The Prospects For Peace In Ukraine

2 comments

1. In a [new issue of *Strategika*](https://www.hoover.org/publications/strategika/issue-97), the online journal of Hoover’s [Military History Working Group](https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/military-historycontemporary-conflict-working-group), [Barry Strauss](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/barry-strauss) argues that an armistice offers the best, most realistic path to a durable peace in Ukraine. With reference to the ancient world (Strauss’s scholarly focus), the piece builds on a historical analysis of the resolutions to World War I and the Korean War. “As in Korea, so in Ukraine the United States can negotiate a compromise solution,” complete with a Korea-style demilitarized zone (DMZ) patrolled by European troops. Strauss posits that this solution would be resilient “enough to deter aggression, that is, if the United States continues to remain engaged in Europe.” He also warns that “Putin and his successors will scrutinize the DMZ with patience, ready to attack Ukraine again at the first sign of western weakness.”

2. This is a poor quality article with a rather superficial understanding of the situation. Korea is not Ukraine.

   The 1950s were different times. The Cold War had just begun a couple of years ago and both the US and the Soviet Union now possessed nuclear weapons deterring any direct conflicts. The US wanted to check the spread of communism in Asia and wanted a significant military presence on the Asian mainland and near to the Soviet Far East. With bases in both Japan and South Korea, the US would be able to significantly project power in Asia and the Pacific.

   The US actively participated in the war and fought alongside the South Korean military. They signed a mutual defense treaty in 1953. Billions of dollars of US aid and the efforts of the South Korean people created the miracle on the Han river. Today, South Korea is a major economic power and a staunch US ally. There are barely 29k American troops stationed over a highly fortified 150 mile DMZ.

   Times have changed. The Cold War is over and Communism is dead. The US is now focused on countering China. It has significant power projection capabilities by virtue of NATO bases. Even if NATO were to fall through, I am sure that Poland or Finland would love to host American soldiers via bilateral agreements.

   The US has no defence treaties signed with Ukraine and both Congress and the American public have no more appetite for interventionism. Putin is not Kim Il Sung and is unlikely to accept a frozen conflict. Even if he were to agree, the Ukrainian front is much larger (about 1200 miles or so) and creating a fortified DMZ and defending it would require a much larger permanent military commitment than Korea. Ukraine also lacks the future potential of South Korea and is unlikely to become a significant military or economic power that can act as a crucial ally for the US.

   Trump has demanded mineral resources in return for the aid that the US has *already* provided to Ukraine in the past. He has not agreed to get mineral resources in return for a security guarantee. In fact, he is more likely to cut off aid to Ukraine and negotiate mining rights with Putin.

   This plan seems to be a pipe dream.

Comments are closed.