By Steven van Hoogstraten
The terrible war in Ukraine has lasted now for nearly 2 and a half years. Russia invaded Ukraine and wages a modern and murderous war. The West is fully behind Ukraine, does provide loads of weapons and has introduced various sanctions against the aggressor, Russia. It seems that after a difficult period for Ukraine, the chances are now turning with the help of the weaponry provided by the US and European partners. The F -16 aeroplanes are still to enter the frame, so there can be hope of some positive military developments for Ukraine in the near future.
Yet, the defining question at this point in time should not only be a military one, but a diplomatic one as well. When will be the time that both sides in this conflict will decide to call it a day? In other words, the question is whether and when a cease fire can be obtained followed by talks about the terms of a lasting peace agreement.
The western leaders, e.g. NATO members understandably feel it is not their task to impose the right moment on the beleaguered Ukrainians. At the same time and in a covert way they must be looking at a solution which ends the hostilities and which can be seen as acceptable under the circumstances. Let’s take a look at what could be necessary to get to this point.
First – this war can never stop while the people of Ukraine are left in an uncertain situation. Some form of a security arrangement for Ukraine will have to be put in place. Best would be an instant membership of EU and in future of NATO for the non-occupied part of Ukraine, but that will only be possible if the war has come to an end. Clearly, a main point is what kind of response Russia will provide to a NATO membership of Ukraine. However, it is simply not conceivable to end this conflict and just wait for the following one to happen along the same pattern. Therefore, I think that NATO cannot do anything else than make a full promise that Ukraine will be admitted as regular member, as soon as the situation permits and all Allies agree. “We reaffirm our unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their nation, their land and our shared values”, NATO said at the recent Washington Summit of NATO at 75. It was stated that the path to a future NATO membership is irreversible. This means that Ukraine will be protected by its allies in case of a renewed outside aggression, but this will not be tomorrow.
Second – Ukraine will have to accept that part of its territory remains occupied by Russia for the time being. Which part that is depends on further Ukrainian military successes. It is certain however that Russia will hang on the gains they have already made in Crimea and the Donbas region, where Russian is the dominant language and affiliation. Diplomats will have to find the right concept and wording for this – admittedly unfortunate – state of affairs, may be including a buffer zone. In my view it is unthinkable that Russia will step back from the surface under its control, at best there could be an attempt to hold a public poll which way the local population would like to go. In the interest of peace, Ukraine will have to consider making concessions in some form to the central concept of territorial integrity .
Third – there has to be an agreement on the rights of the minorities in the contested regions, and notably the protection of spoken and written languages and culture. Much along the lines of the Minsk agreements. An often heard pretext of the Russian invasion originated inter alia in the non-fulfilment of the terms of Minsk. The promised constitutional reform of Ukraine was not followed up. The obligation to use the Ukrainian language in all parts of the country has no doubt added to cultural tensions.
There is another side to the outcome of the war, certainly seen from the prism of the Hague as the world’s Legal Capital. The International Criminal Court has launched an arrest warrant against the leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin. This arrest warrant has to remain in place, as it is the only visible expression of the indignation of the world at large about the atrocities caused by Russian troops and their leaders, “no impunity” as the central notion. Remember that Milosevic was accused and prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ICTY, notwithstanding that as a head of state he had been a negotiating partner for the Dayton peace arrangements in that region. Furthermore, several cases between Ukraine and Russia are still pending before the International Court of Justice, also headquartered in The Hague.
In summary, I am not directly hopeful that this form of thinking will get to the finish line any time soon. But we should not accept that the war in Ukraine drags on and on, without attempts to find a reasonable common ground. Former SG of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer suggested on Dutch TV that an international mediator of grand stature should be asked to unlock the current situation. Someone like the prime minister of India, mr Narendra Modi. And Modi happens to be heading to Kyiv in August, I just read in the press…..
Steven van Hoogstraten – See also The Art of Making Peace. Lessons Learned from Peace Treaties, co-edited by S. van Hoogstraten, N. Schrijver O. Spijkers and A. de Jong (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 238 p.
