A Way Out

Persecution of ethnic Russians must stop goes without saying simply on humanitarian grounds

Zelensky is adamant that he wants Ukraine to join NATO and Russian forces to retreat to their previous borders, including relinquishing any claims to Crimea. Putin is adamant that Ukraine should not join NATO, that Ukraine must stop interfering with Russian access to Crimean ports and Russian gas pipelines, and must stop the persecution of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. On the face of them, those are irreconcilable goals. Both sides have good arguments in favor of their demands.

Clearly, the territory currently occupied by Russian forces was and is part of the territory of Ukraine. That territory contains most of the industrial capacity of Ukraine that supports much of Ukraine's economy. Zelensky has been persuaded that membership in NATO is the only way to preserve Ukraine's autonomy as he could then count on Western forces, including American, to resist and repulse any threat of Russian aggression. It would also provide him with long range weapons that could strike almost anywhere in Russia should he choose. Zelensky has also advocated for harsh sanctions against Russia and reparations for damage.

On the other side, were Ukraine to be admitted to NATO membership, that would be a clear violation of assurances given by America that NATO would not be expanded past the eastern border of Germany. Given that NATO was formed to block expansion of the now nonexistent USSR, of which Russia was a principal member, Putin is right to be concerned about having a potentially hostile force directly on a border only a few miles from Moscow. Likewise, when Ukraine and Russia were both members of the USSR, Russia contributed greatly to the construction of the Crimean ports and to road and rail access to those ports. Both Ukraine and Russia benefited from that access. An argument exists that Russia has a legitimate claim to access. That persecution of ethnic Russians must stop goes without saying simply on humanitarian grounds.

Do we just continue escalation until we bumble into World War III?

It seems obvious that the two positions cannot be reconciled, especially given the legitimacy of claims and grievances on both sides. Meanwhile, people continue to die on both sides, cities and vital infrastructure are destroyed, the world becomes more polarized, and steps closer and closer to a global war.

Simply partitioning the territory will not work. This non-solution has been tried time and again with the examples of Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, Israel/Palestine and others as proof. What is left, though? Does the world just choose sides and support the claims of one or the other? Which should prevail, and what of those who support an opposing side? Do we just continue escalation until we bumble into World War III?

I can claim as friends people from both sides of the conflict, and want little more than a resolution to the conflict that acknowledges the legitimate grievances on both sides, but provides a peaceful and lasting solution. I believe that such a solution is possible, and offer an outline for such a proposal.

I suggest that Ukraine grant Russia a lease to the territory currently occupied by Russian forces, or to such territory as may be agreed. Such leases have been used in the past to provide diplomatic resolution to conflict, with the notable example of the British lease of Hong Kong. Terms of the lease would include:

• Ukraine would agree not to join or seek NATO membership for the duration of the lease;
• The leased territory would remain part of Ukraine;
• Russia would have administrative authority over the leased territory;
• Ukraine citizens in the leased territory would retain Ukraine citizenship;
• Ukraine would have unrestricted civilian access to the leased territory for commerce and other legitimate civilian purposes, but would be prohibited from having military or militia presence or operations in the territory;
• Ukraine and Russia would enter into binding negotiations regarding pipeline and other access to European markets that would allow passage of vital Russian supplies to those markets;
• Ukraine and Russia would agree to mediation and enforcement of their agreements by a neutral third party;
• Russia would agree to cease military operations in the territory and not initiate future military acts;
• Other lease terms, including duration, payments, obligations, what happens on lease termination, and how violations should be handled would be resolved through diplomatic negotiations.

Both Ukraine and Russia would likely be receptive to having the US as a neutral arbitrator

Under such a proposal, Ukraine would retain its territory so a major demand would be satisfied. Russian demands would be satisfied in that NATO would not be brought to its borders. Russia would ensure that it had access to the ports it needs along with the transportation channels that serve them. Russia would be able to protect ethnic Russians in the territory and stop their persecution. Both Ukraine and Russia would benefit from the passage of gas and other supplies to European and global markets through Ukrainian territory. Likewise, both would benefit from recourse to third party resolution of conflicts.

Russia would have strong incentive to rebuild and restore the leased territory, as it would be to their great economic benefit. That it would benefit the Ukrainian population as well would be obvious and would go far to establishing and maintaining peaceful relations in the territory.

Both Ukraine and Russia would likely be receptive to having the US as a neutral arbitrator, at least initially. Much of the enduring source of discord between Russia and Ukraine has been the violation by both parties of agreements over access to markets, passage of goods, and use of facilities. Neither party has been able to enforce agreements without resort to force because they have not had the ability to appeal to a third party with sufficient strength to enforce an agreement. Even if the arbitrator were a group of nations or some international court, the existence of such a body would work to reduce the corruption that has prompted prior violations.

Time to think outside the box. The world awaits

Such a lease would give both parties a chance to peacefully work together and to develop mutual interests conducive to cooperation rather than conflict. Both parties would obtain their primary objectives in a win-win manner. Grievances between the two nations are long standing—even generational—and will not be resolved overnight, but further bloodshed will only increase them and will not resolve them. Time to try something different.

The only real losers in such a scenario would be the weapons makers and those who profit from war. War hawks on all sides would gnash their teeth and rend their garments over their thwarted ambitions of strife and conquest. Seems like a small loss, to me.

This proposal is simply one possibility for resolution of the conflict short of continued war. Whether this, or some other proposal honoring the concerns of both sides is adopted, the fact remains that the situation will not be resolved by the same kind of thinking that led to the conflict. Time to think outside the box. The world awaits.