A call for peace on the 4th anniversary of the war in Ukraine
Harald Kujat, general (ret.), was Inspector General of the German Armed Forces from 2000 to 2002 and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, the highest military position in the North Atlantic Alliance, from 2002 to 2005
Michael von der Schulenburg worked for the United Nations in many crisis and war zones around the world for 34 years, including in the rank of UN Assistant Secretary-General. Since 2024, Schulenburg has been a member of the European Parliament
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
The world is currently experiencing one of the most profound geopolitical upheavals since the end of the Second World War – an upheaval in which the European Union is scarcely perceived as a formative force anymore. As a result, it risks becoming the big loser in this global realignment.
The EU now finds itself in what is probably the most difficult situation since its inception. In the east, it faces an increasingly hopeless war in Ukraine; in the south, Israel, one of its closest partners, is engaged in several military conflicts that it can no longer win. At the same time, the transatlantic alliance is being put to the test by its hopeless commitment to Ukraine. While Russia is demanding Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and the annexation of areas in eastern Ukraine that are important in terms of security policy and geostrategy, the US wants to expand the American hemisphere by reaching for the strategically important Greenland of its NATO ally Denmark. In Iran, there is the threat of a completely uncontrollable war that would plunge Europe’s neighbouring region of the Middle East into years of unrest. And with China, the emerging global power, the EU cannot find a stable mode of cooperation. The new group of BRICS-plus countries, which now outnumbers the EU demographically and outperforms it economically and technologically, is being negligently ignored by Europe.
The European Union has been weakened, not least by the war in Ukraine, and has fallen behind in the power arithmetic of the major powers. This is compounded by the fact that Europe’s structural problems of security, energy, and technological dependence further reduce its influence in global politics. And the sanctions against Russia have exposed our vulnerability, exacerbated internal divergences and fuelled centrifugal forces.
These developments are already having serious geopolitical and economic consequences – consequences that will have a lasting impact on the security and prosperity of future generations. Nevertheless, the EU and – with a few exceptions – its member states can think of little else to do but respond with empty threats, self-defeating sanctions and a hasty, extremely expensive rearmament programme. At a time that calls for sober analysis and prudent action, Europe is sinking into self-righteousness and hubris, caught up in a moralised information war that obscures its view of reality.
We Europeans – and that includes all non-EU states on our continent, including Russia – must finally summon the courage to seek a new path to self-assertion and peace. To this end, the EU, as Europe’s largest political community, must free itself from the moral straitjacket it has imposed on itself, which prevents it from even talking to an adversary. It must begin to face up to the new realities in order to give diplomacy a real chance.
The top priority now must be peace on the European continent.
The European Union and Russia will have to continue to live together – or at least side by side – on the European continent in the future. How we Europeans shape this relationship among ourselves will therefore be decisive for how well and how securely we and future generations can live in Europe. The relationship between the two sides is therefore of fundamental importance. Due to its geographical location and limited raw material base, the EU is probably even more dependent on a stable and peaceful relationship with Russia than vice versa.
If we want to live together in peace, we must do what we have consistently refused to do over the past four years: negotiate with Russia on a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine. Only in this way can we create the conditions for a lasting pan-European security and peace order in the interests of all Europeans.
Despite the war rhetoric that continues to characterise the language of many European political elites, the first faint signals are now being heard that a negotiated solution should also be considered. After four years of war, the German Chancellor has finally acknowledged that Russia is also a European country with which we should seek reconciliation. The Italian Prime Minister and the French President are calling for Europe to resume direct talks with Russia in order to contribute to a possible peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Meloni is also calling for the EU to appoint a special envoy so that we can speak with one voice. However, no concrete steps have been taken so far, nor have any peace proposals been put forward. Too many still believe that Russian military power will soon collapse and hope that Ukraine will still be able to win the war on the battlefield.
With the detailed proposal for peace negotiations that we have developed together with Horst Teltschik, Peter Brandt, Hajo Funke and Johannes Klotz, we want to make a contribution here. In our recently published document, ‘Ukraine and Russia: How this war can be ended with a negotiated peace,’ we present precise proposals for the framework conditions for possible negotiations: on the resolution of territorial issues, on the role of NATO and a possible neutrality of Ukraine, on security guarantees, on the future strength of the Ukrainian army, and on a peace treaty and a ceasefire. In addition, we develop approaches for a regional security architecture and a future European peace order – without which there can be no sustainable peace treaty for Ukraine. (https://tinyurl.com/3juk76t6 )
In the following, we would like to discuss three central prerequisites for successful peace negotiations that are implicitly included in our proposal.
- An atmosphere of understanding must be created
The biggest problem facing the EU and its member states is that they are currently caught up in their own war propaganda. Public statements comparing the Russian president to Hitler; saying that ‘Russia will always remain our enemy;’ that Russia could be ‘wiped out of history’; that the Russian state must be smashed and divided into independent units; are statements that testify to blind hatred and are more typical of losers. But hatred is a poor advisor and is completely unsuitable if one seriously wants to pursue peace negotiations.
