After more than two years of death and destruction, neither side in the war in Ukraine seems close to victory: Russia will never achieve the conquest of the Ukrainian empire, and Ukraine will certainly never be able to control all of the territory under Russian control. . Sooner or later, both sides will have to agree to a ceasefire and make a peace treaty.
That’s a welcome prospect. An agreement would not only reduce the killing, suffering and enormous costs of war, but also, in the long run, make Ukraine stronger and better able to defend itself and its democracy. Importantly, it will reduce the likelihood of dangerous escalation.
Many in the West argue that making concessions to Russia for a peace agreement would appease the aggressor and only encourage further attacks. But it is not appeasement. Ending the war will allow Ukraine to rearm and integrate more into Europe and the West, actually increasing deterrence. Russia has failed to achieve its initial war aims and will have to make significant concessions as part of any agreement.
A peace conference in Switzerland this weekend, organized by Ukraine to gather diplomatic support for its cause, could provide the opportunity it needs to check whether the agreement is reasonable and workable. Russia has expressed its willingness to negotiate, although it has not been invited to the conference because Ukraine suspects that Russia will only use the meeting for show. But the hosts, Switzerland, think that Russia will be at the conference in the future.
No one knows how the peace negotiations will go until the process begins. Compared to the never-ending war that devours lives and resources at an alarming rate, even an imperfect settlement would be far better. So, what can Ukraine expect and what concessions should it make?
Ukraine has promised not to give up territory. This is supported by international law that prohibits the seizure of territory by force, and Ukraine does not have to give up legal claims to its land. But to secure a lasting cease-fire, it may be necessary to recognize that Russia has control, though not sovereignty, over parts of the four Ukrainian regions and Crimea – and to stop any attempt to seize the territory it controls by force.
Admittedly, this would be a difficult and painful concession and should be a condition that Russia does not launch a major offensive. If Russia remains peaceful, Ukraine may have to wait for a better opportunity to reclaim all of its territory, as Germany discovered in 1989 when the fall of the Berlin Wall paved the way for reunification.
As part of the peace agreement, Ukraine may have to pause the application of NATO and promise not to participate for several years, say five to 10. This is made easier because NATO members are still far from united in allowing the nation to go to war. to the alliance, mainly because of fears that membership could lead to a NATO war with nuclear-armed Russia. However, that would be a major concession.
But Ukraine can still sign bilateral agreements with individual NATO members for security support – something that has already started, for example, with France, Germany and the UK. Future security guarantees must include strong provisions to provide weapons and intelligence to Ukraine, and help prevent cyber attacks. That said, Ukraine’s allies probably shouldn’t be allowed to put military bases on the ground.
Any peace agreement will also require strong measures to prevent another outbreak of conflict. This may include demilitarized zones and joint notification of military exercises and maneuvers. Early warning, continuous monitoring and transparency are easier in the era of satellite surveillance, especially of the kind currently provided by the United States. International inspections and a United Nations back-up force, made up of troops from non-NATO countries, would also make future attacks more difficult to launch.
Admittedly, an armistice or peace treaty would give Russia time to regroup and strengthen its forces. But Ukraine can do it too. This also means that all prisoners of war can return, not just in the small groups negotiated by the parties until now. However, war crimes investigations and trials will continue.
The most important thing is that the tentative peace, although marred by violations, will finally give the Ukrainian people time to rebuild their lives and their country. Millions of refugees could return home and start repopulating the depleted country. The United States could sponsor reconstruction efforts like the Marshall Plan. Europe can lead efforts to build and integrate. Peace will make it easier for Ukraine to join the European Union.
There are other benefits as well. Ukraine will continue its fight against corruption, as it has stopped the dominant role of the Ukrainian oligarchy. Democratic life can continue after the end of martial law. In the end, a successful reconstruction will show Russia a better alternative to the dictatorship it imposed. That could be the biggest victory for Ukraine and the West.
To make the peace deal more acceptable to Russia, sanctions relief could be offered, contingent on compliance with the agreement. Russia can then trade oil and gas at market prices, although Western countries can institute mechanisms for direct reimposition – the so-called snapback – sanctions if necessary. Russia would gain access to gold and foreign currency reserves held in the West.
Violations of any future agreements can be expected, of course, but the level of violence will still be much lower than the current war. And if President Vladimir Putin of Russia escalates to a full-scale war, Ukraine will be better able to respond. Crucially, Mr. Putin has now learned the hard lesson that invading Ukraine is no easy task and taking over the country seems unlikely. In the interim, Ukraine’s allies should maintain a steady flow of arms and increase diplomatic and economic support to strengthen the country’s position at the bargaining table in the future.
Since Ukraine and Russia will continue to be neighbors for decades and centuries to come, the two countries must come to a mutual agreement to resolve their disputes peacefully. And if the current killings continue for years before there is a settlement, one will wonder why so many people have to die in the first place. The best way to honor those who died in war is to secure lasting peace so that others do not have to make the same sacrifices.
A. Walter Dorn is professor of defense studies at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario, and the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.
The Times is committed to publishing various letters to the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or our article. Here are some tips. And here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Thread.
