An Anti-Partisan Peace Plan for Ukraine
Reparations, returns, and referendums
On last week’s episode of Season 2 of the recently resurrected “Trump Show,” there was a spicy verbal throwdown between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky told the press on Wednesday that Trump existed in a “web of disinformation” concerning the Russia-Ukraine War. That provoked a signature Trumpian tirade, starting with a screed on Truth Social in which he called the Ukrainian leader “a dictator without elections” who had been “playing Biden like a fiddle.” Trump also claimed that half the money that the US has given Ukraine is “missing” and that, even though Trump “[loves] Ukraine,” Zelensky has done a “terrible job,” and the country has been “shattered,” while “millions have unnecessarily died.”
In a subsequent speech, Trump continued the onslaught, charging Zelensky with riding the U.S. “gravy train” to fund Ukraine’s war effort, an accusation that echoed Trump’s words on Truth Social. “If you would have had (Biden’s) administration for another year, you would have been in World War III, Trump then told the audience. “And it’s not going to happen now.”
The war of words between the U.S. and Ukrainian leaders ensued after U.S. and Russian delegations met last Tuesday—without the Ukrainians—and agreed to begin efforts to end the war. It also happened as the war’s three-year mark was approaching.
Ahead of the Feb. 24 anniversary, the U.S. and the European Union released strikingly different draft U.N. resolutions. The brief U.S. resolution laments “the tragic loss of life throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict” and “implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.” The E.U. statement, on the other hand, condemns “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation” and demands that “Russia immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”
Ukraine, naturally, has signed on to the E.U. resolution, while Russia is obviously more favorably disposed to the U.S. version. But, while the U.S. statement allows for ample flexibility and room for negotiation, the E.U. essentially spells out its final position in the wording of its statement.
To be clear, Russia, which committed the original invasion, is not a stakeholder on an equal level with Ukraine, the victim, and the final peace agreement should reflect this fact. But, conditions that offer Russia nothing give it no incentive to end a war that is basically tied. It has to at least be given an opportunity to save face.
The hard truth is that, throughout world history, nations have always assaulted each other’s territorial integrity. Attacks occur, nations under attack respond, the dust settles, and the world moves on.
But, once the cloud of dust dissipates, there are constants, irrespective of the outcome. First, there are untold numbers of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians. In the Russia-Ukraine war, that total now exceeds one million.
Second, there is physical and financial devastation. The cost of the destruction to Ukraine–parts of which now lie in ruin–is projected to be at least $500 billion. And, just in 2023, the war is estimated to have cost the global economy almost $3 trillion.
The human and economic toll of this war demands that we try to end it. Yes, Ukraine’s right to self-defense is firmly established under international law. If the war is over, it won’t have to defend itself.
As indicated, there are many who decry the notion of a resolution to the conflict that isn’t exclusively dictated by Ukraine. Understandably, this is the position of most Ukrainians.
Less understandable are the war’s western cheerleaders, the present and past policymakers, media personalities, academics and other elites who seem to be willing to spill endless amounts of Slavic blood and global treasure. To these establishmentarian warmongers, any cost in money or foreign lives is acceptable, either because of their lofty ideals about the triumph of democracy and of good over evil, or because they want to squeeze as much out of Ukraine as possible in what is actually a Western proxy war against Russia, or because they fault Putin for Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016.
But, insisting that Ukraine (and the West) must solely set the terms of any end to the war doesn’t line up with what’s happening on the ground. Ukraine isn’t losing. But, they aren’t winning either. And, in the meantime, the corpses and costs keep stacking up.
An anti-partisan peace plan
At the outset, let’s establish that none of the major players would ever agree to this deal. Because Putin, Zelensky and Trump, and Russia, Ukraine, the U.S. and the E.U. all have political agendas. But, this is what policymaking would look like if the only agenda was finding solutions.
Anti-partisans would call for an immediate ceasefire and the opening of peace talks. The final agreement should be centered around three provisions.
First, since it invaded Ukraine, Russia would be liable for full reparations for damages that were caused by the invasion.
Second, Russia would abandon any Ukrainian territory that it seized after 2021. That means the provinces of Zaporizhzhya and Kherson, which were seized at the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. All non-resident Russians would have to vacate these areas immediately.
Third, the political status of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk–the regions that have been under partial or total Russian control since 2014–would be determined by internationally administered and monitored referendums. Residents of the three provinces would choose between reintegrating with Ukraine, becoming part of Russia or becoming independent.
This plan makes Russia accept responsibility for the war, repair what it damaged during the war and return what it stole in the war. It gives back to Ukraine all territories that it held before the war and guarantees that the country will be reconstructed.
It also acknowledges that the experience of people living in the lands that were occupied in 2014 has been distinct. They have been living under divided control for slightly more than a decade—for reference, Ukraine itself has only existed since 1991, or slightly more than three decades. Their experience has given these populations new, regional identities. They should have the right to determine their own course.
Finally, the plan provides Russia with an incentive to end the war because it offers Russia the possibility of legitimately obtaining as many as three of the five provinces that it currently occupies. Russia defends its occupation of these regions based on their Russian heritage and cultural ties. The referendums would test these connections.
Further, Russia could show its willingness to respect the rule of law by refraining from interfering in the referendums. In other words, the plan gives Russia an opportunity to take a baby step back toward the international community.
Items that that shouldn’t be included in peace negotiations include war crime allegations and Ukraine’s aspirations of joining NATO and other western consortiums. The final deal should only concern the control of land and the responsibility for war damages. The other points could upend the peace process and therefore should only be addressed after a treaty is signed.
At that point, Ukraine and its western allies could bring their war crimes claims through the International Criminal Court or pursue some other course of justice. Justice-seekers should beware, however, that if the Russians believe that they will inevitably stand before tribunals, that will strongly disincentivize the pursuit of peace on their part.
And, as for the drive to integrate Ukraine into the West, maybe we should instead use the opportunity to reimagine geopolitical identities. Because “the West,” in this sense, exists only insofar as there are nations that are defined as its opponents. Whatever we call them–enemies; rogue states; rivals; strategic competitors–they are defined by their exclusion. They aren’t on our team.
If this outlook sounds familiar, it’s because it’s simply the application of the partisan mentality to international relations. Countries and alliances regard other countries and alliances with whom they have fundamental disagreements as adversaries, not potential partners. And rather than trying to resolve their quarrels with the other side, they try to win them. Just like partisans.
The end of the war would offer the world the opportunity to hit reset. Whatever economic, military and political condition Russia is in when it emerges from the current conflict, it has shown that it poses no threat of restoring the old Soviet empire. So perhaps all of us should move past our Cold War mentalities and stop looking at the world in terms of competing blocs of nations. Instead, we should seek to create, for the first time, a true, global community of mutually recognized stakeholders.
Portions of this post have been adapted from my book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down. Buy the book here. For the time being, it is only available digitally. To read, download the Kindle app to your phone, your iPad or tablet, your Kindle device or your computer.
Follow me on X at @JeffGebeau or on Facebook