Proposal to End the Russia-Ukraine War

[Dhoomstriker]

Dear Biden, Putin, and Zelensky,

This proposal is to ask the US to broker the following agreement to end the hostilities in the Russia-Ukraine War.

Definitions:
Time Period 1 = proposed as 10 years
Time Period 2 = a very short time period, proposed as 2 weeks

Territory:
Russia must return any territorial gains in Ukraine made during the current conflict / special military action
Ukraine must return any territorial gains in Russia (if any) made during the current conflict / special military action
Once hostilities have ceased, neither of the sides may perform any further destruction of property and both of the sides shall peacefully and calmly exit the captured territory within {Time Period 2}

Politics:
NATO may not entertain the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO for {Time Period 1}
The European Union may not entertain the possibility of Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union for {Time Period 1}

Espionage:
NATO countries may not operate espionage operations within Ukraine for {Time Period 1}
Known US Surveillance Capitalist companies, including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Cloudflare, may not operate any offices and may not control any infrastructure in Ukraine for {Time Period 1}. Any existing offices must be closed and any existing infrastructure must be divested
NATO countries and entities with significant operations in NATO countries may not set up any new schools in Ukraine for {Time Period 1}

Optional bargaining point: NATO countries and entities with significant operations in NATO countries may not operate any media operations within Ukraine for {Time Period 1}
Optional bargaining point: NATO countries may not operate any embassies in Ukraine and must close any existing embassies in Ukraine for {Time Period 1}

Military:
Russia may not declare war on Ukraine and may not perform any military operations against Ukraine for {Time Period 1}
Ukraine may not declare war on Russia and may not perform any military operations against Russia for {Time Period 1}
NATO countries, entities with significant operations in NATO countries, countries which are allies of NATO countries, and entities with significant operations in countries which are allies of NATO countries may not supply military armaments, military components, military personnel, or military services to Ukraine for {Time Period 1}

Sanctions:
NATO countries and entities with significant operations in NATO countries must remove all of the sanctions against Russia, Russian entities, and Russian individuals and may not introduce any new sanctions on Russia, Russian entities, and Russian individuals for {Time Period 1}
Entities with significant operations in NATO countries may not show any trade / purchasing / sales bias toward Russia, Russian entities, and Russian individuals for {Time Period 1}, and if any bias is discovered, Russia, Russian entities, and Russian individuals will be entitled to sue for such bias. An exception will be made which allows for such bias for any trade / purchase / sale of military armaments, military components, military personnel, or military services

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Some people asked on this forum what my stance is. I have friends who are Ukrainian and I have friends who are Russian. Also, CFC is home to members from both of those countries, and I would like to think that all of us are a part of a common community. I have no vested interest in either of those countries other than a desire to see the hostilities end, a desire to stop the loss of life, and a desire to stop any of the other suffering that a war brings about.

Feel free to critique the proposal and to offer your own proposed alterations or additions to the proposal.

Most if not all of us on these forums play or once played Civ and thus we know that giving up (captured) land, as Russia would have to do with this proposal, is a significant tradeoff. Significant guarantees by the US and NATO to avoid influencing Ukraine may be exactly what Putin would accept in exchange for giving up the territorial gains.

Allow pre-conflict Ukraine to be free, which includes being free from Russian rule, yet also being free from US and NATO influence, and allow the people of Ukraine to go back to a life of peace.

What about Crimea? Is it a part of Russia or a part of Ukraine? It's certainly a contentious topic, but it was annexed by Russia several years before the current conflict. As far as this conflict is concerned, it was Russian-controlled at the start of the current conflict. I think that additional and significant concessions would have to be offered as part of a separate negotiation to convince Putin to give up Crimea and thus Crimea is not mentioned in the proposal.

What about separatist-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk? It's also a contentious topic. I would say that they could be a bargaining chip in the negotiations that could go to either of the sides. It could be argued that Russia's recognition of the regions was an unofficial start of the current conflict. However, I would also say that ending the war and ending the corresponding loss of life has a much higher priority and thus these regions could be given up if doing so means coming to a successful negotiation, which would also mean lowering the continued loss of life in this region by avoiding further conflict there.

