Jonathan Powell on preparing for peace-building in Ukraine

Of course, Ukraine and Northern Ireland are different. But we know that even the Ukraine war will eventually be resolved through dialogue, even if it seems impossible now. We know this because the only way to dictate terms unilaterally would be total victory, as was the case at the end of World War II. Yet no one is suggesting that Ukraine should take over Moscow, and Russia will remain Ukraine’s big neighbor with a large army no matter what.

Despite peace initiatives from other countries like China and France, now is not the time for talks. Peace talks usually succeed only when academics call a ‘mutually hurtful impasse’ and if leaders are willing to take political risks. As Ukraine prepares to launch a spring offensive in the coming weeks, no one should expect a pause until that is played out. And with recent opinion polls showing that more than 90% of Ukrainians expect a victory, there is currently no political space for negotiations.

However, this is the time to prepare for the conversation. There has been a huge expenditure of blood and treasure on the battlefield but there has been no remotely comparable effort to strategise the negotiations. Leaders always have a strategy before a political or military campaign, but when it comes to negotiations they just go ahead and hope for the best. We know the cost of this from the Minsk accords in 2014, which halted the first Russian invasion of Ukraine that year. They turned out to be impractical.

In terms of the structure of the final negotiations, it is hard to believe that Vladimir Putin would risk losing control by empowering one state as a mediator. However, there is a case to be made for the establishment of ‘peace clubs’, groups of friends from both sides, as they have been described by Brazilian President Lula. Chinese President Xi Jinping can add a group to other members BRIC, a bloc that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. After all, he has more influence on Russia than anyone else. And the US could lead a bloc of Western nations alongside France and Germany, as well as strong supporters of Ukraine such as Poland and Britain. These states will not negotiate for the parties, but each will support one side and suggest a compromise, while countries such as India and France pass on ideas in the form of virtual arbitration.

There is no conceivable area of ​​agreement between the parties at this point of time. This often happens when the conversation starts. At the start of the talks in Northern Ireland, no one thought the IRA would give up their weapons, but they eventually did. Areas of possible agreement develop as the negotiations go on. But to achieve this we need imaginative ideas that go beyond zero-sum games of the region, and will need to include a new European security architecture, and security guarantees for Ukraine.

The ceasefire would be a potential trap for Ukraine, allowing the Russians to regroup and attack again. An armistice or stable conflict would allow Russia to occupy Ukrainian territory and be able to gain leverage over Ukraine and prevent its development as a European nation. From the Ukrainian point of view, it would be better to continue ‘fighting and negotiating’ at the same time, as President Juan Manuel Santos did successfully in Colombia with the FARC guerrillas.

The people of Ukraine naturally say that they cannot trust Putin, given what he has done. But we have seen that this problem has increased in the past as well. Governments have to negotiate with terrorists who commit heinous crimes against their own people. Trust only comes with the setting up of monitoring mechanisms and guarantees to ensure that the other party actually does what it has promised to do. Those guarantees of implementation can be given by China and the US.

Mr. Putin is showing every sign of belief that time is on his side, hoping that the upcoming elections in America will help him, and Western unity will break down. On the other hand, he may send the message that he is prepared for a longer war in the hopes of softening the West so that Western countries will more readily accept a settlement on his terms. If we’re going to be successful in negotiations, we have to be prepared like them for a long war.

In the end, the biggest problem may be domestic politics. Even if we make an agreement, how will the parties sell it to their people? Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has promised a referendum on any deal. Polls show 64% of Ukrainians want to continue until they liberate all Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, even if it means a longer war and even if it means less help from the West. It would be a courageous leader who tried to persuade his people, after all their sacrifices, to compromise now. Mr. Putin will have less difficulty selling a compromise to the Russian people, but he will fear the ambitions of ultra-nationalists.

Finding room for an acceptable settlement between Russia and Ukraine is going to be extraordinarily difficult. But it is not impossible, and we know that eventually peace has to be made through dialogue. While the focus is right on prosecuting the war, we should not be blind to the need to begin planning for peace talks now.

Jonathan Powell is CEO of Inter Mediate, a charity dedicated to working to help end armed conflicts around the world.

© 2023, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under license. Original content can be found at www.economist.com

Updated: June 15, 2023, 03:59 PM IST