Published
on
By
As two good friends, we, citizens of the Netherlands and Russia, came together in May 2023 in Belgrade, Serbia.
Belgrade is a meeting place for East and West, one of the few places to see each other in the midst of a conflict and escalating tensions between Russia and NATO.
Here we have attempted to write a draft peace agreement. The purpose of this draft is to make people think about a lasting solution to the conflict and to get closer to this solution. It provides a starting point for negotiations. We believe that the spirit and letter of the document we have written can form a good basis for a real comprehensive peace agreement. It also serves as an example of citizen diplomacy.
Our common goal is to end the bloodshed; establish a lasting and just peace as soon as possible; ensure the security and freedom of Ukraine and Russia; address the just demands of Ukrainian and Russian inhabitants of the Donbas; and, ultimately, restore the relations between Europe and Russia.
Our proposal includes the following topics:
– Ceasefire and Peace Talks
– The Status of Crimea
– Eastern Ukraine
– Restoration
– Mutual Demilitarisation and Security Guarantees
– Ideology and Culture
Ceasefire and Peace Talks
1. First of all, a mutual ceasefire with immediate effect shall be declared.
2. After the signing of a peace agreement, all Russian troops are withdrawn from Ukraine. Until a peace agreement is signed, Russian and Ukrainian troops in the contested territories and near existing borders are monitored by international observers to rule out re-escalation.
3. All deliveries of Western arms to Ukraine will be immediately halted.
4. The start of peace negotiations. The international community provides a platform for these negotiations. Representatives from countries that have taken a more neutral stance on the conflict, such as Hungary, Serbia, China and India, are to take the lead. In addition, representatives from Western and Eastern European countries, the US, UK and of course Ukraine and Russia will be present.
The Status of Crimea
1. Crimea remains Russian. This is justified by its history – it has been Russian since the 18th century – and by the will of its inhabitants. Crimea became part of Ukraine as a result of Khrushchev’s authoritarian decision and democratically returned to Russia in the spring of 2014 by referendum with an overwhelming majority of 97%. It is also of major strategical importance for Russia, whereas Ukraine possesses other harbours in the Black Sea.
2. Russia, if Ukraine so wishes, could provide Ukraine with a piece of land in Crimea with a convenient bay to establish a Ukrainian naval base. Thus Ukraine is not completely withdrawing from Crimea and has the opportunity to deploy its navy there to ensure security and preserve the country’s prestige. We do not particularly endorse this option; it should be the outcome of the negotiations of the officials and approved by Russian state law.
Eastern Ukraine
1. A solution to the territorial dispute may have several options to be negotiated. These could include:
(a) A UN protectorate, followed by one of the following options:
(b) A repeated referendum in the entire Luhansk (LPR), Donetsk (DPR), Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, or alternatively only in the last two mentioned regions, on joining Russia or being part of Ukraine
(c) Annexation to Russia of the de facto Russian-controlled territories, followed by a financial compensation to Ukraine for its lost territories
(d) Letting the negotiators decide where new border lines should be drawn.
We do not endorse one of these options in particular; it should be the outcome of the negotiations of the officials.
2. If referendums are held, this should happen after the return of refugees and under the supervision of international observers so that no one would question their legitimacy. If Ukraine agrees to the ‘alienation of territories in exchange for compensation’ option, referendums are held only in the contested areas not controlled by Russia.
3. The UN and the Ukrainian and Russian authorities cooperate together in a voluntary exchange of people. Such an opportunity will be given to Ukrainians from the eastern regions who want to live in Ukraine. Russians in Ukraine who want to live in the eastern territories or in Russia will also be given this opportunity. Of course this is all and only done on a voluntary basis. The aim is to prevent new inter-ethnic conflicts and mutual territorial claims.
4. The parties agree that no discriminatory legislation may be applied against citizens of Ukraine or Russia in any of the territories.
Restoration
1. Western countries lift all economic sanctions against Russia. Trade, energy exports and imports will resume. This has a positive impact on the European economy (in particular the manufacturing industry and energy prices), on the Russian economy and on mutual relations, and furthermore provides an economic engine to help Ukraine.
2. An international fund is established to determine and oversee reparations. The management of this fund consists of representatives from countries that have taken a more neutral position in the conflict, such as Hungary, China and India. It ensures that funds are spent on rebuilding destroyed settlements and infrastructure throughout the conflict-ridden territories in Ukraine, including those that may become part of Russia and of mainland Russia. It is responsible to Ukraine, Russia and the international community for how the funds are spent.
3. Russia, the EU, the UK and the US will contribute to the fund, with Russia’s contribution being the largest. Other countries, especially China and India, can also contribute if they wish.