Also, why say NATO instead of listing out a select, few countries, as mentioned by Gorbles?
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/is-nato-a-threat-to-russia-if-so-how.688708/post-16581485
I would answer that it would be significantly politically easier to pressure NATO into cooperating than it would be to try to get each of a select, few countries to come to the negotiating table, while you'd accomplish the same goal, and we don't want to drag this negotiation out.

This proposal is aimed at letting everyone win.

Russia gets to go back home and declare a victory, as it finally got the sanctions lifted off of it and can thus return to a life of normalcy, where it can compete with the US in intellectual challenges, such as cyber security and AI.

Ukraine gets relative autonomy over the land that it controlled at the start of the current conflict. Ukraine can avoid a lot of the donations-hidden-as-espionage that may come during a rebuilding effort and can accept genuine and sincere international aid for rebuilding.

The US and NATO can avoid conflict and can benefit from re-opened trade with Russia; sanctions hurt both of the sides, but sanctions were not particularly effective in avoiding war and are also unlikely to force this war to end; removing the sanctions option for the foreseeable future is thus not seen as a significant negative.

NATO and the EU dragged their heels on Ukraine membership; now they can have a legitimate excuse for continuing to avoid such membership in a way that they might possibly do regardless of the outcome of the war. Look at how fast Sweden was accepted into NATO, for comparison's sake.

The world wins because we're in a very dangerous global position environmentally, and wars wreak havoc not only on people but also on Nature (bombs destroy a lot of Nature, even though news stories don't tend to mention this detail). Wars also contribute heavily to the very pollutants that we are trying globally to avoid spewing into our atmosphere and ultimately leading to melting our icecaps and fundamentally changing our climate in ways that will likely lead to massive suffering for people in most if not all of the world's countries.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't predict this thread going anywhere constructive, but I just want to say: that's an awful lot of requirements on the party / parties that didn't start this illegal invasion, and barely anything required of the party that did start the illegal invasion.

The fact that the invasion was, in fact, illegal, means that any agreement is null and void upfront, because Russia already broke the law once - there's nothing to assuage any other party that they won't do it again even if this magical thought exercise bore fruit.

Most if not all of us on these forums play or once played Civ and thus we know that giving up (captured) land, as Russia would have to do with this proposal, is a significant tradeoff.

Counterpoint: not really, because the invasion was illegal from the offset. It's not theirs. They had no right to it.

 

[Sarin]

This reads as "give Russia a decade to rebuild so they can try again". No real security guarantees for Ukraine while cutting it off from any western support.

 

[Senethro]

Would this offer give Russia something it valued more than territory it currently holds?

Because that would determine if it had any chance of being successful.

 

[r16]

no NATO membership within the borders of the former USSR . People know nothing of inflexibility . This is not a comment on the post above .

 

[Dhoomstriker]

that's an awful lot of requirements on the party / parties that didn't start

Is it really, though? Replacing sanctions with resumed trade will help said parties economically. If the US and other NATO countries choose to donate military aid to Ukraine during the ongoing conflict, then they aren't making a profit, and since many predict a long, drawn-out war, this market would continue to not be a paying customer; losing a market that isn't buying isn't much of a loss. If the EU or NATO truly wanted Ukraine as a member, they could have worked harder to have made it happen in the past.
If the war continues and Russia wins, Ukraine will not have US / NATO espionage activities being allowed in the country. If Russia loses, it is actually unlikely to benefit Ukraine to have US / NATO espionage being set up in their country, even if those who would introduce said espionage capabilities would feel that they themselves would benefit.

I do not think that it is productive to talk about the legality of the war in a peace-talk thread and thus I shall politely decline to respond to that feedback. I do appreciate that you have such an opinion. Yet, I would instead like to focus the discussion on improving the proposal.

