Let us take the time to realize and reaffirm that the Russia-Ukraine war is a scandalous, anxiety-inducing and unnecessary drama. It is time to define a peace plan. Talking about peace in times of war should be the role of diplomats, specialists in nuance. Where are our diplomats?
The war can only end when realistic and credible security conditions for all parties are met. Ukraine wants to be able to develop socially, politically and economically while respecting its borders and its choices, without suffering the continual, stressful and threatening presence of a sword of Damocles. Russia too.
We must have the courage to understand that we, Ukrainians, Russians and Westerners, are currently mired in a vicious circle, where each side reacts to the actions and strategies of the other. A balance of rational, but myopic, reactions has developed: the US-EU-NATO coalition refuses Russia’s demands to avoid NATOization of countries on its borders in order to reduce its sense of insecurity ; Russia then positioned itself at the gates of Ukraine, old Rous; the US-EU-NATO coalition toughens its tone and announces the military reinforcement of NATO at the gates of Russia; Russia invades Ukraine; the US-EU-NATO coalition imposes economic and diplomatic sanctions on Russia, its leaders and their oligarch friends; Russia intensifies its attacks against Ukraine; the coalition sends massive weapons to Ukraine and undertakes an escalation of sanctions against Russian institutions, athletes, artists and ordinary citizens; Russia consolidates its ties with China; and we start again and again.
A back and forth of reactive strategic behavior that appears rational but leads us inexorably to a hellish descent into the depths, on the backs of the most vulnerable populations of Ukraine, Russia and Europe in the foreground.
In the West, politicians, diplomats, journalists, former ambassadors, former soldiers, columnists give a repetitive, one-sided warlike discourse. To get out of this, it will take more than the current “no more weapons to Ukraine” policy. Why not more intelligence and courage to think “outside the box”? Difficult, of course, but necessary. The search for an alternative win-win balance on the basis of a peace project is more subtle and intellectually and morally more demanding than the continuation of war, but this search is essential to the well-being of all devastated populations or scarred by war.
I confess that getting out of a bad Nash equilibrium is an extremely difficult task. Much more than continuing the same policy with the same logic and the same determination by repeating the same speeches, to give yourself a so-called “advantageous negotiating position”. We end up digging a hole on the back of the ordinary world, Ukrainian and Russian first, but also European, American and Canadian.
The current bad balance is becoming more and more stabilized with the increasing sending of heavy weapons to Ukraine and the intensification of Russian attacks. Russia and the West, through Ukraine, pursue the same, rather illusory, goal of bringing the other side to its knees. Today we risk being entangled and chained in this bad balance for a long time, with its daily share of suffering, misfortune, destruction and above all nuclear risks, as terrible as they are avoidable.
The war in Ukraine is setting civilization back decades for no reason. Civilizing free trade is being seriously undermined on both sides to the detriment of the citizens of the world.
We need a coalition capable of proposing a three-part peace treaty: first, the definition of a buffer zone between the military of Russia and those of NATO (US-EU); then, a formal commitment by the parties to respect the borders and the social, political and economic choices of each other; finally, an equally formal commitment from the parties, US-EU and Russia, to intervene militarily if one of them were to venture militarily into one of the territories of the buffer zone.
This buffer zone between the military of Russia and NATO (US-EU) would be made up of the countries bordering Russia, namely Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan. A “defensive type” treaty or alliance, like NATO, based on responsible freedom and a reasonable balance with incentive guarantees.
In exchange for a guarantee from Russia and the West (US-EU) to respect the social, political and economic choices of the countries in the buffer zone, these countries, led by Ukraine, would undertake to international neutrality, outside NATO, the EU or a new USSR. Under the auspices of a reinvigorated World Trade Organization, the treaty would guarantee the right of these countries to enter into trade agreements with Europe and Russia and other parts of the globe, such as China, Africa and America. And why not multi-party scientific, cultural, sporting and other exchange agreements?
The leaders of the buffer zone states could then concentrate their energy on the socio-political and economic development of their respective countries, in complete security and freedom. Nothing would prevent them, for example, from being members of the Council of Europe and other international consultation and cooperation organizations with Russia.
Volunteers to carry this message of peace? The other long-term solution is to divide Ukraine after several years, even several decades, of turbulence into two territories, one Russian and the other Ukrainian.