SOME PROS & CONS OF AN IMMEDIATE HALT BEING CALLED TO THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE
Military conflict is the worst form of geopolitical dispute resolution. Russia tried for almost a decade to avoid the present situation in Ukraine. What may happen if it came to a halt right now?
Few have any expectation of the conflict in Ukraine ending any time soon. However, there are potential positive and negative outcomes for both sides (and others) in bringing exactly this about.
POSITIVES FOR UKRAINE
If the problem of Zelensky’s fear of not being re-elected president when the fighting stops can be overcome the following beneficial outcomes are assured, at least in the short term and hopefully long term:
1. The most obvious beneficial change would obviously be the ending of the carnage, no further Ukrainian citizens need now die or be wounded in battle.
2. Ukraine would lose no further territory to Russia than that lost before the ceasefire. However, this would be dependent upon the outcome of post-ceasefire negotiations. In turn for peace there could be bargaining on both sides in this respect. (This might ultimately be settled via referenda being run in certain mixed-population regions.)
3. Ukraine could begin to rebuild its economy without the danger of attacks from Russia.
4. Ukrainian troops, most of whom will be under various degrees of stress/exhaustion can stand down and begin their recuperation.
5. Elections could be held within a reasonably peaceful environment.
6. The result of new elections in Ukraine would quite likely bring much more moderate, peace-seeking candidates forward who would likely be elicited by a war-weary population.
NEGATIVES FOR UKRAINE
1. Russia will de facto take the territories it has occupied/liberated under its full control, and these may never be given back to the Ukrainian state.
2. Ukraine will lose no further territory to Russia, at least not through military means.
3. The elections that take place in these circumstances are bound to be fraught with extreme disputation and possible violence between the opposing parties.
4. Whoever wins the presidency and right to govern may find their ascendancy challenged and quite possibly using violent means.
POSITIVES FOR RUSSIA
1. In halting its military campaign Russia will no longer fight the hard battles to win the still large areas of territory before it and can spare the lives of those Russian troops who would have fallen in battle in future months/years in winning those territories.
2. Russia could look forward to retaining at the very least the territory gained to that point. However, this would be dependent upon the outcome of post-ceasefire negotiations. In turn for peace there could be bargaining on both sides in this respect. (This might ultimately be settled via referenda being run in certain mixed-population regions.)
3. Russia could be confident that there would be a migration of Russian-speakers from Ukraine to the new republics of Russia due to the vast differences regarding lifestyle/employment chances between the two in the immediate post-war period and beyond.
4. Russia could finally put the conflict behind it and concentrate more fully on the expansion of its economic opportunities (within those friendly countries it now trades with and potentially others to whom it is not now so linked).
5. Russia, dependent upon the outcome of negotiations, would no longer need to fear breaches of its sovereignty having demanded security guarantees including Ukraine never entering NATO.
6. Russia could make a start on the long process of restoring semi-reasonable relations with Ukraine.
7. Russia could have reasonable confidence that when elections were held in Ukraine that an at least Russia-neutral, and quite possibly a Russia-positive, president and governments would be elected.
NEGATIVES FOR RUSSIA
1. Russia would have to relinquish the possibility of a complete victory over Ukraine whereby it took all territory up to the eastern bank of the Dnieper River. This would mean a total capitulation by Ukraine, and virtual guarantee of all Russia’s demands being met, would no longer be possible.
2. Russia could not know in advance if Ukraine could be fully trusted (in light of the Minsk Accord deception and reneging on the agreements made in Istanbul in March of 2022).
3. Russia could not know with certainty that Ukraine would adhere to the letter of all agreements made in regard to forbidden policies regarding joining NATO, re-arming, reduction of its armed services or elimination of its neo-Nazi minority. The level of trust could not possibly be high on these factors due to the breaking of past agreements by the Ukrainians.
4. Russia could not be sure that a military coup would not take place within Ukraine bringing an even worse situation in its wake whereby all Ukraine fell into complete, uncontrollable anarchy.
5. Russia’s demand that a new security architecture for Europe including Russia, would not have the same leverage potential as it would have done if the Ukrainian regime had capitulated.
POSITIVES FOR EUROPE
1. The worst conflict since World War Two in Europe would be over and all minds could return to a concentration on economic development.
2. The vast, ongoing financial and military outflows from European treasuries and arsenals due to the conflict in Ukraine would end.
3. Ukraine would become an attractive area for European businesses seeking to relocate in light of a population of willing and low-cost workers and a source of renewed food and energy-related products also at low cost.
4. With Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union there would, in time, be a growing potential to access the neighbouring Russian market as the years go by and old wounds heal.
5. Over time, renewed access to cheap Russian energy may well become a distinct possibility as wounds heal. This would of course depend upon the willingness to forget the past on BOTH sides.
NEGATIVES FOR EUROPE
There are no substantial material or political negatives for Europe in a renewed peace in Ukraine save for two:
1. The negative effect on the current political leaderships within Europe of those who worked alongside Poroshenko, then Zelensky in sabotaging the Minsk Accords from 2015 to 2022 and who prolonged the war when a peace settlement was a distinct possibility in March of 2022 as these would likely be swept from power.
2. There would most likely be a negative effect between the new influx of western political leaders and those of the United States, and potentially between the new and NATO.
POSITIVES FOR THE USA
1. The vast, ongoing financial and military outflows from North American treasuries and arsenals due to the conflict in Ukraine would end.
2. With the end of financial outgoings because of Ukraine via its military Industrial Complex the end of hostilities would leave the North America taxpayers free of this burden and potentially bring about a long-required infrastructure infrastructure and enhancement of life chances for the population.
NEGATIVES FOR THE USA
1. The first negative for the USA would be among the neoconservatives. Their ambition to keep the conflict in Ukraine being waged with the ambition to bring down the current president and administration in Russia would be frustrated and clearly seen to have failed.
2. The second negative effect would again be felt by the neoconservatives whose aim to achieve ‘full spectrum dominance’ worldwide would be significantly blunted and perhaps even frustrated on a permanent basis.
3. The third and final negative effect for the USA would be felt by its Military Industrial Complex with the cutting off its income stream from the conflict.
POSITIVES FOR THE WORLD, EVEN, IN TIME, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE WEST
These positives would be myriad in nature covering innumerable areas presently held in suspension pending the arrival of a fully multipolar world.
With the project to bring down Russia by the West a failure the prospect of the collective west retaining its present ability to threaten, manipulate and punish in order to maintain its domination, would be reduced.
The de facto quarantining of the collective west could then potentially deliver the prospect of a network of global trade, cultural exchange and cooperative balance. This, through tolerance of diverse modes of governance emphasising trading agreements between all nations, greater stability and ever-evolving peace could, in time, be fully realised.