This reads as "give Russia a decade to rebuild so they can try again". No real security guarantees for Ukraine while cutting it off from any western support.

It seems to me that people on this forum have evidence that Russia had not intended to invade Ukraine for quite some time. The situation changed sufficiently that invasion did happen. One of the contributing factors appears to be that Putin was against Ukraine joining NATO. One of the items in this proposal attempts to address that concern. If the reasons which led to Russia feeling compelled to invade Ukraine are removed, then it is reasonable to believe that Russia might once again revert to the opinion that it would not want to invade Ukraine.
One of the desires of Russia was to remove the the potential for a militaristic threat of Ukraine on the Russian border, as we can see evidenced by Putin having wanted Ukraine to reduce its military capabilities. You can interpret this point in multiple ways, but the way that matters is not really your opinion or my opinion, but what Putin thought on the issue. Consider that if Putin was concerned about a potential invasion from Ukraine, a reduction in Ukraine forces would already be seen as achieving said goal. The soldier count and the military capabilities have already been reduced; if the war ends swiftly through negotiation and without any further military armaments going to Ukraine, then, from this possible perspective, Russia would no longer have to fear an invasion from Ukraine and thus Putin would not feel the incentive to launch another invasion to remove a threat when said threat no longer exists.
I understand that it is possible to have another interpretation of the relative disarmament of Ukraine, that of "softening up a target to be weak," but based on how Putin has operated, I believe that he does not have this logic in mind. Even if he does have such thoughts, the point of the agreement is to achieve a lasting peace that will be mutually beneficial in ways for all of the parties, so that the incentive is to continue the peace.
Plus, Putin would be 82 years old and may have already chosen to relinquish control of the country.

Would this offer give Russia something it valued more than territory it currently holds?

Because that would determine if it had any chance of being successful.

I think that at the very least, it would not hurt to ask.
If the war had gone smoothly and had happened swiftly, possibly not. Yet, we know that the war did not go that way.
Being able to emerge with gains, including the sanctions being removed and limits on NATO influence in Ukraine, while also being able to keep existing military personnel alive, and keep existing military assets intact, could sound like quite an attractive offer when compared to:
Having to spend several more years in a protracted war to realise sufficient territorial gains to be able to declare a territorial victory, with an uncertain outcome, and all of the while having to face tougher and tougher sanctions, having to face continued international criticism, and not being able to earn sufficient conquest Gold (to quote Civ terminology) to pay for all of it.

 

[Snowygerry]

Obviously since NATO is not officially involved in this conflict, it cannot be involved in the negotiations to end it.

That’s different than the conflict in Yugoslavia, for example where NATO was one of the parties.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Obviously since NATO is not officially involved in this conflict, it cannot be involved in the negotiations to end it.

What it really comes down to is: If NATO is willing to put forward such a proposal, would Putin accept it? If both of those things turn out to be "Yes," then why would we want to put forward a claim that any such agreement would be invalid simply because one of the parties had not formally entered the conflict?
Are you saying that there are no instances in history of a mediator negotiating an end to hostilities while also offering incentives to make one or more of the parties agree to the peace treaty? Even if this possibility is true, why not entertain the idea that there has to be a first time for anything that ever has happened and that we could be witness to said first time?

 

[Crezth]

Why would Russia surrender now when they’re winning?

 

[Snowygerry]

The “mediator” will never accept demands from one of the parties no, I know of no such historical case.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Why would Russia surrender now when they’re winning?

