The war on Ukraine has been utterly dreadful like all others in history. Yet it could still be mitigated with a tactful solution in which Russia draws out its forces in exchange for a Ukrainian neutrality. The beauty of Compromise through diplomacy is that it can work even through the starkest of confrontations. In fact, diplomacy is essential to resolve great-power disputes in this ‘nuclear age’. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a case in point. Whether one blames that incident on the US, for having backed an invasion of Cuba in 1961, or on the Soviet Union, for having deployed atomic weapons there in 1962, the conflict brought the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. In the end, the crisis was defused by diplomacy and compromise, not by a one-sided victory. US President John F. Kennedy agreed to remove US missiles from Turkey and pledged never again to invade Cuba, while Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to remove the Soviet missiles from the island. The world got lucky. Nuclear war between the two powers almost erupted despite Kennedy and Khrushchev’s efforts to avoid it. Now, in this 2022 war, the US and Europe have rapidly deployed an impressive range of economic measures to disconnect Russia from global trade and finance. These included freezing Russia’s central bank reserves and other private asset accounts; seizing yachts; stopping technology flows; ending insurance coverage; and delisting Russian securities. But such sanctions rarely deter, much less bring down, a ruthless regime. The US tried similar measures to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, but succeeded only in crushing the economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, Venezuela’s per capita GDP declined by more than 60% between 2017 and 2021, yet Maduro remains entrenched (and now is being courted by the US so that Venezuela will pump more oil). Nor have US sanctions overturned the regimes in Iran and North Korea. Interestingly, the Russia sanctions are likely to wear thin over time. After producing enormous short-term havoc and distress globally – with oil prices soaring and major commodity supply chains being disrupted – they will create countless arbitrage opportunities for Russia to sell its valuable commodities to entities beyond the reach of US sanctions. China and others will not be keen to enforce a sanctions regime that could well be used against them next. Russia thus will not be as isolated as the US and Europe seem to think. After the initial shock of the new sanctions, its trading opportunities will likely grow, not diminish. In addition to economic sanctions, the US and Europe are promising to funnel weapons into Ukraine. Again, this is very unlikely to prevent a Russian occupation, but it will make it more likely that Ukraine becomes another perpetual killing field, like Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria before it. Even more ominously, the flow of arms into Ukraine will risk a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO. Whereas Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria had no nuclear weapons, Russia has about 6,000 with an estimated 1,600 active and deployed. So, the conservative approach of diplomacy will be key with these in mind: a). In such a diplomatic solution, no party gets everything they want. Putin would not get to restore the Russian empire, and Ukraine would not get to join NATO. The United States would be forced to accept the limits of its power in a multipolar world (a truth that would also make China smile). b). This diplomatic compromise should be fit with the current mood with less suspicions and more mutual trust. The world is possessed with a mistrust for Russia’s perfidious nature and moved by the Ukrainian people’s heroic resistance. Yet Ukraine’s survival ultimately depends on prudence prevailing over righteous valor. Ukraine is calling for more fighter jets, more heavy weaponry, and a NATO no-fly zone. Each of these steps would increase the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO – one that could quickly escalate into a nuclear showdown. This should not be the case incase a lasting or temporary solution is to be found. c). President Putin realizes that a cessation of hostilities is foremost about demilitarization and neutrality of Ukraine to ensure that Ukraine will never pose a threat to Russia. Translated into action, this could mean Ukrainian future membership in the Alliance should not happen if Russia immediately withdraws from Ukraine. Nonetheless, diplomacy might well fail, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the better alternative. Fortunately so far, Moscow already allayed her openness to this possibility during President Putin’s recent call with French President, Emmanuel Macron who has had a strong interest in European Foreign Policy and is engaging a tough re-election contest back in Paris. It is time to test the compromise proposition of diplomacy: What if Ukrainian neutrality really is the key to peace? Pursuing diplomacy is not appeasement; it is prudence, and it could save Ukraine and the world from an unmitigated catastrophe. Derick B. Wesonga is a student passionate about International Relations and Diplomacy.
