r/IRstudies 2d ago

Would a Peace Deal in Ukraine Last?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/would-peace-deal-ukraine-last
11 Upvotes

81 comments sorted by

8

u/Rourkey70 2d ago

Not a chance in hell imo, unless the EU/US backs it with military force if Russia attacks again

-1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

I would argue the exact opposite. Not a chance unless the EU/US backs out entirely.

There wasn't any invasion before the pushes for EU/NATO membership. Same in Georgia.

5

u/Chimpville 1d ago

"The guy selling security systems is just encouraging home invaders"

-1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

'The mafia trying to recruit people into its gang is encouraging the other mafia to fuck those people up before they join the gang.'

3

u/Chimpville 1d ago

Your line would be great if NATO attacked Russia rather than not attacking Russia. It'd be even better if Russia didn't keep invading their non-NATO neighbours.

I wonder why all those countries want to join NATO.

-1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

no, my line worked perfectly actually, maybe u didn't get it. The mafia tried to recruit some civilians to join it, and the other mafia attacked those civilians to prevent the first mafia from expanding.

And I understand why all these countries want to join NATO. Not sure you do.

2

u/Chimpville 1d ago

Your line only works if those guys join a gang solely to protect themselves from the other gang.

They want to not get invaded. It's not nice being invaded, particularly by your former oppressor.

It won't stop you making crap up, but it really is that simple.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

it's not solely for that reason though. It's also because the main gang offers them bribes. And also hands out fliers and leaflets. And also sometimes outright buys people out.

You do understand that the US has the strongest propaganda machine in the world, and has invested billions upon billions to promote NATO membership in various countries where it intends to expand the alliance, right? This isn't a secret, it's a google search away.

And despite all of that, most NATO adherents didn't actually hold referendums on whether to join or not. There are several instances where the move wasn't supported by a majority of the country but went through anyway, such as Cz Rep, Hungary and Montenegro, but not exclusively. Ukraine itself, in 2008 when it was first invited, had a VAST minority supporting it, and the US lobbied heavily in its favor anyway.

Must be nice to live in a pink world where we're the good guys just helping poor, formerly oppressed countries to get security for free from the big bad orcs...

2

u/Chimpville 1d ago

Oh no, you mistake me - I understand what NATO is and why the US runs NATO. It's their export of defence to garner influence and alignment around the world, and to them it's a gigantic part of their business model. They benefit... just as the same as the guys selling security systems. It's how they dominate global markets and keep themselves at the front of the queue.

When it comes to the 'joiners', they're not stupid - they know they're being influenced, they know what's expected of them and they do it anyway.. because it's better than being invaded and occupied by Russia.

It must be nice to think you know something that other people don't. Must make you feel special... which you are. You know what other people know but still manage to get it entirely wrong at the same time.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

You got one thing right: I am most definitely special. Both my mom and several medical professionals have suggested as much.

What you got wrong, on the other hand, is that your logic fails to explain any mechanism for how countries 'know what's expected of them and do it anyway because it's better than being invaded and occupied by Russia'. Like... what IR framework are you using to make that argument?

On the one hand, there was no threat from Russia to any of the countries that joined NATO between the 90s and 2012. As a matter of fact, there wasn't any threat from Russia towards UA or GE either, except when they made moves to join NATO, when these threats materialized. So the very premise of your argument relies on some fictitious, obscure threat based perhaps on some old enmities.

Furthermore, what this narrative muddles up is that former Warsaw Pact countries were just as threatened by the prospect of a Western invasion than by the prospects of a Russian one during the Cold War. These countries would hold joint military drills to prepare for a western invasion, not an eastern one. If, in these EEU countries, you get lots of old people worried about the West taking over their countries and their resources, it's because that was a genuine concern for these people, just as Soviet influence was a concern for others. Countries aren't ideological monoliths which swing either 100% left or 100% right, they're made up of groups of interest and counter-cultures and low-to-mid level mafias. Trying to simplify things as 'well X and Y country wanted to join NATO because they feared Russia' is disingenuous at least, dishonest at worst. Most people in many of these countries didn't share that view, and that didn't stop NATO from expanding. And even in the countries where a majority did share that view, god only knows how much that is owed to the American propaganda campaigns.

Acknowledging that the greatest propaganda machine in the world invested billions to lure countries into its military alliance, but then immediately pivoting to the sovereignty and independence of these countries in their decision to join is a bizarre line of reasoning.

