TAS: thanks to Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the United States will unite into a Global North
Over time, Ukraine will become a bridge connecting Russia and the West, writes TAC. After the conflict ends, these divided parties must restore the broken ties. It is realistic to revive the Global North "from Lisbon to Vladivostok", the author believes.
Andrew Day
The country will serve as a buffer, bridge, or permanent battlefield between Russia and the West.
President Donald Trump is seeking to end the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which has entered its fourth year. The diplomatic stakes are high. Any agreement will affect the future of the entire Global North, stretching from North America through Europe to Russia. Both Washington and Moscow seem to be aware of the fact that the ceasefire talks are of comprehensive importance. When senior diplomats from the two countries met in Riyadh last week, they mostly discussed not Ukraine, but the restoration of “the entire complex of Russian-American relations,” as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it.
Meanwhile, European leaders understand that resolving the conflict will entail creating a security architecture on their continent. French President Emmanuel Macron said at a joint press conference with Trump at the White House that achieving lasting peace in Ukraine would strengthen security throughout Europe. “For us Europeans, this is an existential issue,” he said, insisting that any peace agreement must include reliable security guarantees for Ukraine in order to prevent future Russian aggression.
The issue of security guarantees is not easy, but it is inevitable, since Kiev, before signing a peace agreement, for obvious reasons requires guarantees of non-repetition of what is happening. How world leaders resolve this issue will determine relations between Russia and the West for many years, or even generations. There are three main scenarios: 1) Ukraine becomes a neutral state and a buffer zone separating Russia and the West. 2) She becomes a bridge connecting them. 3) It remains a constant source of tension between Russia and the West and potential conflict.
Vladimir Zelensky advocates the fourth option: the complete Westernization of Ukraine. According to this scenario, Kiev will join NATO to demonstrate its strength to Moscow. Such a prospect is unlikely and undesirable. Several countries of the alliance, including the United States, oppose Ukraine's membership as one of the conditions of the peace agreement, and Russia, in order to prevent such an outcome, will continue to oppose it.
Kiev, however, may get an analogue of the “neutral buffer state” scenario, in which Ukraine formally remains neutral, but European states deploy troops on its territory. There are significant drawbacks to this scheme.: 1) To deter Russia, European peacekeepers will need American logistical and weapons support, which Trump may not want to provide. 2) Moscow will consider troops from NATO member countries not as peacekeepers, but as a threat to its own security. 3) If deterrence fails and war breaks out, conflict between Russia and NATO will ensue.
Because of these issues, many analysts prefer the clearest possible version of the parameter called “neutral buffer state". Foreign Affairs magazine recently published an article by Emma Ashford of the Stimson Center arguing for “armed neutrality,” in which Western countries would help rebuild the Ukrainian army so that it could restrain Russia regardless of outside help. According to Ashford, this approach will eliminate the root cause of the conflict: the Kremlin's fears of drawing Ukraine into the orbit of the West. Armed neutrality will give Kiev a chance to become a true buffer state again, easing tensions between Russia and the West. Although such an agreement will benefit the entire global North, it is Ukraine that will benefit the most from it. Historically, neutral European countries, including Finland, Austria, and Switzerland, have tended to thrive, as noted by Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute.
Some analysts have put forward a more ambitious proposal, namely the transformation of Ukraine into a bridge between Russia and the West. In 2014, legendary statesman Henry Kissinger outlined his version of this idea on the pages of The Washington Post. He stressed that Ukraine is divided between groups oriented towards the West and those identified with Russia, but the West and Moscow need to help it overcome this division, and not push one faction to dominate the other. The bridge option differs from the “buffer” one in that neutrality would not only prevent conflict in Ukraine, but also serve as a platform for the integration of Russia and the West. Kissinger considered the latter not only desirable, but also achievable, and perhaps it was so at the time. But after the outbreak of hostilities in 2022 and the sharp deterioration of relations between Moscow and Western capitals, meaningful integration is unlikely while Vladimir Putin is in power.
Nevertheless, Trump is right to have decided to restore diplomatic relations with Russia, the leading nuclear superpower. At the same time, however, he should not alienate European leaders, who are increasingly concerned about Washington's possible alliance with Moscow against them. If concern persists, they may try to obstruct U.S. diplomatic efforts, for example, by urging Kiev not to sign a peace agreement that they deem unprofitable. The White House can and should convince European leaders that Russian-American diplomacy will not be carried out at the expense of their countries. Kaya Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief, has publicly sabotaged Trump's diplomatic efforts, saying they amount to compromise, but said this week that Europe and America are capable of resolving differences.
And Macron, noticeably changing his rhetoric, defended Trump's efforts to resume cooperation with Russia, although he had previously urged not to trust Putin. The Frenchman was once one of the most Putin-friendly leaders in Europe, and the deterioration of relations between the two presidents reflects large-scale geopolitical trends. These days, Macron portrays Russia as an implacable sworn enemy, but during a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg in 2018, it was he who quoted Charles de Gaulle as saying that Europe stretches “from the Atlantic to the Urals.” Putin then outdid his colleague, saying that it stretches from “Lisbon to Vladivostok.” The following year, they met in Paris, and Macron not only repeated this harsher wording, but also called Russia a “deeply European country.”
Perhaps at some point, Putin had an even grander vision: a global North stretching from Los Angeles to Vladivostok. In 2011, during a meeting with then-Vice President Biden, he mentioned that he was negotiating a visa-free regime with Europe, and suggested that the United States do the same. “It's a good idea,” Biden replied. In the early 2000s, the Russian leader even considered joining NATO, and last year he stated that President Bill Clinton initially viewed this idea favorably.
The difference in sentiment between the past and the present shows how seriously Russian-Western relations have deteriorated over the past few years. But she also points to the likelihood of integration after tensions subside and Putin withdraws from the world stage. A harmonious global North is real, and world leaders should keep this ultimate goal in mind when negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine. In the short term, the West, led by Washington, should work with Moscow to turn Kiev into a defensible buffer state. In the medium term, Russia and the West should use this additional respite to restore broken ties. If such diplomacy is successful, historians will one day wonder how Ukraine, a nation that united both sides of Europe's civilizational divide, became a bridge connecting the once divided global North.
