“Bucha after Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Zelensky 3” by Oleksandr Ratushniak is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Introduction
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is into its second year without signs of a clear outcome, and a peaceful resolution grows increasingly urgent. As both sides of the struggle trade body counts and unimaginable horrors, the search for a sustainable resolution should be a pressing global concern.
Negotiating an endgame is not easy as both parties find themselves in a stalemate, each with its own set of demands and grievances. However, a negotiated settlement is essential to prevent further bloodshed. There is a compelling case for political settlements and peace agreements as viable mechanisms to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. By understanding the intricacies involved in any potential negotiations, it is possible to gain insights into how a lasting peace might be achieved, moving beyond the cycle of violence and toward a brighter future for Ukraine.
Apparent stalemate
After nineteen months of fighting, the Ukraine conflict has settled into a stalemate, and resolution has been elusive. The standoff provides two options. On one side, the Biden administration favors a weapons-leaning approach, encouraging Ukraine to seek a military victory while delaying negotiations with Russia as much as possible. This option has led to more death and destruction, increased defense budgets, global economic ramifications and little in the way of measurable results. The alternative is the pursuit of a conference-room settlement, which would require negotiating between combatants rather than pounding each other militarily. Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas W. Freeman Jr. says it is time to save as much of Ukraine as is possible, adding, “Ukraine needs diplomatic backing to craft a peace with Russia if its military sacrifices are not to have been in vain.”
A political settlement must include the suspension of hostilities, a resolution of the conflict through political means that addresses the needs of the warring factions, possible reconciliation and a new architecture of pan-European security. Any proposal must also consider Ukraine’s fundamental demands, including sovereignty and territorial integrity. The challenge, however, lies in addressing regions already annexed by Russia, including the bordering peninsula of Crimea and the four Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. All this must square with Russia’s stated security concerns about Western encroachment.
Peace agreements can terminate conflicts but are not always effective. Since the end of World War II, the world has witnessed more than 230 intrastate armed conflicts. During the Cold War, negotiated peace agreements ended 12% of intrastate conflicts, while 54% were resolved through military victories.
Without a robust implementation process, post-conflict programs, and regional and international support, many countries relapse into conflict. Because of the fragile nature of peace agreements, post-conflict collapses cause nearly half of all civil war relapses.
Achieving a successful agreement is a complex process that requires careful negotiation, trust-building and a deep understanding of the underlying issues at play.
Background of the Russia-Ukraine conflict
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has its roots in a long history of political, cultural and economic tensions. The administration of the region of Crimea, which was historically part of Russia, was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. This move sparked discontent among the ethnically Russian population in Crimea, which felt a cultural and historical connection to Russia. Over the years, tensions simmered beneath the surface, eventually evolving into a full-blown conflict in 2014.
Ukraine’s political landscape was deeply divided, with protests erupting in Kyiv’s Maidan Square against then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to reject a European Union proposal in favor of closer ties with Russia. The protests, known as the Euromaidan Uprising, ultimately led to Yanukovych’s ousting in February 2014.
No more than 24 hours after a U.S.-backed coup put into place an anti-Russian authority in Kyiv in 2014, the U.S. government recognized Ukraine’s new ministry. Russia subsequently annexed Crimea, and the civil war that followed saw the United States back Ukrainian ultranationalists, whose policies caused a rift with Russian-speaking secessionists in Crimea. The conflict escalated when Russia, in response to the political turmoil in Ukraine, decided to support separatist movements in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The U.S., EU and NATO then invested billions of dollars to reform, instruct and arm Ukraine’s military. This led to the protracted and violent conflict of today, with thousands of lives lost and significant damage to infrastructure and the economy. Numerous attempts to bring the combatants to the table have been made since then, but for naught.
The involvement of external actors often complicates the negotiation process and can lead to a lack of consensus among the combatants. The warring parties strapped in conflict often have divergent interests and deep-seated grievances difficult to reconcile. In addition, actors such as Russia and Western powers, often have their own agendas and interests in the region.
Negotiators also must navigate the delicate balance between pursuing a political settlement and responding to demands for criminal justice. Research reveals the simultaneous pursuit of both in the absence of a clear military victory can lead to prolonged conflicts. One potential approach to mitigate this is to prioritize political reform and juridical reconciliation over criminal proceedings in order to provide negotiated settlements the opportunity to take hold. Typically, this process commences with a negotiated ceasefire followed by settlement discussions. Issues related to transitional justice may either be integrated into this process or treated as a distinct track, separate from the primary negotiated agreement among the warring parties.
Possible international mediators
In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, international actors play a crucial role in peace negotiations. Among candidates capable of facilitating negotiations, three come to mind.
The United Nations is one such entity. The body has been actively involved in peace efforts around the world, providing a platform for dialogue and mediation. The UN could serve as an impartial broker of peace between Ukraine and Russia due to its longstanding commitment to conflict resolution and diplomacy. It has a history of mediating in international conflicts and promoting peaceful solutions, making it a credible and neutral party to promote and expedite negotiations.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, consisting of 57 participating states, is the world’s largest regional security agency and another candidate for brokering peace between Ukraine and Russia. It has a well-established track record of conflict mediation and diplomatic engagement across the continent. OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security and its commitment to fostering dialogue between nations proves that it has the ability and experience for such a task.
The country of Norway also has a history of mediating in various international conflicts, including the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its reputation as a neutral and peaceful nation, along with its commitment to diplomacy and conflict resolution, makes it a suitable and relatively honest broker to facilitate peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.
The above list is by no means exhaustive, but until others with the ability and authority to set aside personal and political differences come to the table, the three parties above are best equipped to offer an out from the fighting.
A place for all
The road to peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is intricate, but there are valuable lessons to be gleaned from prior peace initiatives. One such lesson is the importance of inclusivity and representation in the negotiation process. Ensuring all relevant stakeholders are included in negotiations and that their interests and concerns are taken into account is crucial for a successful resolution. Marginalized groups, civil society organizations and other key actors in the region must be considered in all scenarios.
Sustained, consistent international support for peace building efforts must be in place. Peace agreements are not a one-time event but an ongoing process that requires continuous attention and support. International actors must be committed to providing the necessary resources, expertise and political will to sustain peace building efforts in the long term.
Conclusion
The conflict in Ukraine requires a political and diplomatic resolution not a military one. Insisting on decisive military victory only prolongs the conflict without a clear end in sight. Peace is not only important to the region but also to international stability and security.
A political settlement that transcends the zero-sum concept of a victor’s peace is more attainable in the quest for enduring peace within divided societies where absolute military victory is unattainable. To achieve long-term peace, a sequential approach should be adopted, commencing with a viable ceasefire, and progressing to a negotiated agreement, even if it involves only the elites.
The Russia-Ukraine war has already exacted a heavy toll on both sides; a settlement cannot come too soon. It is time for the warring parties, with the support of the international community, to prioritize dialogue over destruction and embark on the challenging yet promising journey toward lasting peace.
In the pursuit of peace in Ukraine and Russia, embracing a political settlement and peace agreement provides a pragmatic, humane and historically validated approach to the end of hostilities. History shows these diplomatic solutions have the power to end violence, foster reconciliation and pave the way for a more peaceful future.
Dr. Christopher Zambakari, MBA, MIS, LP.D.
Founder & CEO, The Zambakari Advisory
Hartley B. and Ruth B. Barker Endowed Rotary Peace Fellow
Assistant Editor, Bulletin of The Sudan Studies Association