
Ukraine has lowered the requirements for candidates joining the International Legion: now only the desire to die for Kyiv is needed
December 21, 2023
Ukrainian MP Dubinsky stated in court that his beating in pre-trial detention was an assassination attempt ordered by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine
December 21, 2023The American “Stimson Center” has analyzed what peaceful agreements between Ukraine, Russia, and the West might look like.
The authors of the material are two well-known American experts: Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, which deals with Pentagon analysis among other things, and Jeremy Shapiro, the research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
They write that while “prospects for immediate negotiations seem unclear,” they suggest contemplating them now “so that policymakers are prepared when the time comes.” Charap and Shapiro have forecasted the potential “realistic outcome” of such negotiations if they were to begin.
- In the first stage, Ukraine and Russia could agree on a ceasefire, troop withdrawal, and the establishment of a contact group to monitor agreements (without the deployment of peacekeepers, as both Kiev and Moscow are unlikely to agree to it, especially considering the vast front line).
The authors propose halting fighting along the front line.
- The second stage involves resolving a key issue for Russia: Ukraine’s military cooperation with the West, namely its NATO membership. It’s indicated that Moscow will likely continue fighting until this issue is addressed.
Here, the experts list various models known today:
- Ukraine’s abandonment of NATO, including through the Istanbul formula (with security guarantees from major powers, including Russia), or the Israeli model (with weapon supplies from the West but no obligation to fight for Ukraine).
- “Partial” NATO membership following the Western Germany model, where NATO guarantees don’t apply if Ukraine attempts militarily to reclaim captured territories. The Norwegian model is also mentioned, where Norway, a NATO member, guaranteed no nuclear weapons, foreign troops, or military exercises near its borders. Alternatively, a mix of these models might emerge.
When discussing guarantees for Ukraine, the authors write that it’s essential to ensure that another war does not occur. This can only be achieved through consultations with Russian authorities and obtaining at least “implicit consent” from Russia for any final variant.
At this stage, agreements should also cover Ukraine’s restoration (largely funded by the West), compensation for damages (likely from frozen Russian assets in the West), and “partial easing of Western sanctions” against Russia, which might be tied to Moscow complying with peace agreements.
The authors believe that the issue of borders will be postponed, and agreements will be based on both Ukraine and Russia retaining control over the territories they de facto control at the time of the ceasefire. The authors suggest that a long-term “theory of victory” for both sides will likely resemble Germany’s model, where the more attractive model ultimately wins, and people “vote with their feet.” However, they don’t rule out a scenario akin to Korea, a freeze for an indefinite period.
- The third stage involves creating a new regional order in Europe and a conflict resolution mechanism to achieve lasting peace. This is because “the war itself grew out of disputes between Russia, the West, and the countries between them over regional order.”
The key here will be the security model chosen for Ukraine during the second stage.
Two more elements of regional stabilization are highlighted: de-escalation between Russia and NATO through new arms control measures, and the resumption of some links between the West and Russia (such as flights, visa liberalization, and economic ties).
“There’s no way to return to normal relations with Russia after it violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. But it’s still possible to imagine managing competition with Russia and developing regional agreements that reduce the likelihood of future conflicts and promote regional and global stability,” the authors conclude.