotiators had yet to work out certain minutiae, and the offer surprised countries like the United States. Unfortunately, these negotiations ultimately failed. Foreign policy experts have offered multiple explanations for this failure—the most prominent sticky point being the security guarantee, mainly because many countries like the US were not very accustomed to this idea. In other words, a lot of the reservations related more to perception rather than the deal’s substance. Because this deal was offered previously, though, the US will no longer perceive it as an impractical idea without previous precedent. Thus, the Communique provides a positive starting point for future negotiations.
At the end of the day, no one can deny the following: Putin is a war criminal, Russia-Ukraine tensions seem irreconcilable, and more soldiers and civilian casualties occur at the hands of gunshots each day. With such an intense political environment, peace may seem impossible, or even naive. Yet, numerous factors from both parties justify a push for peace. Most obviously, Putin cannot hold onto power with the deteriorating Russian economic situation. Even Volodymyr Zelensky sees that peace talks may be in Ukraine’s interests sometime soon— as evidenced by his peace summits—and the previous communications between the two countries provide just a glimmer of hope that the bloodshed of this long war can end.
Leave a Reply