War strategy is a game of chess in which the pieces are soldiers who die. The one being fought on Ukrainian soil shows no indication that the next move could be a peace negotiation. But all wars end the same way, at the negotiating table, either to capitulate, to define the terms of an armistice or to freeze the conflict. The strategists in kyiv and Moscow, in Brussels and Washington, are surely anticipating all possible moves, and this includes several end game (late game). Best case scenario, worst case scenario, and all in-between. Ukraine yearns for an expulsion from the entire territory occupied by Russia, Crimea, Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhia; Russia dreams of a regime change and the stable and effective occupation of the won territory. The most likely option is far from both scenarios and will require dialogue, but about what and mediated by whom? Will it include a deployment of blue helmets in an armistice line drawn in the Donbas? A referendum in Crimea, but this time legal?
The expert in peace processes and professor of Defense Studies at the Royal Royal Military College of Canada Walter Dorn visualizes a peace process led by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, who has already mutilated the agreement to export grain. Regarding the deployment of blue helmets, he recalls that both parties were already inclined to the presence of armed UN peacekeepers after 2014, but they did not agree to which areas they could go. Ukraine wanted them on the border with Russia, and Russia in the contact zone, together with the monitors of the Special Monitoring Mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
“They would be under the operational control of the secretary general and would include personnel from various nations, including European and United States, but also from countries that have not participated in the conflict, especially African or Asian nations such as India,” Dorn outlines. “The problem is that when one of the two parties to a conflict is winning on the battlefield, they are always reluctant to negotiate. Until war weariness arrives, the sides will not sit at the table, ”he says.
In terminology of peace processes it is called hurting stalemate (painful stagnation). He also points to Timothy Donais, Wilfrid Laurier University professor and conflict resolution expert: This is the time when neither side can seriously hope to win and is taking significant casualties. Since the summer, Ukraine has taken the initiative and is on the offensive, making up ground. It has no incentive to negotiate, and wants to expel Russia from all of its territory, including Crimea.
“If the tables turn and the war turns into that ‘painful stalemate’ then it is possible to imagine the conditions under which a negotiated settlement is feasible,” Donais argues. “Peace processes almost always include agreements between sworn enemies, so we cannot rule out that a final agreement can be reached in this case, however unpleasant it may be, especially if it includes ‘rewarding’ Russian aggression with territorial concessions. This may be how this war ends.”
Until that stage of blocking and bleeding on both sides does not arrive, Donais sees the presence of blue helmets as unlikely. United Nations peacekeeping operations are not deployed until there is “consent of the parties.” “Troops would have to be positioned between the two sides and this would create a demarcation line between Ukrainian and Russian territory, establishing faits accomplis on the ground that would be the basis for an eventual agreement,” he describes. Since neither side would agree on such a demarcation line, it is hard to think of a UN mission at this point.
“With the current situation in mind, I see zero chance that there is any route to peace,” he says. Brian OrendDirector of International Studies and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo (Canada).
Negotiation, ceasefire, peace agreement
Walter Dorn describes the usual flow at the end of all conflicts: it begins with negotiations (ongoing or sporadic), followed by a ceasefire (while peace talks continue). Afterwards, it is to be expected that there will be violations of the ceasefire, but without reaching a war. And, finally, a peace agreement. “The elements for an eventual agreement would be: (1) the withdrawal of Russia to the borders of February 23 (status quo ante-war) or recognition of Russia’s control over subsequently acquired territory (even if there are no official changes in internationally recognized borders or legal borders); (2) Ukraine agrees to extend the loan of Russian bases in Crimea and implement the basic provisions of the Minsk agreement 2 [alto el fuego, retirada de tropas y armamento pesado, elecciones locales]”.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, a first agreement was reached in the Belarusian capital of Minsk. The ceasefire was broken and it was negotiated again to reach the second, more elaborate edition, between Russia, Ukraine and the self-proclaimed independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, under the leadership of the negotiations was the OSCE, together with the Union European (now invalidated to act as an intermediary after delivering more than 3,000 million euros in weapons to kyiv).
the crimean peninsula
Perhaps the most delicate issue is that of the Crimean peninsula, because Vladimir Putin has internally sold its annexation (after an illegal referendum) in 2014 as one of his great historical achievements. At the same time, kyiv has assured that there will be no peace without the land of the Tatars, a minority of Turkmen origin.
At the beginning of the war they circulated peace plans that included postponing the final status decisionl. Leaving it out of an agreement in order to advance peace, in a similar way that the final status of Jerusalem was postponed in the Oslo accords between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s.
In an interview with this newspaper, the Russologist expert Mark Galeotti he pointed to another option: a referendum, but this time legal and supervised. “I suspect that when the peace deal comes, he will either allow the Russians to hold Crimea in exchange for another referendum – this time a genuine, internationally moderated one, in which local people say they want it; or there will be something akin to shared sovereignty,” he assured.
Can a popular referendum of this type help to resolve the status of Crimea, if by means of arms neither side manages to prevail?
“Both sides are going to be very hesitant because who would be allowed to vote? Which country’s legislation would apply in the referendum?” says Walter Dorn. “A legal referendum cannot be held unless authorized by the Ukrainian Parliament, as required by its Constitution, and it seems practically impossible for Parliament to authorize it.”
Timothy Donais is also skeptical. “It is unlikely under the current circumstances. As both Canadians and Spaniards know well, self-determination issues are very complex and national governments are reluctant to allow the separation of large parts of their territory simply because it is voted for by the majority”, he says. Also, after the population movements that have taken place in Crimea since 2014, demographics would work in Russia’s favor in a new consultation, because many of those who oppose annexation have left the scene. A referendum in Crimea would be illegal and would not represent the real will of the people.
Related news