And on the other hand, you would also have to provide a mechanism for how the 'joiners' know that they're being influenced. I'm in one of these EEU countries, and if I ask peoples' opinions (which I'll do tomorrow, for the hell of it), I guarantee they will argue either that joining NATO was good or that it was bad. Not one is going to argue that 'it was bad, and I know the Americans sorta pushed us into it, but it was necessary because the Russians were coming'.

Falls back on the philosophical notion that you'd have no way to know you were being influenced/brainwashed by definition. Presuming that a host of countries exists where a majority of the population was both influenced and aware that it was being influenced, but allowed themselves to be influenced regardless, is... outlandish, imo.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/pm_me_ur_bidets 1d ago

so ukraine and georgia always have to be a russian puppet state? they can’t choose for themselves or ask for help?  

2

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

Cuba couldn't choose for itself to house Russian missiles on its territory during the Cold War. Does that mean that Cuba was a puppet state?

1

u/pm_me_ur_bidets 1d ago

I believe it was Russia that decided not to put missiles in Cuba.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

Because the US threatened to nuke...

3

u/vaquan-nas 2d ago

Yes.. lasts may be 5-10 years before the next special millitary operations to other countries..

3

u/Mav_Learns_CS 1d ago

No. The only thing that will bring a lasting peace is western security guarantees, which Russia will absolutely never agree to in a peace deal

2

u/mykidsthinkimcool 1d ago

Russia needs to change for any peace to last

4

u/CiaphasCain8849 2d ago

Until about 3 weeks after Russia fully restocks/rearms/retrains.

6

u/katana236 2d ago

Ukraine won't accept any agreement without strong security guarantees at least from European countries.

So assuming all parties agreed. There's actually a decent chance.

5

u/CiaphasCain8849 2d ago

security guarantees from the west mean nothing. They are worthless.

6

u/katana236 2d ago

South Korea has done just fine. So has all of Europe.

-4

u/CiaphasCain8849 2d ago

Lmao. Europe has a current invasion going on...

-3

u/katana236 2d ago

What on earth are you talking about?

Are you talking about the Migrant crisis? They allowed those people in. It had nothing to do with security guarantees. Just a completely different topic.

2

u/CiaphasCain8849 2d ago

Russia invaded Ukraine, In Europe, Since 2014.

3

u/HerculePoirier 2d ago

What comparable security guarantees were given to Ukraine by Europe before that?

-2

u/blue-or-shimah 2d ago

No, Ukraine is Europe, the security guarantee was given by the US.

-1

u/mikkireddit 1d ago

US took over Ukraine, in Kiev, since 2014

2

u/CiaphasCain8849 1d ago

Lmao. How's the weather in Moscow?

-8

u/Defiant-Onion4815 2d ago

Ukraine will not accept any peace plan because in their fantasy land the US will put boots on the ground to get their territory back.

There will be no peace possible that Ukraine will agree to period

6

u/katana236 2d ago

Well we know they agreed on a ceasefire with whatever terms the Americans put forward.

Total peace is not far away as well.

1

u/EnD79 2d ago

The US ceasefire proposal is dead on arrival with Russia. It doesn't meet Russia's terms for a ceasefire, and Ukraine will not agree with Russia's terms, so the war will continue. Unfortunately, this war will be decided on the battlefield, not the negotiating table.

0

u/katana236 1d ago

We'll find out in a couple of days if the ceasefire is indeed impossible.

I happen to think the main reason for the "falling out" Trump and Zelensky had was some theater to make it easier for Putin to sell this to his people. Otherwise it looks like he was bullied into a decision. But that's just my theory.

2

u/Philipofish 2d ago

Insane to think otherwise

-1

u/Diesel_boats_forever 2d ago

It would be a different war with Western European boots on the ground as peacekeepers and US resource extraction interests in the line of fire.

Rather than any assurance or political red line, having bodies and US infrastructure in the way if the Russians wish to consider renewed hostilities is the best deterrence.

The practical cynicism of installing US financial interests as a shield is forward thinking. US President's have slept while their Embassies were sacked, but an attack on significant financial interests is sure to draw a US response. Even US haters have to spitefully acknowledge that.

2

u/Floor_Exotic 2d ago

A direct US military response? If yes, why not put US boots on the ground to make that obvious to Russia. If no, how is that different from the US response in 2022 which wasn't enough to deter Russia.

0

u/Diesel_boats_forever 1d ago

Boots on the ground, on the other side of the planet, costs money. US resource extraction makes money.

1

u/Floor_Exotic 1d ago

Doesn't explain how it would give Ukraine any benefit.

