Category: Issues – War

Peace in Ukraine is now possible. The alternative is unthinkable. It could even mean a nuclear war, not started from the Russian side, but from the Ukrainian side who are urged on by the West to resist the Russian occupation.

Current status of the war

Russia have been pushed to the south-east side of the Dneipir River and out of the cities of Kharkiv and Kherson. Russia does not yet enjoy undisputed control in the former capitals of the Donetsk Oblast and of the Lunhask Oblast. Russia has held Crimea since 2014 and continues to do so.

It is unlikely that peace can be established on the basis of these positions.

Since 2014, Ukraine has been in conflict. Who wants this to continue? Apparently some do!

What is the dispute?

Ukraine’s position has been to maintain the right to reclaim Crimea. It is unclear under what rule of natural justice this can be maintained. The idea of maintaining national borders unchanged has no natural justice attached to it. Nevertheless, this is the entirety of the claim that Russia should give back Crimea to the Ukraine. One has only to look at the unsatisfactory position of the Kurds in Turkiye, Syria, Iraq and Iran to conclude that this is unjust. Other nations have endured border adjustments that they have not liked, but the will of the populations involved should be taken into account, not just settled international borders.

In addition, it is the clear intention of the current Ukrainian leadership to bring about the death of Russian culture in the disputed territories. Apparently, a law “On education” retains the right of schooling in the languages other than Ukrainian only for the ethnic groups which have no national states of their own. This does not mean that Russian is not taught in Ukrainian schools, but it cannot be the language in which instruction is given.

A possible peace treaty

Possibly, a tolerable peace treat in Ukraine could be established by an internationally sanctioned series of referendums to be held in each reasonably manageable region in the disputed regions. However, these referendums are unlikely to see a clear-cut result. In each region, even those that are Russian-speaking, the outcome is likely to be 50-50. It will still leave those who want to retain their Russian heritage unable to have their children educated in Russian.

If the Ukrainian leadership want to hold onto the Donbas region, they must reverse its anti-Russian education policy. Properly handled, education in Russian will die out of its own accord. This is because the higher paid jobs will require fluency in Ukrainian, not in Russian. Even Russian-speaking parents will want their children educated in Ukrainian, since that will give them better prospects in the future. It is up to the Ukrainian leadership to manage this process in a friendly manner.

As far as Crimea is concerned, Ukrainian leadership and the West must give up their ambitions to humiliate Russia by taking back this land. Without that concession, there will no peace.

War reparations

To the victor goes the spoils -and the responsibility. The end of the second World War set the pattern for reparations. It is the responsibility of the victor to repair the damage of each war. Those who have encouraged the Ukrainians to fight with an enemy whose military might was superior to their own must carry the responsibility for the repair of Ukraine’s infrastructure. As an act of good faith, Russia could make a contribution to the repair of the Ukrainian infrastructure, provided Ukraine is prepared to accept such an offer in good faith.

Consequences of no peace

Neither side can afford to lose this war. It is likely to escalate beyond reasonable management. I would not want to be responsible for such an outcome. Would you?

The region of Syria and Iraq needed a political solution, namely partition. This would have saved lives as well as simplifying the military task. This means that the political map should have been redrawn to reflect political realities, rather than sticking to the arbitrary post WW I boundaries.

If the major powers had been willing to accept that partition was the only solution to the sectarian divisions of these two countries the pain on the last six years could have avoided.

War is brutal and harsh

History has shown that war is difficult to avoid when the political borders join together people groups are not willing to accept each other and to work together for the common good.

Serbian discontent, matched by Austria-Hungary determination to maintain power, can be consider to the primary trigger for WW 1.

The Syrian and Iraqi conflict show a similar pattern.

Partition – a New Political Map

Drawing a new political map for Syria and Iraq would not have been difficult. This is because there was already a defacto Kurdish regime in northern Syria, and another one in northern Iraq. Apart from the Kurdish-Arab divide, the other natural division is between Sunni Arabs and non-Sunni Arabs. A new political arrangement of this region could have provided four stable governments that could have been expected to provide security for their own people, and would not have needed or wanted to turn to either the West or Russia:

1. Syria – the southern and western part of the current nation.
2. Iraq – the Arab-Shiite dominated region in the south of the country.
3. Kurdistan – the Kurdish dominated parts of northern regions of Iraq and Syria.
4. Northern Euphrates – the Arab-Sunni dominated regions of Iraq and Syria.

In an interview recently given by President Assad, the interviewer raised the prospect of partition. Assad firmly and confidently rejected this. He now expects to win, with most of Aleppo under the government’s control.

President Obama, Commander-in-Chief for the last 7 years, missed a great opportunity for peace by refusing to countenance partition. I just hope that he has not laid the groundwork for another 50 years of strife in that region by trying to maintain old and inappropriate borders.

History

An earlier version of this article was published 12 months ago. It can found here.