War and peace in ukraine: A plan for ending the war and post-war settlement

War and peace in ukraine: A plan for ending the war and post-war settlement

The military conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation has a complex, multi-layered nature—it involves social, national, and security-political dimensions. The causes of the war are multifaceted, but among them, the dominant factors include political and psychological aggression from Western states, which led to a shift in Ukraine’s political landscape, sparking a civil war in the east and Russia’s military intervention. This conflict is rooted in cultural, economic, and socio-political tensions. The primary triggers of the war were the failure to implement the Minsk I and II agreements and the disregard for other international political and security agreements (The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order, Glenn Diesen, YouTube Channel).

The fundamental reasons for the war are:

1. The threat to Russia’s national security due to NATO expansion toward Ukraine.
2. Foreign aggression in the form of propaganda, manipulation, and covert operations, which caused socio-political changes in Ukraine and led to a civil war.
3. An undemocratic regime and nationalist aggression against non-Ukrainian populations, particularly the Russian minority.
4. A socio-political crisis marked by corruption and oligarchic economic control.
5. Disregard for and violation of international agreements and treaties.

Although the war may seem primarily about territorial disputes, its underlying causes lie in deep societal, cultural, and geopolitical contradictions, as well as the interests of third parties, primarily the United States and, consequently, Russia. Given the long-term and catastrophic consequences for the people in the region and the broader impact on global security and stability, it is imperative to immediately halt military operations and reach a peace agreement.

Since the international community remains divided over the causes and perspectives of the war, all involved parties must define the basic principles and elements of a peace agreement. A plan for peace and stability would be far more realistic and sustainable in the long term than the immature and ultimately unsuccessful strategies pursued by the Ukrainian leadership. The EU must immediately reconsider its blind support for past U.S. policies, distance itself from Anglo-American liberal-political aggression, and begin acting in accordance with the values upon which it was founded. The EU must become the leading force in striving for peace and stability in Europe, as this directly serves its own interests and helps both Ukraine and the international community.

Decisions regarding Ukraine’s political, socio-economic, and cultural future must be more in the hands of Ukrainians, Russians, and the affected communities rather than being dictated by the current U.S. administration or other actors involved in the war.

Fundamental Principles of the Peace Agreement

The foundational principles for a peace agreement, modeled after Austria’s state treaty, should include:

• A balance between individual human rights and societal responsibility.
• Respect for diversity and the sovereign will of the people, with a principle of non-interference in the affairs of other communities.
• The use of democratic mechanisms to elect representatives in state and social structures.
• Governments must serve the interests of the people and act in the public good.
• A balance between UN principles on territorial integrity and the right of people to self-determination.
• An explicit ban on both physical (military) and psychological violence, as well as any form of systematic external influence on the decisions of people in other countries or social communities.
• Psychological violence should be recognized as equally reprehensible as physical violence, including illegal political, economic, and other forms of propaganda and manipulation, covert intelligence operations, fake news, and other mechanisms of influence—especially when coming from external social environments or individuals seeking to advance their interests. Such actions should be classified as criminal offenses.

Key Elements of a “Ceasefire and State Treaty”

1. Immediate cessation of all military operations, military support, manipulations, and covert activities by all involved parties.
2. Temporary territorial demarcation based on the status at the time of the ceasefire, with possible referendums on final borders and other key issues to be held within three years.
3. Final borders should be determined based on actual territorial conditions and the results of referendums, using the 2008 population registry.
4. Mutual recognition of national communities (Ukrainians, Russians) and minorities (Tatars, Hungarians, Poles, etc.), ensuring equal participation in decision-making.
5. Constitutional arrangements in disputed areas must guarantee political freedom, religious freedom, and equal rights for all nations and minorities.
6. Lifting of all sanctions.
7. For referendum decisions, a qualified majority (75%) should be required; in cases of marginal results (51–74%), additional criteria should apply.
8. Commitment from the U.S., EU, Russia, China, and other countries to reconstruct and develop the affected areas and provide social support to the affected populations.
9. Temporary international oversight of Ukraine and the implementation of the state treaty until a stable constitutional order is established.
10. Security guarantees for both sides and neighboring countries, including the demilitarization of disputed regions and a permanently neutral status for Ukraine. This arrangement must be part of a new European security architecture.
11. Return of refugees and internally displaced persons, ensuring their security and rights.
12. Fair treatment of those involved in the conflict, including amnesty except in cases of genocide or systematic violence with severe consequences.

This plan for a ceasefire and the establishment of an autonomous new state represents a viable strategy for both the EU and Ukraine. If we truly believe in European values, we do not need to engage in special warfare to impose them on others. If, however, we doubt them or only pretend to uphold them, we inherently undermine our position—and in that case, there is no real prospect for victory. Especially because the EU has neglected its own security.

With the proposed approach, the greatest beneficiaries would be the Ukrainian people, who could achieve stability and national democracy—not within the borders of 2014, but possibly with the opportunity for future EU membership, though not at the expense of the Russian population and not for the benefit of third-party states or individuals. The EU would also emerge as a winner, as it could cleanse itself of hypocrisy and excessive dependence on the U.S. This plan would provide renewed hope for international order, peaceful coexistence, and the sustainable development of the global community.

Conclusion

The “Plan for Ending the War and Post-War Settlement of Ukraine” would offer a sustainable solution for Ukraine and the entire European region. Only dialogue that considers the interests of all parties involved can ensure lasting peace. The residents of affected regions must have the right to decide their own future, culture, and way of life. The European Union must, in accordance with its own values, promote dialogue rather than impose sanctions and military interventions. This would secure peaceful coexistence and sustainable development for the international community while strengthening the EU’s role as a force for peace and stability in the world.

Author: Gorazd Hladnik