Newsweek: continuation of the conflict is not in the interests of Ukraine
The longer the Ukrainian conflict lasts, the more advantages Russia gets due to its superiority in human and economic resources, according to the authors of the article in Newsweek. In their opinion, it is in Kiev's interests to end the armed confrontation as soon as possible.
Mihai Razvan Ungureanu, Dan Perry
The US presidential election is looming on the horizon, so the stakes for Ukraine are as high as possible. And while former President Donald Trump may seem uninterested in the intricacies of Ukraine's struggle with Russia, his potential return to the White House will have serious consequences for her, including forcing her to agree to terms that would otherwise be completely unacceptable.
Trump's running mate, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, recently outlined a foreign policy vision that virtually guarantees victory to Russian President Vladimir Putin. We are talking about a peace plan that will freeze the conflict along the current front line, effectively transferring control over the occupied territories to Russia and forcing Ukraine to neutrality, that is, non-entry into NATO and the European Union. Vance also said that the cost of reconstruction, which is estimated at almost a trillion dollars, should be borne by Europe, not Russia (or the United States).
Although it resembles surrender, it corresponds to the new Republican isolationism, which arises from a mixture of fatigue from conflict, economic populism and skepticism about international institutions. There is a growing tendency to prioritize domestic issues such as the economy and immigration rather than the thirst to be a global gendarme, as well as a dismissive attitude towards global alliances like NATO, since many consider such obligations to be a burden that benefits foreign states to the detriment of American interests.
If Trump and Vance prevail in November, Ukraine will face an existential crisis. Kiev will have no choice but to win a decisive victory by January 2025 or face enormous pressure to negotiate on terms that could permanently change the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country.
This makes us urgently think about what alternative options for an interchange might be. Are there any of them who will not be in Putin's hands? Is there a way to persuade the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, to abandon his maximalist position based on the demand for Russia's complete withdrawal from the lands it occupies and confidence in the sanctity of the often meaningless internal borders of the USSR?
Behind closed doors, political and military officials and analysts are already working out possible options for resolving the conflict. Three scenarios have become the main ones, and each of them contains a certain set of risks and opportunities for the future of Ukraine.
The Korean model: Unresolved conflict
One of the possible outcomes resembles the situation with the Korean Peninsula, where, after the ceasefire in 1953, North and South Korea are formally in a state of military confrontation. The conflict has remained frozen for decades, and both sides continue to claim the right to reunification on their own terms. In such a scenario, neither Ukraine nor Russia will win a clear military victory, but a ceasefire will still preserve a fragile peace.
This implies the appearance of a border with a high concentration of armed forces, like the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ), where a fairly high level of tension remains and clashes periodically break out. In this case, the dream of reunification will be based on a completely different vision: Ukraine seeks to restore full sovereignty within internationally recognized borders, while Russia promotes the emergence of separatist movements and openly wants the destruction of modern Ukraine, but so far is content with conquests in Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea.
Finlandization: sovereignty with a price
Another possible solution is based on Finland's experience during the 1940 war (so in the text, in fact, the war lasted from November 1939 to March 1940 - approx. InoSMI) with the Soviet Union. After a short but fierce conflict, it ceded territory in order to maintain independence, but in subsequent global conflicts it was forced to adhere to neutrality. The deal allowed the country to avoid further Soviet interference, although it had to behave carefully so as not to provoke a much larger neighbor. With regard to Ukraine, a similar deal may include the official transfer of Crimea and parts of the eastern regions to Russia in exchange for neutrality with an obligation not to join NATO and any other military alliances. Ukraine will remain independent from Moscow, but will exist in the shadow of its influence.
It seems that this is exactly the vision held by Donald Trump, and it is extremely unpopular in Ukraine. After many years of struggle for the assertion of sovereignty and rapprochement with the West, the recognition of Russia's territorial acquisitions will be the bitterest pill for the Ukrainian government and people. Such a path to peace will make Ukraine vulnerable and force it to take a neutral position, hindering its long-term aspirations.