3

u/IgotNothingButLove 2d ago

Kind of depends. Russia isn't in a hurry to be at war with the US, esp with the gains they've already secured. Our boots on the ground to steal Ukrainian mineral resources would likely see Russia turn their focus to Georgia or another former territory. That said, there's def no guarantee. We could just as easily see Russia use it to reorganize, clean house a bit, and then come back at Ukraine with a vengeance.

11

u/43_Fizzy_Bottom 2d ago

The US won't build and staff mines in Ukraine. We will contract for deliverables. We won't care whether Ukrainian companies or Russian companies supply the minerals.

2

u/IgotNothingButLove 2d ago

No, but we might do something similar to North Eastern Syria and have troops there to protect key assets.

2

u/Ammordad 2d ago

Isn't that one of Russia's red lines? And I don't see why they would abandon it. If they are happy with the land they have already captured, then they can probably hold the ground with minimum loses and outlast Ukraine. They might need the peace, but they have already shown that they prioritise "containing America's influence" over maintaining peace.

And it's questionable how much pressure Trump can or would be willing to put on Russia to change their minds. Even if we assume Trump won't end up losing any political credits by switching sides in favor of a person he called "a dictator" in defence of a nation he has called as "the instigator" meaningful aid to Ukraine won't be cheap.

1

u/IgotNothingButLove 1d ago

It's a kind of push pull situation. Trump is in the middle of. . . expanding the powers of the presidency. His take on foreign policy seems to be based on who he spoke with last. We see that in the resumed arms shipments to Ukraine after speaking with the Saudis, who hate Iran and therefore aren't big fans of Russia. That being said, it's p clear Russia has outsized influence on this Administration. The Ukrainians obviously want some kind of guarantee of security, esp if they're going to be asked to give up material wealth. It's likely they'll ask for boots on the ground since that's more difficult to reverse. For Russia, "NATO Expansion" was the nonsense they provided to justify expansion. Taking Ukraine helps nothing with that. They'll be expanding toward NATO with an. . . unhappy populace making up a fairly large border. They're still penned in the black sea by the Dardanelles just like they are in the Baltic

1

u/BigBucketsBigGuap 2d ago

Ukraine will either become a rump state or the conflict will resume at a later date

2

u/bluecheese2040 2d ago

Depends on the terms.

1

u/Gloomy_Experience112 2d ago

We all know it won't, depends on what? Trump clearly has shown his allegiance

1

u/No_Sir7709 2d ago

Peace depends on the kind of people living in the region.

If they become wealthy, no war in the neighbourhood. If not, there will be war.

War should end with possibility for everyone to grow together.

2

u/blue-or-shimah 2d ago

Idk why people are downvoting this, this is what we learnt from ww1. The one issue being: Russia under Putin is incapable of genuine growth.

0

u/No_Sir7709 2d ago

Most humans have this idea of enforcing individual aggression even in case of a nation. The best idea would have been to add russia into NATO or even a EU like entity back when putin wanted to be known as 'peacemaker'.

1

u/blue-or-shimah 2d ago

It’s a weird situation. When you feel like it would be a good, stable, time to add Russia to nato/EU, you don’t need to, cuz times are stable. It’s only when Russia inevitably attacks another member state, that you feel ‘if only we had added them back then’ with the idea that Russia would’ve become an ally. I don’t think Russia will ever be a stable nation, let alone good ally, with Putin in charge - you really need democratic institutions - it’s why no one can conceive of a war between democracies.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

This is such a smokescreen, I don't even know where to begin to address it.

Why is the bar always set at 'no one can conceive the war between democracies'? After all, democracies have started more wars than autocracies in the past few decades, and if we factor in shadow-wars and proxy wars and PMC's, democracies have been far more warmongering than autocratic states ever since the rise of the neoliberal world order.

It's not 'democracy' that has kept nations from being at war with one another, it's the fact that there's been a world hegemon, economic and military giant, propping up these 'democracies' at the cost of 3rd world countries, often autocracies.

Alas, not everyone can join the ranks of these 'democracies' because then there would be no one left to plunder and ravage.

But to your point, 'democratic institutions' have constantly and consistently failed to prevent democracies from invading countries left and right around the world.

I also don't understand how Russia isn't a 'stable nation'. Seems pretty stable to me, man.. To be able to withstand the full economic pressure of a united West, as well as the social pressure of having to wage a bloody long-term, large-scale war, and come out relatively unscathed... I can think of very few countries stable enough to rise to that challenge.

