– Miguel Gurrea Ruiz –
The current situation
In February of 2022, the Russian Federation launched an invasion of Ukraine aimed at taking control of the whole country. Thanks to the determination of Ukrainians (and the weapons delivered in time by the US and UK), the operation failed. Ever since, the Russian objective shifted to the annexation of the Donbas region, as well as the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea, if possible.
Fear of nuclear escalation kept the US and its allies from sending more military aid, but it has slowly been proven that Russian red lines were not so. In knowing themselves to be overwhelmingly weaker than the West, they have resorted to psychological war, mainly via nuclear blackmail, to scare Western leaders and mainly their populations. Most experts now agree that these “red lines” should have been crossed before, leading to a more favorable position (even victory) for Ukraine.
The Russian casus belli is mostly propagandistic. Russia is aware that NATO has no intention of initiating wars of aggression, and part of the reason for the war has to do with internal regime security for Putin. For instance, a free and democratic Ukraine on the border, with its many cultural ties to Russia, would convince many Russians that democracy is possible and desirable.
However, not everything in it is false. While the West has embraced an international order based on freedom and the rule of law, the Kremlin still believes in (and would like to enforce) a world of spheres of influence, where major powers have the right to control neighboring territories. EU and NATO advancement, though always peaceful, forever removed countries formerly in the Russian Empire from their sphere of influence. By attacking Ukraine, Russia is challenging the rules-based order, backed mainly by Western powers, which is the main pillar of world peace. If they are allowed to succeed, the credibility of Western powers and the rules-based order would be severely damaged, increasing the likelihood that other expansionist powers will start similar campaigns, and even that Russia will challenge NATO’s article 5 by invading the Baltics, which would be much harder to defend. This would substantially increase the risk of a nuclear escalation.
Moreover, Putin seems to believe that the US has been behind all revolutions since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Be them in Serbia, the Arab Spring and Maidan. He refuses to believe that those were natural reactions from citizens and instead gives credibility to conspiracy theories. Russians have always had a tendency towards paranoia, and this is no exception.
At the end of 2024, the war has long since turned into a war of attrition. Russia keeps advancing, but at the cost of immense casualties. Even greater per square mile gained than in WWI.
The requisites for a solution
The goal should be to achieve a lasting peace, removing as many seeds for future conflict as possible while defending the rules-based order. That should imply leaving both contenders relatively satisfied. These kinds of peace treaties have a substantially higher chance of leading to a lasting peace. Otherwise, resentment will build and likely originate future conflicts. Nevertheless, this must not translate into excessive accommodation that could be taken as weakness. Both resentment and shows of weakness encourage conflict. Strength and restraint encourage lasting peace.
The proposal will be divided into three sections one related to the battlefield, another only to Crimea and the third to Russia’s relations with the West.
The sale of Crimea for 300 billion dollars
Of all the unacceptable demands coming from Russia, the claim of Crimea does not clearly belong to that group. The region, Russian for centuries, was transferred to Ukraine during the time of the Soviet Union in 1954. At the time, the transfer was seen as an internal adjustment within the USSR, the collapse of which was not foreseen by the leadership. It is also true that Russia ratified these borders in the 90s during a moment of weakness, making the annexation in 2014 a clear violation of national sovereignty and international law.
On the one hand, that makes internationally recognizing the new border an indirect condonation of the appropriation of territory by military means, which is why it has not been recognized by most of the international community. On the other hand, Russia will never abandon Crimea. Not only is it strategic, but it is also a symbol of historical national pride. Any attempts to re-take it by military means would be an immense escalation that could result in nuclear escalation. And, at the same time, having it in Russian hands while not recognized by the international community is a seed of conflict.
The way to get past these restrictions is to transfer it by a sale, making it possible for it to be recognized by the international community, including Ukraine. This would eliminate a seed of conflict, make it costly to Russia and give Ukraine much needed funds for its reconstruction.
War reparations are usually a bad idea, especially if they become a burden for the population.
The figure of 300 billion dollars is no coincidence. This is approximately the amount of assets from the Russian Central Bank that are frozen by the international community (mainly the EU) since the start of the war. Since then, the fate of these funds has been a conundrum. Even if a punishment for the invasion of Ukraine, the appropriation of these funds would be theft, and would set a bad precedent for international law. This settlement would resolve the issue.