4. Russia pays out the funds in two instalments:
I. Contributions to the international fund for reconstruction of the devastation inflicted;
II. Compensation directly to the Ukrainian state for the loss of eastern territories, should they be annexed to Russia.
The purpose of this is not only to make amends and restore justice, but also to warn all the countries of the world that armed conflicts are a costly and dangerous affair and have a high price to pay. It sets an example for other nations who engage in conflicts all around the world, including the US. We want to stress that resources for reparations must be drawn from rich sources, corporations and the like, and may not cause harm or depravation to poor people within Russia itself.
Mutual Demilitarisation and Security Guarantees
1. Ukraine pledges not to join NATO and will remain neutral. Russia and NATO recognise the importance of Ukraine as a neutral territory between them. Ukraine maintains its armed forces, but refrains from hosting foreign military bases on its territory.
2. Ukraine guarantees a nuclear-free status of the country.
3. Here we discussed two options.
(a) Ukraine demilitarizes all regions bordering Russia and Belarus. The deployment of heavy weapons, missiles and aircraft in them is prohibited. OR:
(b) The Ukrainian army is limited in numbers. There are no restrictions on the navy. This is done to allay Russia’s fears of Ukrainian revenge in the contested eastern regions, but at the same time to preserve the indispensable attribute of a sovereign state – the armed forces in the form of a navy. In the event of a lasting and just peace with a NATO security guarantee, Ukraine would not need a large land army, while a developed navy would enable it to maintain its prestige and participate in overseas anti-terrorist and anti-pirate missions with its partners without posing a threat to Russia.
4. Russia demilitarises all regions bordering Ukraine. The deployment of heavy weapons, missiles and aircraft in them is prohibited. This is a security guarantee for Ukraine that a Russian invasion from these territories is impossible in the future.
5. Belarus demilitarizes the regions bordering Ukraine, the Baltic States and Poland. Belarus’ security and independence are guaranteed by Russia.
5. NATO provides security guarantees to Ukraine and Moldova to protect them from a possible Russian attack. In turn, Ukraine and Moldova give Russia a guarantee that there will be no possibility of a NATO attack on Russia from their territory. The way in which these assurances are given is further detailed in paragraph 6.
6. Russia and NATO enter into mutual demilitarisation agreements. All border regions of Western Russia, the Baltic States, Finland, the border regions of Norway and Poland are demilitarised to the extent that only their navies, police and border guards may operate in close proximity to each other. Heavy weaponry, missiles and aircraft may not be deployed on either side. As a result, both Western Russia and NATO’s Eastern Flank are demilitarised to the point where an invasion of Europe from Russia is impossible, and a NATO attack on Russia is impossible as well. Internationally monitored inspections are carried out to ensure that the agreements are respected by both sides. The aim is to guarantee security for both Europe and Russia and to restore trust in the long term.
Ideology and Culture
1. The West recognises that not everyone in the world shares a left-liberal, “globalist” worldview. Countries, power blocs, peoples, groups and individuals have and can have their own vision of the world and their vision of the good life and the future. Freedom of opinion, religion, association, assembly etc. are human rights, both individually and collectively.
2. Russia guarantees non-interference in elections in the West, and the West gives reciprocal guarantees – not to actively propagate Western agendas in Russia, not to try to change power in Russia, not to encourage internal discord or ethnic conflicts in Russia and not to influence elections.
3. Russia does not interfere in the process of accepting any country into the EU.
4. Countries and power blocs respect each other’s sovereignty in pursuit of the common goal of world peace and security. This is in everyone’s interest.
5. Culture connects, brings people together and makes people peaceful and friendly to one another. European countries and Russia reopen cultural, scientific and tourist exchanges. All mutual restrictions in these fields are lifted.
6. There may be voluntary ideological exchanges of people, making it easier for left-liberal Russians to move to ideologically closer Western Europe, and for conservative Europeans to move to Eastern Europe and Russia for a life in line with traditional values. This is, of course, never compulsory and is subject to open discussion, especially since cultural battles within Western Europe are fully ongoing.
In conclusion, we want to say that all parties have an interest in a lasting peace and in security guarantees.
Further escalation and prolongation of the conflict may threaten to escalate into a war with more parties involved or into a nuclear war, and obviously prolongates the suffering and losses of so many lives on both sides.
May all sides come to their senses and realise that only a negotiated compromised peace will allow the peoples of Ukraine and Russia to be saved and give them a chance for a good and prosperous future.
Belgrade, May 2023
Isabelle Buhre and her Russian friend.
Isabelle Buhre (1989) is a Dutch political scientist and Latinist.
For security reasons we do not mention the name of the Russian co-author.