I do not think that it is a surrender, which would typically imply giving up without being able to gain concessions, since the whole point of the proposal is that Russia would gain things that Putin may appreciate just as much as or even more than a conquest of war-ravaged territory that would not be easy economically to repair. "Winning" would entail a long-term continuation of sanctions, and while the sanctions did not prevent a war from happening, they do have an economic impact.
Is it really "winning" to continue to kill each other, possibly creating such deep resentment in the conquered territory that, unlike in Civ, the conquered population would be unwilling to contribute meaningfully to the conqueror's society?
Peace is, in my opinion, with sufficient concessional gains from NATO, a way for Russia to be able to declare that it won.
Also, there isn't much in the way of concessions to squeeze out of Ukraine, which may also have influenced some of Putin's stated requirements to end the war early as seeming unrealistic to Ukraine, as there really wasn't much materialistically to offer (say, in Civ terms, no national huge stack of Gold or unique Technologies to offer in a peace treaty). One of proposal's purposes is to inject concessions from NATO countries which can afford to give such concessions, while also allowing said NATO parties to gain some things that will help them, such as an increased sense of peace and stability in their populations, and better trade opportunities with a country that does have a lot of resources to trade.

The “mediator” will never accept demands from one of the parties no, I know of no such historical case.

Fair enough. Then, history could be in the making.
At least in Civ 4, I regularly make concessions (usually Technologies and Gold) to one party to end a war against another party when my nation is not involved in the war. If Civ is a rough reflection of real life, can we consider applying some of the lessons learned in Civ back into real life?

 

[Snowygerry]

History is always in the making

Even in civ it is not possible to negotiate a peace between two independent, other civs I think.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Keep this thread to a discussion of the proposal in the OP and do not stray into a general war discussion or one about past events. Thanks.

 

[Gorbles]

I do not think that it is productive to talk about the legality of the war in a peace-talk thread and thus I shall politely decline to respond to that feedback. I do appreciate that you have such an opinion. Yet, I would instead like to focus the discussion on improving the proposal.

Unfortunately any proposal has to be cognisant of how things started. Otherwise you're essentially rewarding Russia for its actions. In your proposal, it loses very little, if nothing, that it already had.

Would you reward the US for attempting the same? Should we?

To bring this back to Civilisation, would you make a pact with a faction known for backstabbing on a whim? Would you trust them to hold to that pact, especially if that pact prevents you from soliciting aid from any other faction for fifty turns or so? If that pact was proposed after a hundred turns of them sending tanks into your territory? Does this seem fair?

Or should we discard fair from the equation? In which case we're abandoning "everybody wins", a key point in the motivation for the proposal you made.

If the EU or NATO truly wanted Ukraine as a member, they could have worked harder to have made it happen in the past.

I don't believe this is a fair assessment considering you further down claim this:

One of the contributing factors appears to be that Putin was against Ukraine joining NATO.

Arguably, one of the reasons why Ukraine wasn't in NATO was because people were already showing deference to Putin. Evidently, they didn't show enough deference, and he invaded anyway. Which means a) Ukraine not joining NATO didn't guarantee an invasion wouldn't occur and b) it would be inconsistent to claim that the EU or NATO could've done it earlier if said action was a rationale for invasion.

None of this seems very reasonable. It's polite, it's well-written, it seems reasonable. But nothing more than that.

 

[Sarin]

It seems to me that people on this forum have evidence that Russia had not intended to invade Ukraine for quite some time. The situation changed sufficiently that invasion did happen. One of the contributing factors appears to be that Putin was against Ukraine joining NATO. One of the items in this proposal attempts to address that concern. If the reasons which led to Russia feeling compelled to invade Ukraine are removed, then it is reasonable to believe that Russia might once again revert to the opinion that it would not want to invade Ukraine.
One of the desires of Russia was to remove the the potential for a militaristic threat of Ukraine on the Russian border, as we can see evidenced by Putin having wanted Ukraine to reduce its military capabilities. You can interpret this point in multiple ways, but the way that matters is not really your opinion or my opinion, but what Putin thought on the issue. Consider that if Putin was concerned about a potential invasion from Ukraine, a reduction in Ukraine forces would already be seen as achieving said goal. The soldier count and the military capabilities have already been reduced; if the war ends swiftly through negotiation and without any further military armaments going to Ukraine, then, from this possible perspective, Russia would no longer have to fear an invasion from Ukraine and thus Putin would not feel the incentive to launch another invasion to remove a threat when said threat no longer exists.
I understand that it is possible to have another interpretation of the relative disarmament of Ukraine, that of "softening up a target to be weak," but based on how Putin has operated, I believe that he does not have this logic in mind. Even if he does have such thoughts, the point of the agreement is to achieve a lasting peace that will be mutually beneficial in ways for all of the parties, so that the incentive is to continue the peace.
Plus, Putin would be 82 years old and may have already chosen to relinquish control of the country.

