The US-Russia plan for Kiev: Ukraine cannot become South Vietnam. Its collapse would cause a domino effect throughout the region

Any discussion of peace in Ukraine cannot avoid reference to the kind of future we envision for the victim of Russian aggression. Will post-ceasefire Ukraine be a state capable of defending itself and rebuilding, or will it be a nation destined for inevitable demise? Will it be South Korea or South Vietnam? This is the dilemma that has arisen at the moment when we are scrutinizing the years to come, writes constitutional law professor Ioan Stanomir, in an opinion piece published today by HotNews.

Almost four years after the start of Russia's barbaric aggression against Ukraine, the prospect of a cease-fire agreement is again being evoked: far from being definitively established, the plan developed by the American administration is seen as the starting point of an accelerated effort to end the conflict.

“The peace imposed by Russia would bring her what she cannot get on the battlefield”

But, as so often in the years after February 2022, the central challenge remains defining the meaning of peace. Because, for the regime in Moscow, despite the official rhetoric, the war is the choice never abandoned – the liquidation of Ukraine and its reduction to the status of a client entity of Russia, here, now, as in 2022, is the final target of the military campaign.

Accepting the terms set by Russia would mean not only sacrificing Ukraine, but also encouraging a possible second invasion. Peace imposed by Russia would bring Moscow what it cannot achieve on the battlefield: victory. The analyzes of the “Institute for the Study of War” document this reality that Putin and his accomplices programmatically deny – Russia is caught in the gears of a war that it cannot win, decisively.

Beyond the propaganda myth lies the reality of the limited and bloody advance on the ground. Russia is not invincible, here is what we must not forget, to avoid collective paralysis.

Will Ukraine after the ceasefire be a state capable of defending itself or a nation destined for inevitable extinction?

Any conversation about peace in Ukraine cannot avoid, as Stephen Kotkin has suggested so many times, the reference to the kind of future we imagine for the victim of Russian aggression. Will post-ceasefire Ukraine be a state capable of defending itself and rebuilding, or will it be a nation destined for inevitable demise? Will it be South Korea or South Vietnam? Here is the dilemma as we look to the coming years.

And the line of separation between the two scenarios does not lie, to carry forward an Aronian line of reflection, neither in the territorial issue nor in the formulations of international law. The distinction lies in the existence or absence of genuine guarantees that would deter a new Russian attack. Because only such a deterrent can convince Russia that the resumption of hostilities would be suicidal.

At this point, lucidity is necessary: ​​Ukraine cannot, at this moment, join NATO, but the permanent ban on joining is likely to encourage Russia in the belief that it exercises a right of veto over the policy of a sovereign nation. The alternative to NATO integration is the existence, for an indefinite period, of certain commitments assumed by the United States and European allies, similar in substance to Article 5 of the “Atlantic Charter”.

A ceasefire not backed by a mechanism of credible Russian deterrence would be tantamount to surrender

Believing in the sincerity and honesty of Russia is a strategic error. A cease-fire not backed by a mechanism of credible deterrence would amount not to peace but to surrender.

Finally, Ukraine's victory is defined by its ability to preserve its sovereignty in the medium and long term, even in the conditions of accepting, de facto, some territorial losses. What matters is the preservation of a nation's independence and its right to exist.

Evoking the Korean and Vietnamese cases is a dramatic way to illustrate the paths that a possible ceasefire can take. A demarcation zone, on the Korean model, can be a solution, provided that Ukraine's viability is ensured by firm guarantees. Abandonment can have no other effect than repeating the tragedy of South Vietnam, attacked and liquidated after signing a deceptive peace.

The survival of a sovereign Ukraine is vital

The stalemate on the battlefield cannot be replaced by an agreement that would give Russia time to rearm and regroup. The role of the United States must be to imagine a mechanism to give peace the armor of deterrence. Ukraine cannot become South Vietnam. Because its collapse would trigger a domino effect throughout the region.

Lucidity forces us to clarity and pragmatism. Deterrence and armaments remain the tools that can accompany peace diplomacy. In order to avoid a new war, it is necessary to avoid surrender and capitulation. The survival of a sovereign Ukraine is vital to the freedom of our nations.

This article originally appeared on Contributors.