Ukraine imbroglio: An outcome of extraordinary defiance of strategic advice by the celebrated US Strategic Minds
Isabelle Buhre (Amsterdam, 1989) studied political science at the London School of Economics, and Latin language and literature at the University of Amsterdam and KU Leuven. She worked as a journalist for Dutch weekly magazines HP/De Tijd and Elsevier, and as a research assistant at Utrecht University. Among others she translated ‘On the Duty to Keep Faith with Heretics’, a work on contract-keeping in the Early Modern period. Currently she works as an independent translator and author. Twitter: @ibuhre
From the Mat to the World: How Yoga Diplomacy amplifies India’s Global Voice
Prigozhin’s mutiny won’t succeed, but Vladimir Putin is finished
Africa Peace Initiative on Russia-Ukraine Deepens Policy Conflicts for Ramaphosa
The Significance of NATO’s Office in Tokyo and its Impact on the Asia-Pacific Region
Breaking Barriers, Building Equality: Honouring Women in Diplomacy
The search for a new world economic order in which emerging forces have more weight
Published
on
By
The spiraling catastrophic Ukraine war, the fatigue in the Western camp, talk of freezing the war and Korean like ceasefire and Israel Like security guarantee to Ukraine as its not able suffice the conditions to become a NATO member is bringing us to the question of NATO expansion strategy. Most of the US strategic minds and cold war warriors have been very clear about Russia’s sentiments about Ukraine and Russian security imperatives and national pride attached to it. The US pursuit of NATO expansion in defiance of these strategic advice of its own strategic stalwarts is an extraordinary policy behaviour with profound consequences for the US global power and leadership. A probing analysis of these strategic minds and their suggestions can help understand the crisis, geopolitical consequences, implications for US global appeal, European security and evolving world order.
Irrespective of the US justification and refusal of the West to accept it, the NATO’s eastward expansion is at the core of the Ukraine crisis. The importance of Ukraine for Russia can be gauged from the warning of George F Kennan in 1948 that “no Russian government would accept Ukrainian independence.” The assurance of “Not an inch eastward” given by US Secretary of State, James Baker to the USSR President, Mikhael Gorbachev on 9th February, 1990 is at the heart of Russia’s opposition to the NATO’s eastward expansion since the end of Cold War. Mikhael Gorbachev agreed for the united Germany and the wthdrwawal of USSR from East Germany only after this assurances. Gorbachev and President Putin has always referred it as a breach of trust. NATO says that it never made such an agreement. Since its inception, NATO has an “Open Door Policy” for membership and it has never been changed. Membership consideration is made through consensus by members.
George F Kennan
Notwithstanding, when the NATO expansion debate was heating in the mid-1990s, George F Kennan wrote an article in the New York Times titled “A Fateful Error” on 5th February, 1997. He put it clearly that “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our likings.” Thus he could foresaw what is exactly unfolding now- a more militaristic Russia with a new inning of Cold War and off course the Ukraine imbroglio. Even, Zbigniew Brzezinski has put it in an unambiguous words that “Without Ukraine, Russia cease to be a Eurasian empire in his book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives” in 1997.
Jack F Matlock Jr
In 1997, Jack F Matlock Jr, the last US ambassador to the USSR, in his introductory remark before the Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee said that “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.” Indeed, our nuclear arsenals were capable of ending the possibility of civilization on Earth. He explained his views once again in his recent article “I was there:NATO and the origin of Ukraine Crisis”, RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT, on15th February, 2022 just before the war started.
In another article, “Ukraine Crisis Should Have Avoided” in The Transnational, Jack F Matlock Jr, wrote on 27th May, 2022 how the eventual conflict should have been avoided and why? In order to create broad awareness consensus to stop the war which is not in the national interests of the US and security of Europe and the world. He explains that if there was no NATO expansion, there would have been no basis for the present crisis. Moreover, major demands of President Putin was an assurances that NATO would not expand eastward and no membership to Ukraine and Georgia in particular before the war. Ukraine’s denial for not implementing the 2015 Minsk Agreement, reuniting Donbas region with a large degree of autonomy which has been agreed with Russia, France and Germany that the US endorsed. A diplomatic engagements on these issues could have avoided the war. Besides, a broad European Security which includes Russia as well seemed very plausible after the end of Cold War and collapse of the USSR.
Henry A. Kissinger
Henry Kissinger, the most celebrated US diplomat and Cold War strategist, in an article “The Unconventional Wisdom About Russia”, on 30th June, 2008 wrote that “This is all the more important because geopolitical realities provide an unusual opportunity for strategic cooperation between the erstwhile Cold War adversaries. Between them, the US and Russia control 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Russia contains the largest landmass of any country, abutting Europe, Asia and Middle East. Progress towards stability, with respect to nuclear weapons, in the Middle East and in Iran, requires- is greatly facilitated by- Russian-American cooperation.” The current US policy is in complete defiance of his suggestion and remarkably in all the areas referred- Nuclear cooperation, Middle East and Iran in particular, the US policies are in a state of strategic loss- There is a dangerous nuclear uncertainty, rather a nuclear belligerence has reached all time high. US partners are no more following its line of policy, rather making strategic engagements with its adversaries and rivals like Russia and China. Iran is emerging as militarily more powerful challenge in close strategic alliance with Russia and China. The recent Iran-Saudi rapprochement brokered by China and re-inclusion of Syria in the Arab League despite US opposition is the clear evidence of loosening grip of US power and leadership in the region.