While every answer is a reply, not every reply is an answer. I could not fail to notice that you failed to address my concern.

In fact, your posts here are completely devoid of the most important thing. Ukraine's agency. In no way at all do you address the most important concerns of Ukrainian people, how to prevent occupation, forced russification and other atrocities that are already happening in occupied territories, once Russia recovered from the war effects?
Your posts are constructed entirely from the narrative that Ukraine isn't a real, independent country, but mere proxy for the war between Russia and NATO, which is a false narrative constructed by Russian propaganda as post-hoc justification for the invasion (see the infamous Putin's essay and the pre-written articles celebrating Russian victory, which are all floating around, for the original justification), attempting to give a sense of legitimacy to what the invasion really is-an attempt to re-vassalize Ukraine.

 

[Verbose]

Russia may not declare war on Ukraine and may not perform any military operations against Ukraine for {Time Period 1}

Oh, that's no problem at all. Russia has not declared war on Ukraine anyway, so technically Russia is not at war with Ukraine. If pressed, Russia is more likely to publicly state it is at war with NATO.

 

[Verbose]

What it really comes down to is: If NATO is willing to put forward such a proposal, would Putin accept it? If both of those things turn out to be "Yes," then why would we want to put forward a claim that any such agreement would be invalid simply because one of the parties had not formally entered the conflict?
Are you saying that there are no instances in history of a mediator negotiating an end to hostilities while also offering incentives to make one or more of the parties agree to the peace treaty? Even if this possibility is true, why not entertain the idea that there has to be a first time for anything that ever has happened and that we could be witness to said first time?

Why don't you preface this on what Russia was really asking for – NATO to abolish itself, and the US to withdraw from Europe.

That was what is in the two ultimatums, to the US and NATO, Russia issued in late 2021, and the refusal to comply with the Russian demands was this unspecified "military technical solution", that turned out to be the invasion of Ukraine.

That is what Russia is really seeking.

You can regard the conflict as a proxy conflict on that basis, because that is the Russian position. If you want to entertain any other position – Ukraine, EU, NATO, US etc. – you might need to frame things differently however.

 

[red_elk]

Appreciate your effort to stay netral and find compromise solution.

Something like this had a chance to succeed back in March 2022, or if Russia was losing.
Now it's basically an offer for Russia to concede back everything it was fighting for 2 years and get virtually nothing in return.

Sanctions also don't worth much as a bargaining chip.
Russia won't agree to make irreversible concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions which can be reimposed back by next US administration, or even the current one.

 

[r16]

if a person was to join CFC tomorrow and randomly check threads and chance upon this one and get to feel stuff , it would be quite a help to understand things if he/she knew one of the "sides" try to hide that it was known that the Summer Offensive of 2023 was done on a limited front , easy to identify , easy to cover with firepower , easy to defend under the pressure of Western enablers so that nothing untoward would have happened . The said side talks about the agency of a nation that fights , will do everything to hide that the nation in question was denied a victory , is supplied within strict limits , even when the aggressor as defined by a majority on the global scene gets stronger . Yes , conditions for a ceasefire ? Before one of the warring nations runs out the best of its people so that when the Western corporations come , nobody will be able to question the bill presented . Unacceptable ? Then the other nation will impose a situation that no Western corporation will be able to do business in the country that's fought upon . Including the Western areas which Polands rejects claims that it covets . This be the crucible the Western Power is broken , didn't start it , know very well that the China issue is a lie . Those who can act ... Act while you can .