War reparations are usually a bad idea, especially if they become a burden for the population. Nevertheless, having them be part of a sale would completely change the picture. The international recognition of Crimea as Russian territory is something the Russians did not expect to have, at least in a long time. It would give the Kremlin something to present to their populations as a victory, at the cost of assets the Russian government has done without for years and likely never expected to recover, while giving Ukraine and the West more leeway for demands in other areas. Eliminating the territorial dispute would be stabilizing in the long term.
Finally, NATO should agree to not accept Ukraine, either for a certain amount of decades or until otherwise agreed with Russia. The demilitarization of Ukraine, however, should not be accepted. Ukraine should remain heavily armed, and the possibility of it developing nuclear weapons should not be out of the table.
The settlement on the front
Russia has stipulated that, for a peace settlement, Ukraine must withdraw its military forces from the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, including areas currently under Ukrainian control. Additionally, Russia insists that Ukraine formally abandon its aspirations to join NATO. This is excessive and unacceptable. Accepting these terms would be akin to a surrender, a show of weakness by the West, leading to the consequences mentioned above.
Time and time again, it has been established that power is the only language the Kremlin understands. The war should end with a show of strength by the West, led by the United States, sufficient to deter any further Russian aggression while modest enough to prevent escalation and a humiliation.
The best way to accomplish this is to substantially arm Ukraine, allowing it to launch an offensive to regain territories to the east. This should take a few months to a year, and ideally end with the full re-taking of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. The settlement would leave the occupied section of Donetsk and the entirety of Luhansk under Russian control, but not internationally recognized.
The war should end with a show of strength by the West, led by the United States, sufficient to deter any further Russian aggression while modest enough to prevent escalation and a humiliation.
With the purpose of avoiding escalation, these aims should be made clear to both Russia as well as Ukraine. That Crimea is out of the question and that this is only a show of strength before a peace settlement. The loss of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia could be viewed as a threat to Crimea, but the international recognition of this territory should give enough reassurance to Russia that it is not under threat. The lines should be drawn, when possible, at easily defensible borders, and a cease fire mutually agreed to avoid a situation similar to that lived between 2015-2022. Additionally, residents of the occupied regions who wish to remain Ukrainian should be allowed to sell their homes at market prices and move to Ukraine.
There is a non-zero chance that Russia could resort to a nuclear threat, for instance dropping a nuclear weapon on an empty territory as a warning. However, China has heavily discouraged Russia from any nuclear option, and the West could make credible threats. For instance, a devastating conventional attack on the Russian military, the destruction of the Kerch bridge or even an operation to expel Russia from the Moldovan region of Transnistria. A risk-benefit analysis would most likely persuade the Kremlin of the benefits of accepting the proposed settlement.
Russia would have gained territories in the Donbas compared to 2015-2022. Added to the recognition of Crimea and the restitution of Kursk, the Kremlin could save face to the Russian population, if only barely. At the same time, military analysts around the world would see it for the military catastrophe it is, discouraging similar expansionist moves and keeping the rules-based international order relatively healthy.
Ultimately, the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk could be bargaining chips with a future Russian leadership willing to improve relations with the West.
Relations between Russia and the West
For a decade, Russia has engaged in a hybrid war with the West. This includes cyberattacks, waves of immigrants and, more importantly, disinformation campaigns made to destabilize societies and funding and support of pro-Russian parties. In turn, the West has made Russia the most economically sanctioned country on Earth.
It is vital to transmit to Russia two important messages. On the one hand, that the West wants peace and is more than willing to accept a peaceful Russia into the rules-based order and trade. On the other hand, that continuing aggression and interference with the West’s internal affairs will have severe consequences. The measures proposed are the following:
- A powerful cyberattack that involves critical Russian infrastructure. The purpose of the attack is to send a message of what the US is capable of doing, so it should leave no permanent damage.
- A report should be made demonstrating to the degree possible that the West was not secretly behind the color revolutions or the Maidan with NGOs, the CIA and Soros, as Putin seems to believe. However, it should be suggested that, if Russia continues its hostilities, those complots could start happening.
- Russian interference in western affairs should stop immediately in all forms mentioned above.
- Russia should be politely asked to stop transferring military technology to North Korea.
- Upon compliance, economic sanctions should gradually disappear, with the exception of those directly linked to advanced weaponry.
- Russian gas should flow again towards Germany and other European countries, but only through pipelines going over Ukraine. This would allow Ukraine to charge fees, helping the reconstruction, but also give them the chance to interrupt the flow if they are attacked or threatened. Another effect would be discouraging Germany from growing compliant with Russian aggression.
Miguel Gurrea Ruiz es alumno del máster en Relaciones Internacionales