As long as Western politicians believe that they can bring Russia to its knees by prolonging the war indefinitely, negotiations will not be possible. This belief is also dangerous. Following the withdrawal of the US, the European NATO states – which are not even in agreement among themselves – have neither the financial nor the military resources to maintain such a course. A situation could arise in which the Ukrainian armed forces’ defences collapse. This must be prevented at all costs, because a military collapse could inevitably lead to a political collapse of Ukraine. The Ukrainian state would then be barely viable. That is why we need negotiations now!
Given the current military situation, we must therefore also see negotiations as an opportunity for Ukraine to prevent military defeat. This requires a fundamental change in our attitude towards the Ukrainian government and towards Russia. Anyone who seeks a negotiated peace must also change their language. Diplomatic efforts require respect, listening and a willingness to understand – especially towards the enemy. This is true of all diplomatic efforts to end a war, and the war in Ukraine is no exception.
- The realities created by the war can no longer be ignored
In the EU, the war in Ukraine is predominantly viewed through a moral lens. Certainly, every war is immoral. But wars are not about moral categories, but exclusively about conflicting interests. This sobering and, for many, irritating insight is indispensable for serious peace negotiations.
Wars arise when central interests – especially those considered existential by one or both sides – can no longer be balanced politically or diplomatically. Clausewitz’s statement also applies to the war in Ukraine: ‘War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.’ For war is not an autonomous or exclusively military event; rather, even in war, political goals continue to guide action. Since the scope, intensity and, above all, the end of a military conflict are always aligned with political objectives, politics and diplomacy must not be suspended in a war.
Those who want peace should therefore be wary of insisting on maximal demands. Demands that Russia must first vacate all occupied territories, pay high reparations, bring its political leaders before a special court, and abandon any objection to Ukraine’s NATO membership or even accept the stationing of troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian territory would effectively amount to Russia’s surrender. However, the course of the war has created a different reality. Ukraine’s situation is extremely critical. If Russia achieves its goals through a military defeat of Ukraine, it would mean that negotiations – if they take place at all – would be based on Russian demands. In all wars, the victor sets the agenda – and this will be no different here.
- Negotiations should be geared towards a positive prospect of peace
If the war can no longer be won militarily, the only option left is to negotiate an acceptable solution. The aim is then to find conditions that are acceptable to the defeated side through diplomatic compromise. History offers many examples where this has been achieved – and Ukraine has excellent diplomats at its disposal.
In our peace proposal, we therefore name three overarching negotiation goals that all parties involved should agree on in advance. They are based on the shared responsibility of Russia and the EU for an independent, stable and sovereign Ukraine, as well as for future security and peace in Europe. These are therefore primarily pan-European peace goals:
- Ensuring the continued existence of Ukraine as a sovereign, independent and functioning European state – and restoring prospects for the future for the population after four years of a cruel war.
- Laying the foundation for a pan-European security and peace order that takes into account both Russia’s and Ukraine’s security interests.
- Building on this, developing concrete solutions to the central points of conflict so that the war can be ended if both sides are sufficiently willing to compromise.
Since, as in all peace negotiations, deeply hostile warring parties will be sitting across from each other in these negotiations, setting positive peace goals together in advance of talks could create a more positive atmosphere for negotiations. There will certainly continue to be disagreement about how these goals can be achieved. But then the negotiations would no longer be between winners and losers, but rather about what a united Europe with an EU and a Russia and a sovereign Ukrainian state at its heart should look like.
These goals would have a further advantage: they would not stand in the way of American peace efforts, but would complement them in a meaningful way through an independent European negotiating track. This would allow American interests to converge with those of Europe. The result would certainly be a much more stable and forward-looking peace – but a still-stubborn Europe must also be willing to participate.
A brief afterthought on Germany
The German government seems to be striving for a leading role in the EU, and the Chancellor has made this clear with regard to the war in Ukraine. It would therefore make sense for Germany to also take on a leading role in the search for a peaceful solution. Germany’s Basic Law is a peace constitution. The preamble points the way forward for responsible politicians: Germany should ‘serve world peace as an equal member of a united Europe’.
Germany is by far the largest financial supporter of Ukraine and should have an interest in ensuring that its billions in aid payments are spent on rebuilding the livelihoods of the terribly suffering Ukrainian people and not on weapons and further destruction. This would open up access for Germany to the raw materials and markets of economically emerging Asia. The German economy, which has fallen into a downward spiral, would benefit most from a cooperative relationship with Russia.
In addition, there is a special historical responsibility. Germany was Russia’s enemy in the First and Second World Wars, during the Cold War, and now once again. That is precisely why it must be possible to find another way – in Germany’s own best interests. Just as Germany and France once overcame their so-called hereditary enmity, Germany should now strive to achieve a lasting understanding with Russia. Such a step could finally secure the peace that the European continent, repeatedly torn apart by countless wars, so desperately needs.
We hope that our peace proposal will make a small contribution to this.
Be the first to comment