How to end major local war when neither side is willing to stop

For a long time, the opinion that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with significant Western support, should defeat the Russian invading army and return the borders to their constitutional limits, dominated in Ukraine. In 2022, after Russia’s failed blitzkrieg, many politicians and experts in the West shared this view, which helped drastically increase the supply of American and European weapons.

However, by 2023, the Russian-Ukrainian war had reached a deadlock. No one sees a reliable or acceptable way out of this impasse. Perhaps that is why we are now looking to global experience.

"The classic scenario: the war stops for one reason or another, and the parties sign a peace agreement. In the current situation, where both sides have staked everything on victory, there is no expectation of a peace deal, even if Trump stood between Zelenskyy and Putin, threatening them with all punishments for refusing peace."

The war has brought too much suffering and casualties (to Ukraine) to expect a fair resolution of the conflict, which would include not only border restoration but also just compensation for the damages caused. Moreover, a peace agreement would also imply punishment not only for starting the aggression but for specific war crimes committed during the fighting. In effect, the Russian side would be signing a death sentence for its own political and military leadership.

So, this is an unlikely scenario, though not hopeless. And not entirely hopeless. If Russia’s political leadership changes, specifically if Vladimir Putin leaves power by any means, the successor(s), lacking such unconditional and blind support from the people, will need to strengthen their political positions amid a war that has long stalled without significant results.

The first thing to pay attention to is Russia’s confrontation with almost the entire civilized world, which has imposed sanctions on the Russian aggressor and will not allow any relations to be restored without a change in course.

And we can fully expect that this civilized world, which America under Trump will also eagerly join, will be entirely on Ukraine’s side.

No matter which hawks initially come to power in Russia, building the kind of regime Putin had takes 20 years of absolute dictatorship. No one will quickly subdue even a conformist country like Russia. The “Kremlin towers” and various factions already fighting among themselves will, after Putin’s departure, nearly turn this into a civil war.

Only the one who gains the West’s support and promises Russians a window to Europe will receive backing and aid, that is, will win. And with all the favorable consequences for Ukraine that follow.

"But it’s worth noting that peace treaties have long ceased to be the norm, regardless of war circumstances. In the 19th century, 75% of interstate wars ended with peace treaties, but throughout the 20th century, this rate dropped to 40%. Could Ukraine and Russia surpass these figures? Perhaps they could. Dictatorships are not hereditary."

However, since the Kremlin leader’s regime is currently quite strong, it’s better not to expect a rapid change of political leadership in Russia anytime soon. This option is so unpredictable that it fits no scenario. Putin could leave tomorrow or in ten years. In other words, more realistic options should be sought. Signing a peace treaty in the near future is unlikely.

Another option for stopping hostilities could be a truce and freezing of active military operations, including exchanges of fire with the enemy, for some time.

A realistic approach would be to follow the example of the Korean War of 1950–1953, where such a ceasefire has lasted for over 70 years. Yes, this truce has been violated several hundred times, mostly by North Korea (DPRK). However, from the very beginning, demilitarized zones were established along the line of separation, and these artillery strikes have not caused significant harm, while the population of South Korea lives in peace and enjoys a fairly productive life.

The reunification of two parts of a single nation is complicated by both internal and external factors. Most importantly, there is the pro-fascist dictatorship established by the Kim family. And if not for the presence of China, there would be no such support and aid for the pseudo-communist regime, which from time to time suffers from famines that have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in recent years.

Indeed, the outcome of this ceasefire is far from ideal: some suffer from hunger and constant repression, while others live in constant fear, not just of shelling, but of possible missile strikes. And some of those missiles could very well carry nuclear warheads.

This outcome was easy to foresee from the beginning, and both sides did just that when they refused a ceasefire imposed by their partners: on one side, China and the USSR; on the other, the international coalition led by the UN and the United States.

But continuing to annihilate people in a fratricidal war made no sense. The front line had already shifted multiple times, southward and back northward, without any end in sight.

It reached the point where General Douglas MacArthur, who commanded U.S. forces in the region, proposed to President Harry Truman the use of atomic bombs on parts of China that were supplying the North Korean army with weapons and troops.

Truman rejected this dangerous idea, but it illustrates just how fierce the fighting was and how hopeless the situation seemed. Eventually, the American proposal for a ceasefire was supported by China, the USSR, and the leadership of North Korea.

The president of South Korea was against it until the very end. The armistice agreement was signed by U.S. General William Harrison Jr., representing the UN Command, and North Korean General Nam Il. The armistice was intended to “ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.”

Here it is important to highlight a crucial detail. Although South Korean President Syngman Rhee was a staunch opponent of the armistice until the very end, rightly believing it could become, if not permanent, then very long-lasting, he understood its fatal inevitability and raised the issue of security guarantees for his country with the U.S. president. The Americans persistently offered Seoul various substitutes for guarantees: "binding" statements of "deadly" sanctions for violations of the armistice, military support for the Korean army, and "arming it to the teeth," and an international conference on the reunification of the two Koreas. But President Syngman Rhee showed exceptional wisdom and persistence: only a binding mutual defense treaty, ratified by both parliaments, could serve as a true security guarantee.

And eventually, he convinced Truman of the necessity to sign a Mutual Defense Treaty that would allow for the deployment of American troops on South Korean territory to guarantee peace, at least in that part of the country (incidentally, those troops remain in South Korea to this day).

"Such a treaty was signed two months after the armistice began, securing peace and successful development for the South. Today, the results of this division are self-evident: North Korea has an annual per capita income of $1,200, while South Korea’s is $35,000, more than 30 times higher!"

These figures might also serve as a response to accusations against the U.S. of exporting democracy and playing the world’s policeman. Formally, the Americans did not achieve victory in Korea, even though their troops, under the UN flag, directly participated in combat on the South's side. But they succeeded in protecting those who did not seek a communist paradise and instead chose the path of democratic development. And the Koreans showed all their neighbors the benefits of liberal democracy.

Something very similar to the Korean conflict is unfolding now in Ukraine. Yes, the geopolitical circumstances are leaning in our favor, although it’s clear we won’t have a security guarantor in the idealized image of the United States. But Ukraine, which has shown its courage to the entire world, may no longer need guardians or protectors. Perhaps trustworthy friends are enough, friends united by a mutual defense pact against the Kremlin’s aggression and despotism. And such friends, bound by a common threat of aggression, do seem to be emerging in Europe today. The only question is: can Ukraine and its leaders unite them?

Source

About the author. Viktor Moroz, Ukrainian journalist, columnist.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.