In the same piece, Mr Kissinger wrote specifically about Ukraine that “Genuine independence for Ukraine is essential for a peaceful international system and must be unambiguously supported by the US. Creating close political ties between the European Union and Ukraine, including membership in the European Union, is important. But the movement of the Western security system from the Elbe River to the approaches to Moscow brings home Russia’s decline in a way bound to generate a Russian emotion that will inhibit the solution of all other issues.” These are the words of experience of profound strategic importance which the successive US administration seems to have unmindfully neglected or ignored with imprudent estimation of Russian response. Whatsoever, the result is the present geopolitical abyss- the Ukraine crisis.
In March, 2014, Henry Kissinger in an article “How the Ukraine Crisis Ends”, in The Washington Post, wrote that “Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other- it should function as a bridge between them.” Since independence, the Ukrainian leaders from the Ukrainian speaker Catholic West and the Russian speaking Russian Orthodox has tried to dominate and impose their will on each other. This is the essence of the Ukraine issue. Thus treating Russia as part of East-West confrontation would mar the possibility of peace and security. Ukraine should have the right to join any economic and political system including Europe but must not join NATO. “A wise US policy towards Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the dominance of a faction.” The words are powerfully prophetic and trajectory of the US policy in Ukraine is understandably in a defiance mode. Its worth noting in the context his introductory remark in the article with his experience four wars started with enthusiasm but unilaterally withdrawn in three case that “The test of a policy is how it ends, not how it begins.” The enthusiasm of the West is visibly on sharp wane in Ukraine and the end is neither at sight nor the nature of outcome.
In his address to the World Economic Forum, in May, 2022, Henry Kissinger said that it would be ‘fatal’ for the West to get swept up in the ‘mood of the moment’ and forget Russia’s position of power within Europe. The European leaders must ‘not lose sight of the longer term relationship’ or otherwise risk putting Russia in a permanent alliance with China. He emphasized that the summit would be pointless if Putin is allowed to win the war because he is ‘not interested in our thoughts’ and ‘brute force.. does not talk, it kills.’ And he made a suggestion that Ukraine should give up territory given the state of the conflict and possible consequences. The suggestion speaks of his fear that prolonging of the war would be strategic loss for European peace and security and permanent anti-West alliance of China and Russia which would be more formidable challenge and change the global geopolitical balance against the West.
While the war in Ukraine is grinding on, on 17th December, 2022, Henry Kissinger in his “The Push for Peace: How to avoid another World War”, in The Spectator, wrote that the Western strategy must be based on Russia’s historical role in ‘global equilibrium’ and ‘balance of power’ for half a millennium as well as enormity of consequences of Russian disintegration and chaos with its nuclear arsenals. He stressed that “The road of diplomacy may appear complicated and frustrating. But progress to it requires both the vision and the courage to undertake the journey.” He explained the relevance of this diplomatic path with devastating consequences of World War I for not choosing the path at the early stage. And also warned that the delays to take the path runs the danger of devastating automated tech based warfare where even the strategies and options would also be decided by these technologies to extreme detriment of the human civilization. He, therefore, for a lasting solution argues that “The goal of a peace process would be twofold: to confirm the freedom of Ukraine and to define a new international structure, especially for Central and Eastern Europe. Eventually Russia should find a place in such an order.”
John J. Mearsheimer
In 2014, John J. Mearsheimer in an article in Foreign Affairs “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin”, he argues against the Western line of accusation that Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea as per his project of resuscitating the Russian empire. Rather he holds the United States and its European allies most responsible with their strategy of NATO expansion as central factor and take Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit into the Western camp. The Russian is opposed to the eastward expansion of NATO and the backing of pro-Democracy movement in Ukraine in 2004 has put the Russian in an extreme suspicion of the Western design in Ukraine. He says that “For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president- which he rightly labeled as “coup”- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.” Had such an explanation from a celebrated strategic expert in the United States been heeded and a proper strategic consideration made, the present Ukraine conflagration would have been avoided and a possible diplomatic course, most probably, would have delivered an amicable solution or at least a standing peace with pragmatic reciprocity.