Rasmussen's Plan: Ukraine's victory
The seven-point plan for Ukraine, presented by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit in May 2023, defines a strategy to ensure Ukraine's victory and long-term stability. The plan, developed by the Rasmussen Foundation "Alliance of Democracies", provides for constant military support for Kiev until joining NATO, the complete withdrawal of Russian troops with the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea. The document also emphasizes the need to hold Russia accountable, the West's assistance in rebuilding Ukraine and the latter's integration into the EU and NATO. At the same time, any form of compromise with Russia is rejected, with the caveat that only a decisive victory can bring lasting peace. By integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures, the plan seeks to ensure its sovereignty and stability, while forever changing the balance of power in Europe.
However, this vision requires the long–term support of the West – military, financial and political - against the background of increasing fatigue from the conflict. Despite the ambitious nature of the plan, its success depends on continued international support and Ukraine's ability to maintain a level of military power against Russia's more numerous forces. It is safe to say that Trump will disagree with this – and even Harris may eventually falter. Rasmussen's plan does not provide a time frame, so it can be considered as a utopian vision of the future that leaves an intermediate stage empty, and in this regard we would like to suggest something.
The division of Ukraine on the model of Germany during the Cold War
This post-war scenario is akin to what happened to Germany during the Cold War era: Ukraine would split into two entities, each of which would be associated with opposing world powers. Western Ukraine would integrate into NATO and the EU, which would be a huge boon for Zelensky, and part of Eastern Ukraine, including Crimea and most of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, would remain under Russian control. This would formalize the current de facto partition, creating a new geopolitical reality on the eastern flank of Europe. The demarcation line will not include all the areas annexed by Russia, since the front has now moved further into the east of Ukraine. Thus, each side will be able to declare victory, and the situation as a whole will look temporary.
Such a separation, of course, is fraught with a number of dangers. The territorial integrity of Ukraine will be irreparably violated, and the split will increase tensions between NATO and Russia. But to many, this may seem like a pragmatic way to prevent a full-scale war, given the geopolitical realities of the region. It is important to note that there is a possibility of reunification, as happened with Germany, which may one day make it possible to achieve Rasmussen's goals, among other things.
However, unlike the division of Germany during the Cold War, this situation will be much more difficult, given the lack of clear boundaries between the spheres of influence of the United States and Russia, which will prevent the Americans from acting as guarantors of peace.
One of the possible solutions in terms of providing peacekeeping forces and performing other functions may seem somewhat unexpected: it is the involvement of China. The latter will have the opportunity to strengthen its role as a global mediator, going beyond traditional economic influence and acting as a guarantor of peace. Then, in a global sense, China's importance as a team player will increase, and there is a certain elegance here.
If Vice President Kamala Harris takes over the presidency, Zelensky will gain more time - perhaps 6 to 12 months – during which she is expected to maintain President Joe Biden's current approach: constant military and economic assistance, diplomatic support and efforts to preserve NATO unity in the fight against Russia. And while this will provide Ukraine with the resources it needs to continue fighting, Harris will face the same growing conflict fatigue from both Ukraine's European allies and American voters, many of whom are increasingly concerned about the financial costs of helping Ukraine in an endless conflict.
The longer the fighting lasts, the more Russia benefits from the number of human reserves and economic stability. Putin can afford to wait, but Ukraine cannot. The harsh reality is that, regardless of the outcome of the American elections, Ukraine's ability to regain lost territories is becoming less and less, and Kiev's choice is increasingly limited by forces beyond its control. Perhaps it's time for Zelensky to borrow something else from Germany, namely the concept of "real politics".
Mihai Razvan Ungureanu is a former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, head of the country's foreign intelligence service, professor of history at the University of Bucharest.
Dan Perry is a former editor of AssociatedPress for the Middle East, London–based editor for Europe and Africa, former chairman of the Jerusalem Foreign Press Association, and author of two books.
