I honestly don’t think I’ve read an article recently that was as unmoored from reality as this one at Modern Diplomacy by Arne Tulner, Here’s his proposal for ending the war in Ukraine:
The fundamental cause of the conflict in Ukraine lies in the geopolitical division of Europe between NATO and Russia, which has persisted after the Cold War. After Germany in the past, Ukraine now threatens to be torn apart between the two superpowers.
To restore peace in Ukraine, this geopolitical division must first come to an end. Therefore Russia’s pretense as a superpower must be tempered, something that US President Obama already advocated in 2014.[1] Not to humiliate Russia, but to integrate it safely into Europe.
The Hague Peace Proposal is aimed at compensating Russia for this loss of power with Western security guarantees. Not as a ‘privileged’ partner within the current NATO-Russia Council (NRC), as this has proven to be too non-binding. Only if Russia is fully integrated into a European security structure, the security of both Russia and the rest of Europe can be guaranteed.
Due to Russia’s enormous power potential, this can only be achieved safely by committing Russia to transatlantic cooperation, as it takes place within NATO. Russian dominance can be neutralized by American counterbalancing. To resolve the war in Ukraine, it will therefore be necessary that Russia joins NATO.
If Russia commits to the NATO treaty, it will indeed be geopolitically downgraded to the level of France or the United Kingdom. But as a regional partner it will benefit from European strategic, political and economic cooperation. This changes Russia from pariah to partner.
NATO will also lose its superpower status if Russia joins in. However, it can thus evolve into a fully-fledged European security structure that guarantees peace and justice for the entire continent. Dutch professor Rob de Wijk previously spoke out in favor of such a NATO as an ‘armed branch’ of the European security organization (OSCE).[2] This keeps NATO relevant, even in times of peace.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Russia’s membership of NATO requires American commitment to the Alliance and is therefore, paradoxically the best assurance for the United States to remain permanently involved in Europe.
Russia’s membership in NATO will make the alliance neutral, which will also allow Ukrainian NATO membership, as this gives Russia the best guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality. This will reduce Russian influence on Ukraine, leading to a full restoration of its sovereignty; and without Russian dominance, Ukraine will be able to give autonomy to its minorities. As a result Russia will have to return annexed territory. This sequence will ultimately lead to peace.
That was a perfectly reasonable plan 25 years ago. I’ve supported it myself. IMO the main impediment to it then was U. S. opposition. Now too much bad blood has been let, there are too many fresh grievances, and none of the old impediments are gone.
Additionally, Mr. Tulner seems to have forgotten that what makes Russia a superpower rather than just a regional one is nuclear weapons. I don’t see Russia giving up its nuclear arsenal.
I don’t think there is any practical, benign resolution to the war in Ukraine. At this point any resolution will require the deaths of tens of millions of people. Or more.