When Russia annexed Crimea, in an article, Prof John Mearsheimer, “Getting Ukraine Wrong”, in International New York Times, on 13th March, 2014 called the sanctions on Russia and an increasing support for Ukraine government, a ‘big mistake’. He pointed out that it is based on the same faulty assumptions which had precipitated the crisis. So, “Instead of resolving the dispute, it will lead to more trouble. Washington played a key role in precipitating this dangerous situation, and Mr. Putin’s behaviour is motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States. The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West.” An amazingly correct correct futuristic analysis of the crisis and the policy options and warning of the same strategy- US commitment to NATO’s expansion and Ukraine’s membership. The suggestive strategy remained unheeded under the spell of the US grand geopolitical strategy and we are here with the present Ukraine conflagration without a possible peace at sight. Rather the world is inching with an unprecedented fear towards a nuclear apocalypse.
Moreover, there was a growing chorus of voices for arming Ukraine with economic sanction not having intended impact and Putin had no sign of backing down wrote prof. John Mearsheimer in a new article ““Don’t Arm Ukraine”, in The New York Times, on 8th March, 2015. The idea of arming was no more defeating Russia rather raising the cost so much that Putin would forced to withdraw and Ukraine would join the European Union and NATO. The Prof. once again cautioned that “They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is specially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.”
His another article “Defining a New Security Architecture for Europe that brings Russia from the Cold”, in Military review, May-June, 2016 makes an enlightening analysis that though Russia was opposed to the eastward NATO expansion from the very beginning it didn’t view the two expansion in 1999 and 2004 as a mortal threat to its security. The announcement at NATO’s Bucharest Summit that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members attracted the sharp Russian opposition. “The Russians, in response, made it perfectly clear at the time that this was unacceptable. And they made it clear they would go to great length to prevent that from happening.” He opines that 2008 was the best time to understand, assess and redefine the European security architecture with due consideration to the Russian security perceptions and responses to the Western strategies, particularly after the NATO’s expansion plan at Bucharest Declaration.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24th February, 2022, Prof John Mearsheimer, once again wrote John in an article “Why the West is Principally Responsible For the Ukraine Crisis”, in The Economist, on 19th March, 2022 that given its earlier readings on the Ukraine issue, Russia would not accept Ukraine in the Western NATO orbit. Therefore, he holds the NATO’s reckless expansion strategy as the root cause. He considers it the most dangerous conflict since the Cuban crisis and stresses that an understanding of the root causes are of utmost importance to prevent the war and find a way to bring it to close before it is turning worse and assume inextricable proportion and stage.
In another article, “Playing With Fire in Ukraine: The Underappreciated Risk of Catastrophic Escalation”, on 17th August in ‘Foreign Affairs’ writes that the West has ‘reached a consensus’ that “the conflict will settle into a prolonged stalemate, and eventually a weakened Russia will accept a peace agreement that favours the United States and its NATO allies, as well as Ukraine.” There is an understanding that both US and Russia might escalate for comparative advantage or to avoid defeat. This line of approach entails an unappreciated risk of catastrophic escalation and therefore it requires change of approach and course to escape the catastrophe.
Secretary William Perry
In an interview with The Guardian on 9th February, 2016, the former US Defence Secretary of President Bill Clinton, William Perry said that “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame. Our first action that really set off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.” Besides, the contemptuous attitude of the US officials towards the former Superpower Russia made the situation worse whose as the US responses were like- “Who cares for what they think? They are third-rate power. And of course that point of view got across to the Russian as well. That was when we started sliding down the path.” The US support to the pro-democracy ‘colour revolutions’ in Ukraine and Georgia severely damaged the relations. These arrogant behaviour of US uni-polar moment laid the path of divergence which has produced the unmanageable crisis in Ukraine with niggardly pursuance of NATO expansion despite despite Russian reminders and policy suggestion of the US men in the administration like Secretary William Perry.
Jeffery D. Sachs
Jeffery D. Sachs is another consistent voice of profound strategic wisdom with constructive and appropriate suggestions and warning against the US strategic course in NATO expansion and eventual dangerous consequences. In his article “Avoiding the worst in Ukraine and Taiwan” on 15th December, 2021 he pitches for the same. The current crisis is the result of overreach by both US and Russia. The US President, George Bush call to invite Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO has very provocative for Russia long resisting the NATO’s eastward expansion. It produced a sense deep concern among some NATO members. France and Germany particularly expressed concern on such eventuality as it would antagonize Russia. But later the all were managed to toe the line by softening tone and Ukraine remain the goal of NATO in its future expansion. This eventually led to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 “to ensure that NATO could never gain access to Russia’s Black Sea naval base and fleet.” On 1st February, 2022, he wrote in “Letter: A path to peace exists in the Russia-Ukraine Dispute” and echoed the ways and means to avoid the crisis. In another article “How to Protect Ukraine’s Sovereignty” on 8th February, 2022 he put it clearly that “Rather than trying to pretend that one side is a saint and the other a sinner, everyone involved in the latest NATO-Russia conflict should recognize that they have a mutual interest in long-term security. That implies a diplomatic settlement in which Ukraine secures its sovereignty through neutrality.”
