Neither Ukraine nor Russia can win a war on the battlefield. Therefore, it is time for the United States to form a vision of how to end the war through diplomacy.
This is what a senior policy researcher at the prestigious Rand Corporation research institute suggests Samuel Charap of Foreign Affairs magazine in an article in June.
Rand receives funding from, for example, the US administration and conducts defense-related research for it, among other things.
Charap calls a diplomatic solution to the war “the end game”.
Western countries have publicly communicated that they will support Ukraine as long as the need requires. Therefore, the researcher’s proposal seems like a new opening.
made a video call to Charap and asked him to explain his proposal.
The researcher predicts that the war will end in a truce
Samuel Charap emphasizes to that the United States should agree on the goals of the diplomatic endgame together with the allies and Ukraine.
The researcher says that, as far as he knows, such a diplomatic process has not been started so far.
Charap believes that even a successful counterattack by Ukraine would not solve the war.
The researcher estimates that the most likely outcome of the war is some kind of truce. Watch the video to see why he believes this.
In practice, a truce would mean a permanent ceasefire.
It would end the so-called hot war but not the wider conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The armistice agreement does not decide, for example, the location of international borders.
In his article, Charap uses the Korean armistice as a model. South and North Korea are technically still at war with each other. Both claim the entire Korean peninsula for themselves. Still, the truce that began in the 1950s has largely held.
According to Charap, an unsatisfactory outcome like Korea is the most likely way the war in Ukraine will end.
Charap tells that he thinks it is possible that a truce will be reached only after several years.
The war therefore threatens to stretch into a conflict with no clear outcome in sight.
Charap believes that even if diplomacy were to start immediately, it would take at least months to reach a ceasefire.
– If we don’t start until years from now, the price of the conflict for people, economy, energy and the broader security situation in Europe will increase considerably, Charap tells .
According to him, this is the main reason why the United States should soon start diplomatic efforts.
This would include thinking about how a ceasefire would work and how to make Ukraine as successful and secure as possible.
According to Charap, this would include, among other things, what kind of security guarantees would be offered to Ukraine.
The researcher emphasizes in the Foreign Affairs magazine that diplomacy should be launched subtly so that it does not appear as a political reversal or a rejection of support for Ukraine.
– If these ideas do not interest Ukraine, they will not take off. But we should recognize that we can help Ukraine in diplomatic strategy as we have helped them in military capabilities, Charap tells .
In the professor’s opinion, the proposal is poorly timed
asked the director of the research college of the University of Helsinki Tuomas Forsberg to evaluate Charap’s proposal in Foreign Affairs magazine. Forsberg is also a professor of international politics at the University of Tampere.
Forsberg agrees with Charap to the extent that neither side can hardly win the war and the situation threatens to be prolonged.
– The good thing is that we start thinking about what the end game is and how we can reach peace, says Forsberg.
For him, the problem with Charap’s article is that possible end-game plans are being discussed in public before the results of Ukraine’s counterattack have become clear.
According to Forsberg, it may be a bad idea to signal readiness for negotiations if Ukraine is making progress and is doing better than Russia on the battlefield.
– Then the initiative should come from Russia. When we have seen enough moves from the Russian side, they could be seized.
Forsberg estimates that the development of Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate depends on the success of the counterattack. When the results become clear, we can cautiously start discussing the conditions under which Ukraine would be ready to seek peace.
The professor emphasizes that neither the United States nor the West can agree on ending the conflict over Ukraine, as Russia seems to imagine.
Rand researcher Samuel Charap commented on Yelle Forsberg’s views on her article.
Charap says that negotiations do not conflict with a counterattack. He believes that negotiations should actually complement events on the battlefield.
– The advantage gained through the use of force can only be turned into political concessions at the negotiating table, Charap tells .
Experts disagree on the solution
Randin Charap is not alone in his views.
US experts following the war in Ukraine are divided into two, more or less equal camps in their attitude to the war’s solution, says Forsberg.
Others estimate that Ukraine will win and others, like Charap, see the war ending in an unresolved situation. In addition, a small part believes in Russia’s victory.
Charap himself does not want to estimate how many experts agree with him. He states that Rand’s employees have different views, and the research institute does not take a stand on issues as an organization.
From the perspective of great power politics, the United States would like to get a negotiated solution to the war and thus prevent the war from prolonging, so that it could focus on Asia and the threat of China, says Professor Forsberg.
He points out that on the other hand, China monitors how the West is doing in Ukraine and draws conclusions based on that.
– If the United States gives in too easily, it could lead to thoughts in China that the West does not want to defend Taiwan or other strategic targets in East Asia.
For the researcher, a pro-Western Ukraine would be a victory
With the endgame based on the ceasefire, Ukraine would lose some of its territories, at least temporarily, writes Charap in his article.
But the destruction and death would stop and Ukraine would have a chance to recover economically.
According to Forsberg, the armistice negotiations would hardly result in larger territorial concessions. Then the situation would freeze approximately where the front lines go.
In a truce, the problem would be, for example, whether the parties could trust each other to comply with the agreement.
Forsberg states that the creation of armistice agreements is complicated by the fact that they require, for example, demilitarized areas and surveillance.
Researcher Samuel Charap believes that a post-war successful, democratic and West-turned Ukraine would represent a genuine strategic victory.
According to Charap, after the fighting ends, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia could continue on the economic, cultural and political levels. Then Ukraine, supported by the West, would be strong against Russia.
The picture painted by Charap of post-war Ukraine is problematic, says Forsberg.
According to him, according to many experts, one possible reason for Russia’s attack was that Russia would not allow Ukraine to follow its own paths.
– If Ukraine were a prosperous Western democracy, it would pose a direct threat to the Kremlin’s administration. The Russians would see more clearly that a different kind of future is also possible for them.
For this reason, Ukraine’s entry into the path of success would not necessarily be a good end to the conflict from Russia, Forsberg estimates.
In that case, Russia would not accept Ukraine’s turning to the West.
Samuel Charap tells that Russia will not get everything it wants.
– Russia’s negotiating position has weakened significantly because it has shown that it cannot achieve its goals by using force.
He estimates that neither side will be completely satisfied with the negotiated solution at the end of the war.
You can discuss the topic on Friday 16.6. until 11 p.m.