The prospect of a larger war in Ukraine is dire. If Russia were to invade, thousands of people could die. Many more could flee.
The economic cost would be severe, the humanitarian cost devastating.
And yet, Russia continues to amass its forces around Ukraine, and the West continues to threaten dire consequences if they cross the border.
So is there a diplomatic way out, a way out of this confrontation that is peaceful and lasting?
Diplomats speak of a “way out,” a way for all sides to get out of the way of the war. But finding that route is not easy.
Any compromise would have a price. However, here are some potential outings that don’t involve a military and therefore bloody outcome.
1. The West could persuade President Putin to back down
Under this scenario, Western powers would effectively deter any invasion by convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin that the costs would outweigh the benefits to his country.
He would be persuaded that the human casualties, economic sanctions, and diplomatic backlash would be so great that the cost to him would be greater even if he made military gains on the battlefield.
To do so, he would have to fear Western support for a military insurgency in Ukraine, which would plunge him into the morass of a costly war for years.
Putin would have to believe that this would cost his domestic support and thus threaten his leadership.
Under this narrative, the West would also have to allow Putin to claim a diplomatic victory, presenting himself as a peaceful protagonist who has been unwilling to respond militarily to NATO provocations.
The Russian president could claim that he has finally got the attention of the West and that its leaders are addressing what they call Putin’s “legitimate security concerns.”
Russia would remind the world that it is a great power and deepen its presence in Belarus.
The difficulty with this narrative is that it would be just as easy to argue that Putin failed.
His actions could unite the West, lead NATO to move its forces closer to Russia’s borders, and encourage Sweden and Finland to consider joining NATO.
The problem is that if Putin wants to control Ukraine and undermine NATO, there is little reason why he would back down now.
2. NATO and Russia could strike a new security deal
Western powers have made it clear that they will not compromise their fundamental principles, such as Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Ukraine’s right to seek NATO membership, and the organization’s duty to have an “open door” to any nation that wishes to join.
However, the United States and NATO have accepted that common ground can be found on broader issues of European security.
This could include reviving expired arms control agreements to reduce the number of missiles on both sides, strengthening confidence-building measures between Russian and NATO forces, greater transparency about military exercises and the location of missiles, and cooperation in testing anti-satellite weapons.
Russia has already made it clear that these problems would not be enough to satisfy its main concern: that allowing Ukraine to join NATO would come at a cost to Russian security.
But if, for example, NATO missile deployments are significantly reduced, this could address at least some Russian concerns.
In some ways, Putin has already made progress in that regard: Europe recently committed to a security dialogue on Russia’s terms.
3. Ukraine and Russia could reactivate the Minsk agreements
This was a package of deals brokered in 2014 and 2015 in the Belarusian capital Minsk that was designed to end the war between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine.
Obviously it failed. The fight continues. But at least it opened a path to a ceasefire and a political settlement based on a more federal constitution.
Western politicians have suggested that reviving the Minsk agreements now could be a solution to this crisis.
French President Emmanuel Macron said that Minsk “is the only path that allows us to build peace.”
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC that restoring Minsk would be “a strong way to de-escalate”.
The problem is that the provisions of the agreement are convoluted and disputed.
The Kremlin is demanding that Ukraine hold local elections to empower pro-Russian politicians. Kiev wants Moscow to first disarm and eliminate Russian fighters.
The biggest dispute is over how much autonomy Minsk would give separatist enclaves in Donbas.
Kiev says it would be a modest self-government. Moscow disagrees, saying Donetsk and Luhansk should have a say in Ukraine’s foreign policy and thus a veto over NATO membership.
And that is the big fear in Kiev: that reviving Minsk is a shorthand way of ruling out Ukraine joining NATO without NATO members having to explicitly say so.
Therefore, agreement and popular support in Ukraine is unlikely.
4. Ukraine could become neutral, like Finland
Could Ukraine be persuaded to adopt some form of neutrality?
There have been reports, later denied, that French officials suggested Ukraine could take Finland as a model.
Finland adopted formal neutrality during the Cold War. It is an independent, sovereign and democratic state. It remained, and remains, outside of NATO.
Could this be attractive for Kiev? It would avoid a military outcome. In theory, it could satisfy Putin’s wish that Ukraine never join NATO.
And the alliance would not have to compromise on its “open door” policy: Ukraine would have made a sovereign decision not to join.
But would Ukraine support this? Probably not, because neutrality would effectively leave Ukraine open to Russian influence.
Neutrality may be difficult to enforce, and would Russia abide by its terms? Neutrality would be a great concession for Kiev, since she would have to abandon her Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Neutrality could also further alienate its membership of the European Union.
5. The current gridlock could become the status quo
Is it possible that the current confrontation continues, but that its intensity diminishes over time?
Russia could slowly withdraw its troops to the barracks, declaring its exercises over. But at the same time, she could leave a lot of military equipment behind, just in case.
Moscow could continue to support the rebel forces in Donbas. And meanwhile, Ukraine’s politics and economy would continue to be destabilized by the constant threat from Russia.
In turn, the West would maintain a strengthened NATO presence in Eastern Europe.
Its politicians and diplomats would continue to interact sporadically with their Russian counterparts, and talks would continue, but little substantive progress would be made.
Ukraine would continue to fight. But at least there would be no full-scale war.
And slowly the confrontation would fade from the headlines and rejoin the long list of frozen conflicts fading from public attention.
Neither of these options is easy or likely. They all involve commitment.
The fear in Kiev is that Ukraine is the country that takes the most risk. The question, however, is whether the threat of devastating conflict is real and, if so, what could be done to prevent it.
The only vestige of hope at this point is that all sides still seem willing to talk, albeit to no avail.
And the longer people keep talking, the longer the door will remain open for a diplomatic solution, if at least a crack.
Now you can receive notifications from BBC World. Download our app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.
BBC-NEWS-SRC: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-60348470, IMPORTING DATE: 2022-02-11 19:10:05
#Russia #Ukraine #scenarios #war #avoided