Rethinking Strategies for Peace in Ukraine
The enduring and grueling war that Russia has waged against Ukraine for nearly three years has sparked a wave of reflections among analysts and political leaders regarding how to bring this conflict to a close and secure a lasting peace. Increasingly, there are proposals to adopt a model similar to that utilized in Germany after World War II. In the context of Ukraine, this would entail a commitment to never relinquish the annexed territories, while the West would steadfastly refuse to recognize these areas as part of Russia. However, Ukraine must also acknowledge the harsh reality that it cannot reclaim occupied territories through military force alone and would need to adopt a non-violent approach towards these regions. In return, Ukraine would rightfully demand tangible security guarantees to ensure that Russia does not repeat its acts of aggression against the country. Recently, both Czech President Petr Pavel and outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have echoed sentiments along these lines. So, what are the barriers to implementing such a solution?
A significant challenge lies in the inflated and often unrealistic expectations held by Ukrainian citizens, as well as by many within the democratic world. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the political landscape. Unrealistic expectations can be inadvertently nurtured not only by populists but also by well-meaning politicians who make grand promises to their constituents. Such expectations can pose a serious risk, not just to the politicians who propagate them, but more importantly, to the communities they represent, as these communities may find themselves navigating a precarious path with few options for retreat.
Can We Really Expect Putin to Surrender?
It seems that Ukraine has fallen victim to exactly this phenomenon. The early successes of the Ukrainian military, which included the defense of Kyiv against a rapid invasion (blitzkrieg) by Russian airborne troops, the successful defense of Kharkiv, and the subsequent audacious counteroffensive, led both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and segments of the West to experience a surge of optimism and foster expectations of a decisive Ukrainian victory over Russia, bolstered by Western support. These expectations encompassed the belief in the possibility of driving Russian forces out of all occupied territories, including Crimea. The narrative surrounding the West’s vast economic and military superiority further contributed to the illusion that, in due time, Putin would inevitably kneel.
It is important to note that the West shares responsibility in fostering these inflated expectations. Some leaders believed they could persuade Putin to retreat or at least pause his military operations. In Ukraine’s case, the granting of EU candidate status was viewed by many as an unattainable goal. The prevailing narrative regarding the West’s overwhelming economic and military capabilities only added to the misguided belief that Putin would ultimately capitulate.
A Missed Opportunity for Political Collaboration
However, it appears that President Zelenskyy has also made a critical error by not involving the Ukrainian parliamentary opposition in addressing the ongoing crisis. Reports indicate that Ukrainian border guards have prevented the opposition leader, former President Petro Poroshenko, from leaving the country. Additionally, the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, has openly criticized the president on several occasions. There is a noticeable absence of collaborative negotiations among the broader Ukrainian political leadership to seek a unified resolution to the key issues stemming from the war.
A Call for Unified Leadership
In this context, misinformation can easily proliferate. For instance, the narrative has emerged that various nationalist, and even fascist, factions among Ukrainian fighters are obstructing President Zelenskyy from making any compromises. In truth, it is President Zelenskyy himself who has positioned himself in such a way that the opposition is not inclined to offer proactive support, and his constituents may struggle to grasp a potential shift in strategy towards concluding the war, making acceptance of any compromise exceedingly difficult. To remedy this, he should extend an invitation to the parliamentary opposition, laying his cards on the table and striving to forge a broad political consensus among Ukrainian leaders through open dialogue regarding future relations with Russia.
Instead of grandiose global peace summits that are likely to be futile from the outset, or the “victory plans” that President Zelenskyy presents to world leaders (which appear to be merely updated versions of prior demands), it would be more productive for him to organize a peace summit domestically, in Kyiv.
Targeting Necessary Compromises
This change in approach may come at a cost, as the opposition could demand a role in the governance of Ukraine or other political concessions. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of such negotiations would be considerable: a broad political consensus among the Ukrainian political elite that could convey a unified message to the citizens. Only by fostering such unity can the necessary compromises be reached to end the war and lay the groundwork for sustainable peace. Importantly, these compromises do not equate to capitulation or acceptance of territorial losses.
MikulĂ¡Å¡ Dzurinda is president of the Wilfried Martens Centre, an EPP-affiliated think tank, and former prime minister of Slovakia.
At Euronews, we believe all viewpoints are valuable. Reach out to us at view@euronews.com to submit pitches or contributions and join the conversation.