s the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches its two-year anniversary, one-fourth of Ukraine’s population remains displaced, and the state risks brain drain as millions of young, educated, and talented workers have fled the country. Thousands of civilians have died during Russia’s brutal war, and numerous cities and towns have been destroyed; some experts predict it will take over one trillion dollars to rebuild the country. Given this death and destruction, prominent individuals, elected officials, policymakers, and academics have argued that the international community should force Ukraine into a ceasefire with Russia due to the excessive violence that has occurred from the ongoing war. In hopes of peace, some have proposed an armistice similar to that between North and South Korea or establishing a two-state solution in Ukraine. But will either of these agreements lead to peace in Ukraine?
Pope Francis has frequently commented on the war, stating that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should “be open to serious proposals to peace” with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pope Francis also inquired, “how much more blood has to flow” before the war ends? Most recently, the religious leader said he is “willing to do everything that has to be done” to end the war. For example, the Vatican has been providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine throughout the war.
Similarly, 30 progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a letter to the U.S. President Joe Biden last year asking the president to pursue a ceasefire in Ukraine as they argued that the “alternative to diplomacy is a protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.” (The letter was quickly retracted after pressure from the Democratic Party and Ukrainian organizations.)
Finally, prominent policymakers and academics have argued that if a ceasefire is not implemented, or if Ukraine is not divided into two states (with western and northern Ukraine remaining free while the south and east become controlled by Russia), it would result in a “forever war.” They argue that an ongoing conflict would result in Ukraine becoming nearly entirely dependent on the West for economic and defense assistance. In addition, they believe that the lack of an armistice agreement would only lead to “greater bloodshed and devastation.”
But these calls are ill-advised. First, forcing a peace plan ignores Ukrainian voices. In a recent poll published by Gallup, the majority of Ukrainians “still staunchly support the war.” They believe that their country should continue fighting against Russia until it wins the war. To declare victory, they believe that Ukraine’s 1991 borders should be re-established. Most of the Ukrainian population “remains resolute,” and they want their country to succeed.
Second, partitioning territory to Russia, either as a part of Russia or as a separate entity controlled by Russia, is not an option. Forcing Ukraine to a ceasefire would condemn millions of Ukrainians to Russia’s brutal rule. Throughout the war, hundreds of Russian human rights violations have been reported—including atrocities like dead civilians scattered across the streets in formerly Russian-occupied places such as Bucha or Izyum; numerous dead Ukrainians with markings of torture; other bodies mutilated; and mass graves found in parts previously under Russian control. These horrors are only a glimpse into what the Russians have done to innocent Ukrainian civilians, so while fighting on the battlefield may stop, the unnecessary loss of life would continue in the Russian-controlled areas.
Third, Russia has violated ceasefire agreements several times in the past. During the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe established the Minsk Protocols to try and provide a peaceful resolution to the Donbas conflict. Despite signed accords calling for de-escalation in the Donbas, Russia refused troop withdrawal and prevented international observation. France and Germany then attempted to intervene by creating the Normandy Summit which was eventually abandoned when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Based on this history, it is unlikely that Russia would enforce a ceasefire or that involvement from other countries is an effective approach.
Finally, imposing a ceasefire would halt Ukraine’s counteroffensive. According to a report by The New York Times, Ukraine has “reclaimed 54 percent of the land Russia has captured since the beginning of the war ”—successfully pushing the Russians out of northern Ukraine and gaining ground in southern and eastern Ukraine. A ceasefire would not only reward Russia for its behavior by ceding territory from Ukraine, but it would also allow Russia to regroup and re-strategize after significant losses in troops and defense equipment. Then, Russia would likely launch yet another attack on Ukraine in a final push to take the entire country—as per their original objectives when the second war started in February 2022.
Thus, forcibly dividing Ukraine into two entities or into a ceasefire only rewards Russia. It would give Russia territory in the south and east of Ukraine that it illegally seized, condemning millions of Ukrainians in these regions to Russia’s brutality; it would also allow Russia to strengthen its forces for future wars. Therefore, there is only one way to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a total Ukrainian victory. Otherwise, if Russia is offered a lifeline or offramp, a possibility for future wars will always exist. Russia must be stopped, and negotiations should be exclusively held with Ukraine.
a global affairs media network
The Illusion of a Two-State Solution in Ukraine
November 2, 2023
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine nears two-years old, some governments have proposed a Korea-style armistice or a two-state solution in hopes of bringing peace to Ukraine. Yet either solution is fundamentally unworkable, writes Mark Temnycky.
