Ending the Conflict in Ukraine through Land Purchase
Glauco Ortolano explores an implausible proposal for how the war may end through economic rather than political means.
Although I live in a country that enshrines in its constitution my right to bear arms, I doubt I would be allowed to buy a nuclear submarine in order to end the war Russia has waged against Ukraine. As an ordinary citizen of the world, and not in possession of a nuclear submarine, I can only appease my conscience amidst so much suffering, by divulging blue sky ideas that, if taken seriously, actually could put an end to the war in Ukraine.
When I read about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán attempting to normalize and promote the ludicrous offer Russian President Putin has proposed in order to end the war, by keeping the occupied territories in Ukraine in exchange for peace, I became convinced my ideas are not so implausible. After all, through Victor Orbán, Hungary, a NATO member and current holder of the presidency of the Council of the European Union, is endorsing the offer made by someone with a clear history of little or no regard for human life, who has invaded a sovereign neighboring nation based on false historical and ideological pretenses.
For the sake of argument, if Ukraine were to accept ceding territory in exchange for a ceasefire, it is my conviction that Ukraine should place a high price tag on the land, meaning a monetary one. Such move would qualify the deal as a purchase and not as a blunt land-grabbing scheme, which I do not think the world will sit still and allow Russia to have the upper hand on this deal. And land purchases are nothing new. The United States bought Alaska from the Russians themselves.
The most decent gesture Russia could make, and perhaps the most practical for Ukraine to achieve a ceasefire, is for Russia to make a feasible offer to purchase part of the Ukrainian territory that it is currently occupying, and Ukraine accepting the offer. The geographical delimitations of both the Donbass and Crimea regions should be deliberated and brought to an international forum to decide its fate.
Such a deal should interest Russia as well as Ukraine. Despite boasting economic growth, which is more fictional than real, Russia is losing tens of billions of dollars by selling oil, coal, and liquid gas below the market price. It is also running the risk of losing hundreds of billions more in frozen assets deposited in banks in the US and the EU.
Other immensurable costs are precious human resources that Russia is losing in the battlefield every single day, and by the thousands. Some analysts estimate these losses to be more than half a million Russian casualties so far. The population of Russia today is basically the same as it was following the Russian revolution in early 20th Century, so President Putin understands the importance of preserving lives, even if only for the sake of demographics.
Lastly, the amount of funds that Russia is spending on its military is staggering. These same analysts estimate Russia military spending to be around $110 billion per year during the war. These are funds that are being neglected in other important sectors, such as education, healthcare, research and so forth.
If this war continues on for a few more years, Russia could reach one trillion dollars or more in military expenditure while still running the risk of losing the war, which would be a devastating blow to the regime as well as the entire nation, economically and socially.
It is my opinion that Russia should make a realistic offer to purchase part of the disputed territory through a negotiated amount based on real and perceive value of the land, i.e. savings from future costs of the war, appeasement among its own citizens, reintegration of Russia in the so-called “civilized world” etc.
And, for the sake of achieving peace, Ukraine should accept the offer and move on to rebuild the country, and eventually continue its pursuit to join the EU, since talks pointing to that direction have already started in June.
In addition, Russia eventually could perhaps normalize its relations with the rest of Europe and continue to sell its commodities at the market price without the risk of losing the war. However, a monetary offer should be made, and not a simple ultimatum, as President Putin has given, which only makes things worse for both countries.
On the other hand, Ukraine should consider selling part of Crimea so Russia can have access to the Black Sea, as well as a small part of the Donbass so its ethnic Russian population may live “in peace” there without the interference from the Ukrainian regime, as has been the narrative of the Kremlin to justify the invasion. The local population of these affected regions should be allowed to freely choose their new nationalities and move to the area they choose to belong to.
It is a win-win situation, but unfortunately, a very implausible one since we are dealing with non-agreeable actors with more ambition than reason. President Putin should read again Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, The Idiot, and learn about goodness with its main character, Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, instead of attempting to emulate and play Peter the Great in the wrong scenario and era. It has been a poor performance that has cost too many lives already.
Glauco Ortolano is an Associate Professor at the Defense Critical Language and Culture Program of the Mansfield Center, University of Montana. He has taught at the Lauder Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, and more recently courses in Geopolitics to officers of the US Armed Forces. He was also appointed Peace Ambassador by Le Cercle Universel des Ambassadeurs de la Paix.
This views in this post do not represent those of Global Policy or any of its affiliates. Nor do they represent those of the author's employer.
Photo by Kostiantyn Stupak