In April 2022 he told on CNN that “A negotiated peace is the only way to end Russia’s war on Ukraine.” He said that the two-pronged US strategy, to help Ukraine overcome the Russian invasion by imposing tough sanctions and by supplying Ukraine’s military with sophisticated armaments, is likely to fall short. What is needed is a peace deal, which may be within reach. The argument seems appropriate and consistent with the claims and determinations of the Russians and realities on the ground as well as the possibilities given Russian military prowess including its nuclear threat if it find the situation an existential threat.
In his another article , “The West’s False Narrative about Russia and China”, OtherNews, on 22nd August, 2022, he emphasized that the failure of Western leadership to take on the real causes has led to the emergence of dangerous narrative pushing the world to the edge of nuclear catastrophe.The core idea of the US National Security Strategy is that Russia and China are “attempting erode American security and prosperity” and “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The relentless Western narratives that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous” he said
In an article in the Peninsula, “The Great Game in Ukraine is Spinning out of Control”, on 1st October, 2022, he refers to the former Secretary of States, Brzezinski, who famously called Ukraine as ‘Pivot to Eurasia’ central to both US and Russia power. Russia considers Ukraine vital for its security and therefore the conflict has chance to slip into nuclear showdown. He traces the historical roots of this Great Game and said that “Since the middle of the 19th century, the West has competed with Russia over Crimea and more specifically, naval power in the Black Sea. In the Crimean War (1853-6), Britain and France captured Sevastopol and temporarily banished Russia’s navy from the Black Sea. The current conflict is, in essence, the Second Crimean War. This time, a US-led military alliance seeks to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, so that five NATO members would encircle the Black Sea.” Given the heightened stakes and historical context, its urgent to exercise restraint by both Russia and the US before the unprecedented disaster actually occurs.
On 5th December, 2022, in an article, “A Mediator’s Guide to Peace in Ukraine”, in ‘Common Dreams’, he explained a possible negotiated settlement in a historical context and claims and counters by the by parties involved. The course of the war has led to a sense that chances of Ukraine victory not so high said Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the US Joints Chiefs of Staff and urging for a negotiated settlement. For lasting settlement, the major core issues are- sovereignty of Ukraine, NATO enlargement, the question of Crimea and the future of Donbas. Russia view the NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia as its encirclement in the Black Sea (Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia). “Russia also claims Crimea as home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet since 1783. Putin warned George Bush Jr. in 2008 that if the US pushed NATO into Ukraine, Russia would re-take Crimea, which Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954.
In his article “Why neutral countries should mediate between Russia and Ukraine” in the Economist on 18th January, 2023, he wrote that neither Russia nor Ukraine seems to be able to achieve decisive military victory. The West and Ukraine do not have chance to ousting Russia from the territories it has occupied and even Russia has slim chance to force Ukraine into surrender. So given the spiraling dangerous escalation including nuclear Armageddon, its impacts on the developing countries and their sufferings, only a neutral county mediation has a chance of bringing the parties to negotiating table for a possible cooling of the conflict.
In his article “The New Geopolitics” in Horizon, 30th Jan, 2023, he analyses and explains the broader geopolitical patterns and theories in the context of the contemporary world, its challenges and their panacea. He sees the Ukraine war as “a central part of Washington’s strategy for continued US hegemony,” by NATO’s eastward expansion and “bleeding Russia through a war attrition.” “This is part of a long-term game plan, outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, to end the ability of Russia to project its power towards Western Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, or the Middle East.” He explains four contemporary theories of IR and emphasises on The Multilateralist Theory. It calls for global geopolitical cooperation around UN institutions to deal with wars, dangerous technologies or such human-induced as climate change and financial instability and to ensure global public goods. It is dismissed as too idealistic and unrealistic. Still he pins his hope that “Cooperation can be strengthened if the case is better understood. Most importantly, neither the three hegemonic theories nor realism offer solutions to our global crisis.”
In an interview with Isaac Chotiner, , (“Jeffery Sachs’s Great-Power politics”) The New Yorker, on 27th February, 2023 he said that “I think that the more one knows about the background of this war, the more it is clear how it could have been avoided, and also how it can end.” In the 1990s, during the first phase of NATO expansion, many wise people including the then Defence Secretary, William Perry, called it “a dreadful mistake”. The NATO bombing of Serbia was another dreadful mistake.These were further complicated by the US involvement in the overthrow of President Victor Yanukovych in February, 2014. This is the politics by other means and an understanding of all these geopolitical moves of the West and US is necessary so that war can be ended as fast as possible.
