DUISBURG, Germany, Dec 19 (IPS) – Donald Trump, the president-elect of the USA, wants to end the war in Ukraine within a day, as he has emphasized many times, but without saying how. Despite the brutal conflict on the ground in Ukraine, do negotiations now have a chance? Are we near the “ripe time” for negotiations?
The war continues without interruption. It does not end in sight. Can we hope that Donald Trump will find a personal connection with Vladimir Putin to end this war? The November 15 phone call between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Putin – the first phone contact in two years – was sad because Putin only confirmed his already known positions: He is ready for negotiations, but only on his terms. In other words, recognition of “new territorial realities” and “consideration of Russia’s security interests”. In short, this would mean handing over the four eastern regions of Ukraine, parts of which have been taken by Russia, and Crimea. Scholz called for talks with the aim of a “just and lasting peace”, mainly aimed at the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Russia’s invasion and defense of Ukraine has become a war of attrition, with Russia’s current military advantage. Russia’s strategy can be described as an optimistic rise to military victory. So far, Ukraine and its allies have reacted with great resistance. Western support has increased with the delivery of more effective weapons and the belief that victory is still possible. But a certain weariness is being felt among them and Trump has made it clear that major support will no longer come from the USA.
What is the outcome of the war in Ukraine, and what is the other way to this war and more deaths? Discussions now? Is there a chance for peace without military victory? But neither side is ready for serious negotiations. The President of Ukraine Volodymir Zelensky was not happy with Scholz’s move and spoke about the policy of appeasement, and because the call is against Putin’s isolation in other countries.
American political scientist William Zartman talks about the necessary “maturity” of conflict as a necessary factor for successful negotiations. The concept of “ripe times” is rooted, according to Zartman, in the ideas of the opponents of “harmful prevention”. Willingness to negotiate increases when both sides realize that military victory is impossible and that military power, i.e. soldiers and weapons, is no longer sufficient. The depressing conclusion is that today, even after almost 1,000 days of war, this situation does not exist in Russia or Ukraine. But the growing obstacles to performance on both sides, the irreparable, irreparable and permanent losses are perhaps an indication that the conflict is in the process of maturing for negotiations. Even Russia, with its current regional development, seems unable to replace its casualties. The arrival of about 10,000 North Korean troops in Russia raises the question of whether the Kremlin can recover its heavy losses.
Different situations
Four scenarios can be considered, all of which are far from the ideal solution.
First of allit is not impossible that the war, which has now been going on for nearly three years, with all the destruction and loss of life, will continue for several more years without ending.
Second timeDonald Trump may make a deal with Vladimir Putin, perhaps at the expense of Ukraine. Trump believes in deals. Russia will get parts of Ukraine, a demilitarized zone will be established on this border inside Ukraine, Ukraine will get security guarantees (from NATO, the United Nations, or a group of neutral states), and the peace agreement will be postponed. until later. And “later” could mean decades without a peace agreement.
The third timeone side can win militarily. It’s impossible, but not entirely out of the question. The Kremlin strongly believes in this possibility and is convinced by its territorial gains in recent weeks. At the same time, the Russian leadership underestimated Ukraine’s will to resist at the start of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and had to significantly reduce its military objectives, the overthrow of the government in Kyiv and the integration of Ukraine into Russia. Organization.
I the fourth situation, ceasefire and frozen conflict. There are many conflicts in this situation with no real solution. In recent years, the situation in Korea has been referred to several times to consider a similar solution to the war in Ukraine. This scenario is perhaps the most likely.
A ceasefire and a frozen conflict: The Korean solution
Of course, every dispute is different, and the right circumstances are also different. Nevertheless, there may be both patterns of conflict and patterns of conflict resolution that may provide clues to Ukraine’s future. Sergey Radchenko, a historian at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in the US, drew parallels to the Korean War in an op-ed in the New York Times a year after the war in Ukraine. More than 70 years ago, in July 1953, an armistice agreement and the establishment of a demilitarized zone led to the end of the war and the division of Korea into two separate regions.
Recently, Joseph S. Nye, one of the most influential political scientists in the USA, presented the “Korean solution” in the article “What Would Victory Look Like in Ukraine?”. He writes: “If Ukraine interprets the victory as the return of all the land that Russia has been eating since 2014, it will not be seen as a victory. But if it intends to maintain its independence as a thriving democracy linked to Europe, while reserving its right to return to the bottom of its territory, victory is still possible. ” The Korean War also raged from 1950 to 1953. Like what is happening now in Ukraine, neither the north nor the south, nor their supporters, were willing to end the war quickly because of the hopes of winning the war. The Korean Armistice Agreement of July 1953 established the status quo ante and the division of the country at the 38th parallel. Korea is still a divided country, and tensions are high. A peace agreement has not been concluded and the so-called demilitarized zone on the border of the two regions is one of the most war-torn borders in the world. A permanent peace agreement was reached without a peace treaty.
Proponents of the “Korean solution” point out that the destruction and loss of life has ended, and that South Korea is now a strong democracy and emerging economic power. The development of democracy and integration in Western Europe can follow the same path in Ukraine.
Critics of such a solution describe the Korean ceasefire as a “non-solution”. The Swiss historian Roland Popp, who researches at the Military Academy of the University ETH Zurich, writes that this Korean solution “also includes four decades of the most brutal dictatorship in the world, the massacre of tens of thousands of people … or the assassination of the president by the director of the CIA of South Korea in 1979.” And he points to the huge costs and uncertainties of Western Europe.
In 1953, the Administrative Commission of the Neutral Nations was established in Korea. In the more than seventy years of the existence of the armistice there have been many military conflicts on the border. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is dangerous, as the North calls South Korea’s military and its ally the United States a threat. Precisely for this reason, is it surprising that this agreement prevented a new war and heavy losses for more than seventy years. The consequences of the Korean settlement on the European situation would probably also mean, as in the case of the Korean peninsula, an arms race as in the early days of the Cold War.
Neutral countries can also play an important role in ending the war in Ukraine: for example, India, South Africa, Brazil or Switzerland. If there was no side that benefited the most from Ukraine, the ceasefire would not have happened. Most likely, Ukrainians will never get back all the lands taken by Russia. Russia can interpret the abandonment of its original goal as a partial victory to save face. The conflict will be stopped. Not a good result, but still the end of the war. A strong argument is better than a heated battle. But the history of violent wars shows that they can turn into hot wars again at any time. In the case of Ukraine, the imposition of the wrong solution may result in the opposition of the Ukrainian party.
A fifth possible scenario, a peace agreement binding under international law, with an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, currently seems completely out of the question.
Articles related to this author:
– European Defense Trauma: Some Narratives Move Ahead of the Facts – Boots on the Ground – Ten Steps to Take on the Russian War and Five Ideas for the Future of Ukraine and BeyondHerbert Wulf is Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is currently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Fellow at the National Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
