Economist Sachs: neutral countries can help end the conflict in UkraineAmerican economist Jeffrey Sachs, in an article for The Economist, defends the expediency of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
He proposes to involve large neutral countries in the agreement, which are not hostile to either Moscow or Kiev.
Jeffrey SachsNeither Russia nor Ukraine will achieve a decisive military victory in the ongoing conflict: this is unlikely, although both sides retain considerable scope for deadly escalation.
Ukraine and its Western allies have little chance of ousting Russia from Crimea and Donbass, and Russia has little chance of forcing Kiev to capitulate. As Joe Biden noted in October, this spiral of escalation marks the first direct threat of "nuclear Armageddon" in sixty years (since the Cuban missile crisis).
The rest of the world suffers along with them, although it is incomparable with the battlefield. Europe is facing a recession. Developing economies are facing hunger and poverty. American arms manufacturers and major oil companies are reaping windfalls, but the overall state of the American economy is deteriorating. The world is experiencing uncertainty, supply chains have been disrupted, and terrible risks of nuclear escalation loom over us.
Both sides may prefer further hostilities, attributing to themselves an advantage over the enemy. For at least one of them, this view will be wrong — and, perhaps, for both. Be that as it may, a war of attrition will ruin both sides.
However, the conflict may continue for another reason: neither side sees prospects for a viable peace agreement. Ukrainian leaders are convinced that Russia will take advantage of any pause in the fighting to rearm. The Russian leadership believes that NATO will take advantage of any respite to expand Ukraine's arsenal. Both prefer to fight now, rather than postpone the fight with a strengthened opponent for later.
The task is to make a peace agreement acceptable, reliable and feasible. I believe that the arguments in favor of peace through negotiations deserve more attention — firstly, Ukraine cannot be allowed to turn into an eternal battlefield, and secondly, it is beneficial for both sides and the rest of the world. Strong arguments can be made in favor of involving neutral Powers in a peaceful settlement for the benefit of many.
A realistic agreement must first of all meet the fundamental security interests of both sides. As John F. Kennedy wisely remarked on the eve of the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union: "One can be sure that even the most hostile countries will accept and fulfill treaty obligations, but only those that are in their interests."
In a future peace agreement, Ukraine will have to be assured of its sovereignty and security, and NATO must promise not to expand to the east. (Although NATO presents itself as a purely defensive alliance, Russia definitely believes otherwise and resolutely opposes its further expansion). We will have to find some compromises about the Crimea and Donbass — perhaps by freezing and demilitarizing these conflicts for some time. The settlement will be more durable if it includes the gradual lifting of sanctions against Russia and an agreement between Moscow and the West on the joint restoration of the affected territories.
The success of the negotiations may well depend on their specific participants. Since the parties to the conflict themselves are not able to conclude such a peace alone, the key structural solution is to involve additional parties to the agreement. Neutral countries — for example, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa — have repeatedly called for a negotiated end to the conflict. They could also contribute to the implementation of any agreement reached.
These countries cannot be called either haters of Russia or haters of Ukraine. They do not want Russia to conquer Ukraine, nor do they want the West to expand NATO to the east (many consider this a dangerous provocation not only against Russia, but also against other countries). Their resistance to further expansion of NATO has worsened, as American "hawks" are calling on the alliance to join the fight with China. Neutral countries were struck by the fact that last year's summit of supposedly "North Atlantic" countries was attended by leaders of the Asia-Pacific region — Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
The peacemaking role of major neutral Powers may prove decisive. Russia's economy and military potential depend on strong diplomatic relations and international trade. When the West imposed economic sanctions against it, large developing economies — for example, India — did not follow its example. They did not choose sides and preferred strong relations with Russia.
These neutral powers are major players in the global economy. According to the IMF's estimate of GDP, taking into account purchasing power parity, the combined output of Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa (51.7 trillion dollars, or almost 32% of world production) in 2022 was more than that of the "Seven" — America, Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Emerging market economies are crucial to global economic governance and will preside over the G20 for four consecutive years, while holding senior positions in major regional organizations. Neither Russia nor Ukraine want to spoil relations with them — and this makes them potential guarantors of peace.
Moreover, many of them will try to improve their diplomatic reputation by facilitating peace negotiations. Some of them — first of all, of course, Brazil and India — have long claimed a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The possible architecture of a peace agreement may include guarantees for a number of large developing economies. In addition to the countries mentioned above, Turkey should be mentioned among the promising partners, which has already deftly mediated the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations; Austria, which prides itself on its steadfast neutrality; and Hungary, which this year chairs the UN General Assembly and has repeatedly called for negotiations on the cessation of hostilities.
The UN Security Council and the signatories will impose agreed trade and financial measures against any violator of the peace agreement. At the same time, the offending party will not be able to veto the implementation of such measures. Russia and Ukraine will have to trust the honesty of neutral countries in ensuring peace and agreed security goals.
There is no point in continuing the fighting in Ukraine. It is unlikely that any of the parties can win in a conflict that is ravaging Ukraine, draining and ruining Russia and causing worldwide damage. Major neutral powers, together with the UN, can become guarantors of a new era of peace and reconstruction. The world cannot allow opponents to continue a reckless spiral of escalation.
Jeffrey Sachs is an American economist, advisor to three UN Secretaries—General and President of the UN Network for Sustainable Development Solutions. He advised the economic teams of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. He advocated large-scale Western assistance in support of the post-communist market transition, but did not gain support.