In his article “The War in Ukraine Was Provoked- and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace”, in Common Dreams, on 23rd May, 2023, in response to the regular uses of “unprovoked war” in the US administration statements and speeches, similarly in NATO statements and speeches and their allies, mainstream US and allied media Prof. Jeffery Sachs contends that there are two provocation by the US leading to the war. First was the US intention to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia in the Black Sea and Second, the US role in installing a Russophobic regime in Ukraine by the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Victor Yanukovych, in February, 2014. He says that “By recognizing that the question of NATO enlargement is at the centre of this war, we understand why US weaponary will not end this war. Only diplomatic efforts can do that.” But the war continues with spiraling intensity and increasing virulent proportion owing to rejection of these core factors and reasons of the Russian invasion. And he makes it once again that “The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement.”
In Brief
There are three major regions of US power and dominance for its global power and influence- Europe, West Asia and Indo-Pacific. The NATO’s push under the United States in Ukraine and its seemingly disastrous and uncertain trajectory holding US there and sapping its ability to manage its influence in two other regions. Its Arab partners are showing unprecedented defiance and assertion of independent autonomous policies. The telling evidence are the Iran-Saudi rapprochement, Arab normalization with Syria and its eventual return to Arab League and OPEC-plus decision of oil cut despite US advice and warnings. There is growing trend of increasing partnership with China which US considers as global strategic competitor and systemic challenge. China is a growing challenge to the US power in the pacific and the US policy NATO expansion and the subsequent Ukraine crisis has pushed its two global challenger into strategic embrace under their ‘Limitless Strategic Partnership’ against the United States.
So, if the defiance is a ‘Strategic Defiance’, then it is a strategic mistake. Or if it is a Strategic Mistake, then it is a strategic disaster for the US power and its global influence. An immediate strategic course-correction seems to be a prudent way forward to retain its global power and maintain a stable global order.
Published
on
By
Lithuanian officials continue to support initiatives and take political steps that worsen the situation in the European region and lead to deterioration of relations with neighboring states. Such official steps and statements influence not only international relations but also impact local population.
Growing queues at the Belarusian border are exemplary in this regard. Thus, it has become known that nearly 2,000 trucks piled up at the exit from Lithuania to Belarus. Some time ago Lithuania unilaterally terminated cooperation with the Belarusian customs and border agencies on the smooth operation of the border.
According to latest data, drivers wait 3-4 days for the opportunity to cross the border. 61 hours waiting was predicted for truck drivers at the Medininkai border crossing, 47 hours – at the Raigard border control point. Meanwhile, in Šalčininkai – 43 hours, and in Lavoriškės, where there is no waiting area for drivers, the situation is the best – 13 hours. The situation is complicated pretty much all the time. The points themselves are not suitable for such large flows. The road infrastructure is suffering, and the roadsides are heavily littered with rubbish. Residents and tourists in Druskininkai experience inconvenience and shame. Mountains of garbage and damaged roadsides spoil the image of the resort. Truck drivers are also in need of utilities as the town’s population suffers. According to Diana Sinkevičiūtė-Greže, chief specialist of the Druskininkai Municipality, “there are two ambulances. If they go out to help drivers, then community members and guests have to wait for life-saving assistance. Traffic safety suffers. Road workers say they don’t have time to pick up trash, clear roadsides and rest areas.”
In addition to previous steps, Lithuania tightens control over excisable goods if they are exported to third countries through the territory of Belarus or Russia. Tougher measures took effect from June 5, the press service of the Lithuanian customs reported.
Customs requires additional evidence that the goods will not be sold on Belarusian or Russian territory, that they will not be reloaded. Also, customs officers require evidence that the services of persons who are subject to sanctions are not used. If customs considers that there is not enough evidence, the goods will not be released from the territory of the European Union.
Thus, long queues are mainly caused by political decisions. Customs checks now take a lot of time due to international matters, sanctions, etc. This is the main reason why such traffic jams occur.
Paradoxically, Lithuanian business, as well as citizens face threats not from abroad but from Lithuanian government.
Published
on
By
Social media was abuzz on Tuesday morning with footage showing the Kakhovka Dam had been breached, with water surging down the Dnipro River.
Later in the day, the southern command of Ukraine’s Armed Forces claimed the dam, which is in Russian-controlled territory, was blown up with explosives.
Russia’s TASS news agency confirmed the dam had “collapsed” and that nearby areas were beginning to flood.
The dam itself is huge, 30 metres in height and hundreds of metres wide. It forms part of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, with its reservoir containing the same amount of water as Utah’s Great Salt Lake.
The effects of the breach threaten to be immense.
The dam is a critical water source for millions of people in Kherson, the Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, and Crimea. It will also likely impact agriculture and food production in what is already a war-torn region.
