There is intense public debate about when and how to stop russian aggression to Ukraine. Several non-Ukrainian interlocutors, including some Westerners, affirm the possibility of ending the fighting quickly through a cease-fire o one peace agreement. Such proposals either tacitly presuppose or explicitly propose territorial concessions by Ukraine, i.e. a postponement or only partial reversal of Russian annexations of Ukrainian territories.
The limits of “peace plans”
On closer inspection, however, these plans are unworkable. They ignore or downplay the significant internal political obstacles to the realization of a Russian-Ukrainian truce based on a territorial compromise, i.e. an agreement”land in exchange for peace“.
Also, the peninsula of Crimea it is often mistakenly regarded as permanently lost by Ukraine and now belonging to Russia. Such assessments downplay or deliberately silence the interconnectedness of the 2014 and 2022 Russian annexations. Spokesmen and commentators interested in Ukraine should counter simplistic portrayals and solutions to the complicated territorial issue of Kyiv’s confrontation with Moscow.
I significant political obstacles to a viable Russian-Ukrainian deal must become better known to elites and the general public outside Eastern Europe. The close link between the Russian adventure in Crimea nine years ago and the second annexation of 2022 needs to be better understood by politicians, journalists, diplomats and observers in general.
“Land for Peace”
Many recent calls for ceasefires or peace negotiations are based on the assumption that Russia, Ukraine or even both can cede areas that are currently official parts of their state territories. These assumptions are speculative. They do not question the fact that the regions annexed by Moscow in 2014 and 2022 are now claimed by both the Ukrainian and Russian constitutions. The presidents of the two countries, as “guarantors” of their constitutions, are obliged to apply their fundamental laws.
Proposals that are silent on this fundamental issue are also typically unaware of the political obstacles to the constitutional change that a sustainable agreement between the two countries would require. The claim of pragmatism by various proponents of a Russian-Ukrainian settlement is therefore empty. These commentators tout plans which, under current conditions, are unrealistic. Neither Kyiv nor Moscow can easily go against the internal constituencies which are strictly against any territorial concessions to the enemy state.
To suggest that an agreement between Ukraine and the current Russian regime is within reach is therefore misleading. Such comments create false expectations of ongoing diplomatic efforts to appease the armed conflict. They conjure up discursive dead ends in public debates about current and future military support to Ukraine. Repeated calls for negotiations may create the illusion of a political alternative to Ukraine’s continued armed efforts to liberate the occupied territories. In this way, they delay, reduce and hinder more decisive Western aid to Kyiv.
While publicly promoting peace, the effects of these pacifists’ oral and written interventions paradoxically prolong the ongoing war. Of course, they also imply a devaluation of international law and a subversion of the European security order.
An informed approach to warfare
In this context, government officials, politicians, journalists and other commentators should adopt a informed approach to calls for swift negotiations and to refrain from insisting on the ‘peace for land’ narrative. Both politicians and opinion makers should, in their public and closed deliberations and actions, be aware of the legal challenges in both cases:
-Be aware of legal challenges that both Ukraine and Russia have to deal with in order to reach a compromise;
– Keep in mind the internal districts of both countries that hinder this scenario;
-Consider the geographical and economic link of the Crimea annexed with the other annexed territories;
-Considering the idea that Russia can be satisfied with only the control of the Crimea;
Policy proposals should be based as much as possible on the facts on the ground. Providing historical, legal, economic and political details is the best antidote to opponents of further support for Ukraine. In many cases, a simple listing of some relevant details of Russia’s and/or Ukraine’s internal affairs should be sufficient to challenge seemingly pragmatic discourses calling for a speedy peace.
Photo on the cover of EPA/OLEG PETRASYUK