Dear Editor,
Although the Russian Ukrainian war started in 2014, Russia’s Feb. 24, 2022, invasion — the largest and deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II — has caused hundreds of thousands of military casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties.
The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into Russian crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of Ukrainian children, and genocide against Ukrainians.
On Feb. 7, 2023, during his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden said the U.S. would stand with Ukraine in its opposition to Russia’s invasion “for as long as it takes.”
Yet, under the Biden administration, most of the U.S. military aid consisted of old American weaponry and equipment from reserve stockpiles, while most of the U.S. funding earmarked for Ukraine stayed in the U.S. economy and supported U.S. industries subsidizing the manufacture of weapons and military equipment.
As of this year, Russian troops occupy about 20% of Ukraine. On Feb. 12, President Donald Trump had a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin and subsequently indicated that negotiations to end the war would begin immediately. The obvious question with regard to those expressed intentions is “At what cost?”
Newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has preliminarily suggested some conditional terms for the ending of the conflict, claiming it is “unrealistic” to aim for a return to Ukraine’s borders as they were before 2014, and that “security guarantees should not be provided through NATO membership.”
Yet President Trump has a goal of lasting peace in mind and has indicated that, regarding upcoming negotiations, nothing is off the table. Since history suggests that Russia responds only to a show of strength, and NATO is essentially a defensive military alliance, Mr.
Trump will be trying to identify the right leverage to find sustainable peace — a deal by which all parties win.
In an initial attempt to normalize relations, on Feb. 18, delegations from the U.S. and Russia met in Saudi Arabia. The talks lasted 4.5 hours, with neither Ukrainian nor European leaders present. To me, it seems necessary and appropriate that Ukraine eventually has a say in all definitive negotiations.
I would expect that, by Ukraine making a promise to remain neutral and non-nuclear, a concept of developing an international peacekeeping force to oversee buffer zones and ceasefire enforcement could become acceptable under specific security and cooperation mandates.
More neutral European countries and non-aligned states. (i.e., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India) that provide troop security could invest in Ukrainian rare earth elements and other raw materials and thus financially contribute to reparations and reconstruction.
Such an introduction of shared economic incentives tied to international development and energy projects could prove to be a major step toward cooperation and sustainable peace.
Peter Wibell, Rutledge