A
s the Russian invasion of Ukraine approaches its two-year anniversary, one-fourth of Ukraine’s population remains displaced, and the state risks brain drain as millions of young, educated, and talented workers have fled the country. Thousands of civilians have died during Russia’s brutal war, and numerous cities and towns have been destroyed; some experts predict it will take over one trillion dollars to rebuild the country. Given this death and destruction, prominent individuals, elected officials, policymakers, and academics have argued that the international community should force Ukraine into a ceasefire with Russia due to the excessive violence that has occurred from the ongoing war. In hopes of peace, some have proposed an armistice similar to that between North and South Korea or establishing a two-state solution in Ukraine. But will either of these agreements lead to peace in Ukraine?
Pope Francis has frequently commented on the war, stating that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should “be open to serious proposals to peace” with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pope Francis also inquired, “how much more blood has to flow” before the war ends? Most recently, the religious leader said he is “willing to do everything that has to be done” to end the war. For example, the Vatican has been providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine throughout the war.
Similarly, 30 progressive Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a letter to the U.S. President Joe Biden last year asking the president to pursue a ceasefire in Ukraine as they argued that the “alternative to diplomacy is a protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.” (The letter was quickly retracted after pressure from the Democratic Party and Ukrainian organizations.)
Finally, prominent policymakers and academics have argued that if a ceasefire is not implemented, or if Ukraine is not divided into two states (with western and northern Ukraine remaining free while the south and east become controlled by Russia), it would result in a “forever war.” They argue that an ongoing conflict would result in Ukraine becoming nearly entirely dependent on the West for economic and defense assistance. In addition, they believe that the lack of an armistice agreement would only lead to “greater bloodshed and devastation.”
But these calls are ill-advised. First, forcing a peace plan ignores Ukrainian voices. In a recent poll published by Gallup, the majority of Ukrainians “still staunchly support the war.” They believe that their country should continue fighting against Russia until it wins the war. To declare victory, they believe that Ukraine’s 1991 borders should be re-established. Most of the Ukrainian population “remains resolute,” and they want their country to succeed.
Second, partitioning territory to Russia, either as a part of Russia or as a separate entity controlled by Russia, is not an option. Forcing Ukraine to a ceasefire would condemn millions of Ukrainians to Russia’s brutal rule. Throughout the war, hundreds of Russian human rights violations have been reported—including atrocities like dead civilians scattered across the streets in formerly Russian-occupied places such as Bucha or Izyum; numerous dead Ukrainians with markings of torture; other bodies mutilated; and mass graves found in parts previously under Russian control. These horrors are only a glimpse into what the Russians have done to innocent Ukrainian civilians, so while fighting on the battlefield may stop, the unnecessary loss of life would continue in the Russian-controlled areas.
Third, Russia has violated ceasefire agreements several times in the past. During the first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe established the Minsk Protocols to try and provide a peaceful resolution to the Donbas conflict. Despite signed accords calling for de-escalation in the Donbas, Russia refused troop withdrawal and prevented international observation. France and Germany then attempted to intervene by creating the Normandy Summit which was eventually abandoned when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Based on this history, it is unlikely that Russia would enforce a ceasefire or that involvement from other countries is an effective approach.
Finally, imposing a ceasefire would halt Ukraine’s counteroffensive. According to a report by The New York Times, Ukraine has “reclaimed 54 percent of the land Russia has captured since the beginning of the war ”—successfully pushing the Russians out of northern Ukraine and gaining ground in southern and eastern Ukraine. A ceasefire would not only reward Russia for its behavior by ceding territory from Ukraine, but it would also allow Russia to regroup and re-strategize after significant losses in troops and defense equipment. Then, Russia would likely launch yet another attack on Ukraine in a final push to take the entire country—as per their original objectives when the second war started in February 2022.
Thus, forcibly dividing Ukraine into two entities or into a ceasefire only rewards Russia. It would give Russia territory in the south and east of Ukraine that it illegally seized, condemning millions of Ukrainians in these regions to Russia’s brutality; it would also allow Russia to strengthen its forces for future wars. Therefore, there is only one way to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a total Ukrainian victory. Otherwise, if Russia is offered a lifeline or offramp, a possibility for future wars will always exist. Russia must be stopped, and negotiations should be exclusively held with Ukraine.
