Paths to Peace

24.02.2024

Two years after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which was essentially an escalation of a Ukrainian civil war in the east of the country, there is no end in sight. But every war must be waged with the aim of ending it. To achieve this, unrealistic war goals must not be formulated. There could have been peace as early as March 2022 following mediation by Turkey. But the USA prevented that. Afterwards, the country was overwhelmed with unimaginable suffering. The many victims of the war and the considerable destruction were avoidable.

Western politicians' demands that Russia lose the war and also return Crimea to Ukraine were unrealistic from the begin. She overlooked the fact that Russia is a nuclear power and that the port of Sevastopol is essential for the Black Sea Fleet and the security of Russia's southern border. In an emergency, the peninsula would also be defended with nuclear weapons, and a possible response from NATO could very quickly lead to a nuclear attack on the US bases in Ramstein and Wiesbaden, i.e. to World War III. This can only be prevented with a victory for Russia or with a negotiated peace. The latter is necessary to put an end to the suffering.

On October 19, 2022, the author, as a Russia expert, developed an idea about a “Korean solution” in a radio interview with “Kontrafunk”, which was based on a publication in the Austrian blog tkp.at. Ukrainian sources had previously accused Western politicians of working on such a solution. In return, there were comments in the Russian media that the location of the 38th parallel in Ukraine had to be determined first. But this discussion took place before NATO armed Ukraine and long before the 2023 offensive, which failed completely. Independent military experts and retired generals in various publications say the war has long been lost for Ukraine. The idea of an unconditional ceasefire and a freeze of the war along the lines of the Korean War are no longer an option for Russia and are therefore no longer relevant.

It can also be concluded from US journalist Tucker Carlson's interview with the Russian President that Russia is now patiently waiting for Ukraine to collapse. There are currently complaints about a lack of ammunition and the Ukrainian army has been decimated by the failed offensive. She is no longer able to recruit enough new soldiers. This situation is still being overshadowed by the presidential election campaign in the USA. The current president can still blame his predecessors for the US defeat in Afghanistan. However, the Ukraine War fell entirely within his term of office. His predecessor and likely opponent claimed that he would have prevented this war. If NATO had clearly rejected Ukraine's membership in the alliance, the war could actually have been prevented at the end of 2021, and Donald Trump would probably have supported such a rejection. A Ukrainian defeat before November 2024 would probably ultimately prevent Joe Biden from being re-elected. Against this background, he would have to convince the Republicans in the House of Representatives with major concessions to approve the military aid he has requested for Ukraine.

After the interview with Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin, when asked by a journalist, said that he would prefer Joe Biden as US President to Donald Trump. Biden is a traditional politician who certainly wants to prevent a nuclear war. Trump, on the other hand, would be unpredictable. Russia will therefore only use a major offensive to ensure a rapid collapse of Ukraine if, according to the demoscopes, Joe Biden's re-election seems unlikely anyway.

But elections are not only taking place in the USA. The European Parliament will be elected in the European Union in June. In Germany, which is expected to foot most of the bill, three state elections will take place in the fall. It's not just voters in the US who are wondering why more and more money should be spent on a lost war in Ukraine. The parties opposing the war policy are expected to make significant gains in votes. This is one of the reasons why the German Chancellor has declared that Europe cannot fill the gap that would be left open by an end to US support for Ukraine. So the interests are the same as in the USA: the war should continue until after the elections.

It can be assumed that the interests of the USA are also known in Kiev. But then it would be in Ukraine's interest to end the hopeless war through a surrender as quickly as possible and not after November 2024. The only question that arises is whether there are responsible people who will make the right decisions. The following scenarios would be possible:

The military leadership could seize power in a coup and declare surrender. There are examples of this in history. In April 1939, the government of the Spanish Republic wanted to prolong the civil war until World War II broke out in Europe. It was then hoped that France would provide support. The army leadership considered this plan unrealistic and overthrew the government in order to end the hopeless fight.

With a coup, Russia's war goals would be achieved if the current leadership were removed, Ukraine declared itself neutral and recognized the accession of the Kherson, Zaporoshie, Donetsk and Lugansk regions as well as Crimea to the Russian Federation. With the elimination of NATO influence, Ukraine could no longer count on Western help for reconstruction; Not with Russian either.

As a second option, individual commanders at the front could decide, given the lack of supplies of ammunition, to no longer send their soldiers to a senseless death, but to capitulate with their units. If several commanders coordinated and gave up the fight at the same time, larger gaps could be created in the front. Despite the political considerations for Joe Biden, the Russian army would accept this invitation and encircle other parts of the army. It is not to be expected that they will then decide on a heroic fight until the last cartridge. This means that Russia would advance rapidly in the south and east.

In the past, Russian sources had reported that the Polish leadership intended to occupy western Ukraine up to Poland's former eastern border from 1939 in the event of Ukraine's collapse. The comments suggested that Russia would tolerate this. In the event of a sudden collapse of the Ukrainian front, it would be quite possible that the Ukrainian government would ask NATO for assistance and that Poland would comply with this request. If the tolerated old border were to be exceeded, it would not be ruled out that fighting could break out between Russia and a NATO member. In this case, diplomacy would be required to agree on a ceasefire line very quickly. That would then be the end of Ukraine as a state, because the ceasefire would have to be concluded between Poland and Russia. The Russian-occupied part would probably join the Russian Federation and western Ukraine would join Poland after a transition period and then automatically be a member of NATO and the EU. The reconstruction of Ukraine would be organized by the West and Russia.

Both variants would be sudden events that would catch the USA unprepared. The first alternative would allow Joe Biden to save face because Ukraine ended the war of its own accord, and he could blame the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and thus indirectly Donald Trump, for this. If the military situation suggests that the front will collapse before November, such a military punch could perhaps even be prepared by the CIA, at least as a contingency plan.

The second variant could be suitable for a covert negotiated solution in which the USA and Russia could agree on a division of Ukraine. A demarcation line would therefore have to be defined where the Polish troops would stop their advance. From NATO's perspective, it would have to be east of Kiev so that Ukraine and its capital can formally remain for some time as a credible state that represents the country internationally and demands that Russia return the occupied territories. West Germany also defined its territory until 1970 as the territory of the German Reich from 1937. That would be a very difficult concession for Russia, especially since the rest of Ukraine would then be firmly anchored in the West. However, it is not yet impossible to wrest this price for an end to the war and, in particular, complete control over the Black Sea coast, including the land bridge to Transnistria, with skillful diplomacy. That would no longer be the case if the military situation for Ukraine continued to deteriorate.

It is easy to start a war and difficult to end it. This becomes even more difficult if the warring parties cannot talk to each other. The speechlessness could be overcome if there were independent ideas to talk about. They should be included here.

The goal of peace is worth developing unconventional ideas. In the end, it is only important that a hopeless war is not prolonged just to make the election campaign easier for politicians.