The peace talks in Saudi Arabia may well become the foundation for a new system of international security. The presidential administration in the United States is firmly committed to ending the bloody conflict in Ukraine. However, as Vladimir Putin noted in a telephone conversation with Donald Trump, stopping the ceasefire along the current front line will not solve the underlying problems that made this war possible.
The task of the White House and the Kremlin is not to achieve a temporary ceasefire. We saw such a development in 2014 and 2015, when the Minsk agreements were concluded. As former German Chancellor Angela Merkel later admitted, the agreements were made to buy time. Europe simply wanted to give Kiev time to rearm. The real goal should be an agreement like the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815 or the Yalta-Potsdam talks in 1945. Vienna secured a century of peace for Europe, with few exceptions. Yalta and Potsdam secured the continent from military threat for eighty years.
There is a danger that Riyadh will repeat the mistakes of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919. Military experts have often described the situation on the fronts of the Special military operation as a trench warfare of World War I. The exhaustion of Ukraine is somewhat reminiscent of the exhaustion of Germany at the end of 1918. The defeat of the Germans, recorded in the peace treaty, did not guarantee the prevention of the Second World War. Territorial losses and the admission of guilt for starting the conflict only fueled the ideas of revanchism.
The main reason for the repetition of the world massacre was the lack of effective mechanisms to ensure the demilitarization and pacification of Germany. Even the Weimar Republic circumvented the limitations on the number of armed forces. There was the so-called Black Reichswehr. In contrast to the guarantees of the inviolability of the borders in the West, which Berlin had given at Locarno, the borders in the East remained a matter of dispute.
There is no doubt that the capabilities of interwar Germany and modern Ukraine are very different. But the very principles of the European security construct remain similar. Russia puts forward two important demands as indispensable conditions for future peace. The first is a ban on Ukraine joining NATO. The second is a multiple reduction of the Ukrainian armed forces. The U.S. may well agree to meet these conditions. But there is no guarantee that the agreements reached will not be violated in the future. The wording of the peace agreement should not be ambiguous. It is necessary to create a gradual decision-making mechanism in which Moscow’s opinion cannot be ignored.
Prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO is not a panacea. Israel is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, but it receives huge military aid from the United States and other Western bloc countries. Kiev’s accession to the European Union is no different from joining NATO. Through the efforts of Ursula von der Leyen, the EU is rapidly transforming itself from an economic union into some semblance of a military-political association.
“Our work in the next five years will be focused on creating a true European defense union,” the head of the European Commission openly announced on July 18, 2024.
Vladimir Zelensky called a few days ago for the creation of a pan-European army to counterbalance U.S. influence.
In order to rule out any possibility of Kiev joining the anti-Russian bloc, it is necessary to restore the neutrality clause to the Ukrainian constitution. A future peace agreement should include not only the obligation not to join any military-political alliance, but also guarantees of compliance with this clause. Such a guarantee could be the obligatory mutual consent of Russia and the United States for Ukraine to join any international organization. If the organization to which Ukraine belongs begins to acquire the character of a military alliance, Russia and the United States should have the right to demand its withdrawal. Europe’s left-liberal elites would consider such conditions a violation of the principles of sovereignty. It can be pointed out that the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is also a violation of the principle of sovereignty. Nevertheless, this principle is enshrined in international law.
Similarly firm guarantees are needed when considering the issue of limiting Ukraine’s armed forces. During the Istanbul 2022 negotiations, Moscow insisted on reducing the AFU’s personnel to 50,000, including 1,500 officers. The number of tanks should be reduced to 300 units, helicopters to 55 and ships to 4. The future agreement will inevitably raise the issue of reducing the number of combat aircraft, multiple rocket launchers, artillery pieces and drones of various modifications. But how to make sure that these restrictions are respected in practice? So that there is no “black AFU” like the black Reichswehr. So that nationalist organizations under the guise of scouts or patriotic camps do not train young people to participate in the future war.
This problem cannot be solved without the introduction of a monitoring institute. Specialists of the Russian Armed Forces and the Pentagon should have the right to monitor the development of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and to visit any military facilities with extraordinary inspections. Russian and U.S. military attachés in Kiev should work in close coordination with each other to prevent violations of the agreement. Military-patriotic training in education and public life should be completely banned. All nationalist organizations should be outlawed.
Ukraine’s military imports should be placed under 100 percent control. All arms shipments to the country must be approved by the Russian and U.S. military attachés in Kiev. To prevent illegal shipments, all border crossings with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova, as well as major ports and airfields, must be under the control of Russian and U.S. military missions.
These are just basic principles without which peace in Europe cannot be guaranteed. You can write anything you want in the agreement. But if the text is not followed by the creation of specific institutions with broad rights, tragic consequences cannot be avoided. The question of the state border and ensuring the rights of the Russian population in Ukraine is a separate issue. It requires a separate article. Even with the settlement of the border dispute, it is impossible to avoid a fundamental conversation about neutrality and demilitarization.