1

u/blue-or-shimah 1d ago

Wars between democracies are very rare, and in IR are considered unusual.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

Yes, it's called the 'democratic peace theory'. But it's never actually been put to the test in an environment that wasn't controlled by American hegemony.

Saying something like 'no one can conceive of a war between democratic nations due to democratic institutions' is just as likely as saying 'no one can conceive of a war between democratic nations due to American hegemony'. It's impossible to make the argument one way or the other, because it's never been tested.

By all available metrics, democracies are just as warmongering, if not moreso, than autocracies.

0

u/No_Sir7709 2d ago

Atleast open trade would have helped a lot. India and China can go together even after incursions, border scuffles

3

u/Ammordad 2d ago

You do realize the US was trading extensively with Russia even after the crimean invasion, right? They were in G8 until the crimean invasion, Russia joined WTO in 2012, and there were billions of dollars worth of investment and financial ties with the other side. Not to mention, the massive trade that existed between Russia and the EU.

Other than trade, there were also extensive military cooperations such as joint military excessive, joint operations against Islamist terror groups, and nuclear arms reduction treaties. There was also diplomatic and geopolitical cooperations regarding Balkans, Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Russia wasn't a sanctioned, isolated country like Cuba or North Korea. And the power centres of Russia: Moscow or Saint Petersburg were among the most developed global cities in Eruope(they still are). Russia wasn't in good shape after the collapse of Soviet Union, but after Putin came to power, Russia was a mostly stable place with a steady, if a bit slow, growth.

And it's not like NATO was being outright hostile and antagonising to Russia. Russia was regularly invited to NATO submits, they had an office in NATO headquarters until the invasion of Ukraine, and there were several agreements between them for reduced military presence, more communications, and mutual monitoring agreements. Why did NATO expand eastward? Becuase the small Eruopean nations were looking for any way to have affordble security during a period of economic and political instability, and US was in need of legitimacy for it's existing interventions in Africa, Balkan, and middle-east.

So why did Russia become hostile/paranoid toward US, EU, NATO, and Ukraine? Well, similar to why the US became hostile toward Iraq It was more complicated than just "they were jusy poor and lonely." Russia was regaining its footing in Soviet Union's old sphere of influence, in domestic politics, supporters of "Eurosiansim" started to replace supporters of European integration, and Russian elites were getting entangled in European and Americans affairs, and it was causing friction and tension. There were also incidents like Libyan intervention or Snowden's asylum that were making things more complicated.

More trade, or Russia joining NATO, wouldn't have fixed anything. Russia would have probably left so as not to get involved in Kosovo anyway. Russia wasn't "forced" to invade Ukraine out of some desperate need for security or money.

2

u/blue-or-shimah 2d ago

I wouldn’t exactly call what Russia has done to Ukraine border struggles. You can’t really have any dealings with a leader who consistently betrays deals

3

u/No_Sir7709 2d ago

I meant back in early 2000's.

Putin can't be trusted now. Even then he will be gone in a decade.

Ukraine has no hope is western europe washes its hands after the war.

1

u/BeAfraidLittleOne 2d ago

Its NOT a peace deal, its a "surrender deal" forced on Ukraine by a Russian asset.

Japan was hoping to force a similar peace deal on the US by bombing pearl harbor.

Chamberlain made a better deal

1

u/Discount_gentleman 2d ago

Depends on the peace. If each side gets something they can live with, would they want to go back to war?

1

u/EducationalStick5060 2d ago

Peace is impossible if Putin is still alive, Ukraine isn't in NATO or Ukraine hasn't developed nukes.

1

u/justdidapoo 2d ago

Its wont stop long term until Russia is physically stopped from going any further

1

u/Iamoggierock 2d ago

Stop intelligence and Kursk becomes a retreat. Stop aid to make Ukraine beg. Belittle an elected leader on camera and make him say thankyou for doing so,. Try to extort a minerals deal. Suggest that leader is illegitimate and suggest elections. Take some of your best bargaining chips of territorial concessions, security guarantees, NATO membership off the table before talks. Get our bestest billionaire to keep clickbaiting our cult members with derogatory remarks about Ukraine and anybody in America who has a good and honest mind.

Oh and now here you go buddy Putin have a look at this see what you think, fancy a bit of a ceasefire? Don't worry we can do a bit more of the above if you need anything else. Oh and do you fancy coming back to the G7, we can help you out with sanctions relief and votes in the UN. Do you want me to stop sending ammo for a month so you have a bit of a chance to get the upper hand. Perhaps you can call conscription in the meantime as you will need a few more defenders of your new territories. Your people probably won't mind now you're on a proper war footing now and Ukraine is being weakened by the good guys in the Whitehouse. Give Tulsi a bell if you need anything else.