Flood waters have already affected over 80 towns and villages. Over a thousand people have been rescued in Kherson, with many more displaced. While there have been no report of human deaths yet, it has been reported that 300 animals at the Kazkova Dibrova zoo were killed in floodwaters.
Rare wildlife species and habitats have also been affected. The Ukrainian Environment Minister, Ruslan Strilets told the media yesterday that at least 150 tonnes of oil from the dam has leaked into the Dnipro, and that the environmental damage has so far been estimated at $80 million.
The breach also puts the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at risk. The plant, which is in Russian hands, relies on water supplied by the dam, without which raises the threat of a nuclear meltdown. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced yesterday that there is “no immediate nuclear safety risk”.
Many of these issues cannot be solved until a new dam is built, something Russia is unlikely to do while it controls the area.
The breach has immediately raised questions about who is responsible.
Ukrainian officials have blamed Russia, with President Volodymyr Zelensky tweeting that “the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam only confirms for the whole world that they (Russia) must be expelled from every corner of Ukrainian land.”
Denys Shmyhal, Ukraine’s Prime Minister, claimed that “Russia has unleashed an ecological weapon of mass destruction, inflicting grave consequences upon hundreds of cities and villages”, and called on the world to “condemn this crime”.
Last year, Ukrainian officials accused Russia of mining the dam, which Russia denied, calling for a monitoring mission and for the dam to be taken under international protection.
There are also reports the dam was at capacity before the breach, suggesting Russia purposely raised the water level to ensure maximum destruction.
Russia has denied blowing the dam, instead blaming Ukraine.
Ukraine, for its part, has said that it would be impossible for them to breach the dam from the outside, considering it has been under Russian control for months.
But, while there is no definitive proof, pointing the finger at Russia is not unreasonable.
The Russian military continues to target vital infrastructure in Ukraine, including power plants, dams, railways and ports, in a desperate attempt to make the Ukrainian population suffer.
Russia’s invasion has also shown that its military does not respect human life. Russian forces have allegedly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against Ukrainians, including torture, summary executions and enforced disappearances. They have also continuously targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and apartment blocks, killing countless civilians.
Blowing up the dam also comes at a time when Ukraine is poised to launch its counteroffensive, which likely involves attempts to retake the Zaporizhzhia oblast and Crimea. Flood waters would complicate any crossing of the Dnipro and may be an attempt by Russia to buy time.
In contrast, Ukraine has very little to gain from breaching the dam and, unlike Russia, doesn’t have a history of using civilians as collateral damage.
If Russia is responsible, it may constitute a war crime.
The Geneva Conventions explicitly bans attacks in war-time on “installations containing dangerous forces”, such as dams, due to risks posed to civilians. The conventions also oblige waring parties to distinguish between “civilian objects and military objects”, with attacks on the former forbidden.
While dams aren’t specifically mentioned, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court criminalises “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”
Ukraine’s prosecutor general has opened an investigation into the dam blast, labelled it a possible war crime and “’ecocide” under Ukrainian domestic legislation. Ironically, Russia has similar ecocide laws.
Russia’s alleged involvement in the bombing of the Kakhovka dam would represent an incredibly desperate and dangerous act.
It would also be added to the long list of war crimes committed by Russian forces, something Ukrainian and ICC prosecutors would surely investigate and seek to prosecute.
Either way, it is yet another disaster for Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Whoever is guilty needs to be held responsible.
Security forces, yet again arrested Pashtun Tahafuzz Movement (PTM) leader and MNA Ali Wazir at Dumdel check post in North…
As two good friends, we, citizens of the Netherlands and Russia, came together in May 2023 in Belgrade, Serbia. Belgrade…
Pakistan’s peaceful use of nuclear technology has been making significant contribution to the country’s healthcare sector. As a developing nation…
A 30 metre-long fishing boat which capsized and sank early on June 14 about 50 miles (80 km) from the…
It was remarkable the statement issued by US President Joe Biden, accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of being a dictator….
In September 2021, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia signed a new three security agreement that gave Australia…
The lawn at the United Nations Headquarters echoed with slogans of ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’, as the much-anticipated Yoga event…
Currency Chronicles: Understanding the Pakistan Rupee’s Fall and the Afghani Rupees Rally
The Effects of the Ukraine War on the European Balance of Power: From Dream World to Reality
A Preemptive Nuclear Strike? No!
Beyond Rocks and Minerals – Why People, Nature and Gemstones Matter?
A New Asian Troika: Prospects and Opportunities
Russia relationship with Africa pegged on delivering pledges
Switzerland to Promote Indonesia’s Economic Recovery Through SMEs
European steel industry seeks green credentials to match its economic, political weight
Copyright © 2023 Modern Diplomacy