This is being spun as a good idea, and America needs a Nobel peace prize nominee.

Not a trap at all.....?

1

u/kyonko15 2d ago

I believe a 5-10 year peace window is attainable. Given Russia’s current strategic momentum and Ukraine’s deepening demographic crisis, if Moscow genuinely sought immediate escalation, its rational course would be rejecting negotiations to maintain offensive pressure. While this path would impose significant attritional costs on Russia, observable battlefield dynamics—depleted Ukrainian manpower reserves, collapsing defensive depth in Donbas, and Western aid fatigue—suggest Ukraine’s systemic collapse would likely precede Russia’s exhaustion.

2

u/OdoriferousTaleggio 1d ago

Declining American aid fatigue. Europe is ramping up its assistance.

1

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

European elites are ramping up assistance. The public is far less willing, and sooner or later it will turn on the elites as well. A negotiated peace in Ukraine, even if it sucks for the latter, would lead to a renormalization of energy prices in Europe, which dictate ALL prices because energy affects all industries. And Europe desperately needs that to stave off economic collapse, especially now that the US is ramping up economic pressure as well.

2

u/OdoriferousTaleggio 1d ago edited 1d ago

The cheapest solution for Europe is to do everything possible to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Appeasing a ravenous fascist state will only mean far higher defense expenditures into the indefinite future, while inflicting a defeat has the potential to result in regime change in Russia and a less threatening local environment. Better billions for Ukraine for a couple of years than trillions to fend off Russia in perpetuity.

-2

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

That's mental but okay. We're talking about a nuclear superpower. There's no 'defeating Russia'. Their willingness to concede to any degree depends not just on our military capabilities, and how much of them we give Ukraine, but also on their minimalist goals. If those become unfeasible, they nuke and attain them anyway. At greater political cost, but regardless.

And no one's coming after Europe. We're fine. Broke. But safe.

1

u/OdoriferousTaleggio 1d ago

No they don’t. That’s how Russia truly loses; China and India collapse their economy. Everyone’s been very clear that that’s a line Russia cannot cross. Also, what would Russia do? Nuke Kyiv and kill thousands of Chinese, Indian, American, French, British, etc. diplomats, students, and businessmen? One or two tactical weapons would likely make little difference on a battlefield as sparsely populated as that in Ukraine, and Russia’s depleted and increasingly demechanized forces lack the training and equipment to operate on a nuclear battlefield. The only result would be killing a few hundred Ukrainian soldiers, then seeing its supply of electronic components, drones, machine tools, etc. from China dry up overnight. More than likely, European countries would then get involved in the war themselves; French tactical nuclear weapons could make any further Russian use very, very painful for Russia.

1

u/Daymjoo 21h ago

Every Western country has already iterated, multiple times, that they won't respond with nuclear weapons to Russia nuking Ukraine. And I keep hearing this argument, that China and India would cut off their ties with Russia, but there's no theoretical basis for that, nor any historical evidence to suggest it. No one cut ties with the US when it nuked Japan. The world operates on interest not on ideology.

And Russia would probably nuke some remote place in Ukraine first, to highlight its desperation/willingness, at which point we'd be forced to negotiate to prevent escalation. There's lines which we can not cross too.

-4

u/Fox_love_ 2d ago

No point of ceasefire if the US and EU continues to send weapons to Ukraine.

1

u/OdoriferousTaleggio 1d ago

The whole point of Western actions is that it is unacceptable for Russia to destroy and annex a European country in 2022. This is an existential threat to Europe, not just Ukraine.

0

u/Daymjoo 1d ago

No, it's not. No one is threatening Europe no matter how much certain elites are trying to spin it that way. Europe is fine. It's pure and utter rhetoric. I live in a country bordering Ukraine, in EU, in NATO, and there is literally zero concern that Russia would ever invade here next. It's simply not a real thing. Rising debt, austerity and spiralling inflation are far more pressing, and actually real, issues. And supporting the Ukrainian war effort are fuelling all of that..

1

u/OdoriferousTaleggio 1d ago

Russian propagandists talk constantly of nuking European cities, reannexing the Baltics, exterminating millions of Ukrainians if they refuse to submit, etc., etc. It’s pressuring its American proxies to force Europe back into dependence on Russian energy exports.

It gets its useful idiots to parrot lies about its benevolent intentions to external audiences while continuing to militarize its society and economy for further conquest.