I remember when, somewhere in the middle of the war in Bosnia and the negotiations that were going nowhere Henry Kissinger published his diagnosis, prognosis, and proposal for a solution. The diagnosis was that Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged as an artificial (geo)political entity and that as a state it is unsustainable. The proposal was to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into three national states, after which the Muslim/Bosniak state would exist as a state, while the Serbian and Croatian states, if they wished, would join their national states.
Due to his proposal, which he repeated several times over the next twenty years, Kissinger was criticized more than he is these days, when he proposed a similar roughly realgeopolitical solution for Ukraine in Davos: that he is merely an aging (even then!!!) retired former Secretary of State, a cynic without emotions, who, by acknowledging the results of aggression and ethnic cleansing, betrays the fundamental moral principles of international politics that solemnly promised ‘never again’ after World War II, as well as the fundamental international treaties on the inviolability of borders by force…
Silent Understanding
The criticisms of Kissinger’s first ‘immoral proposal‘ for Bosnia and Herzegovina were very sharp, although the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina was only of a regional nature, as were all the conflicts during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. It did not, like the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, directly concern global security and stability, nor did it concern global food and energy supply. Therefore, it was possible to diplomatically debate and moralize over the war in Bosnia for three years, doing practically nothing. However, given that the Russian-Ukrainian war has global consequences (the issue of heating and food already next winter), Kissinger’s seemingly drastic proposal, which implies partial recognition of the results of Russian aggression (Crimea), was met internationally with silent understanding. In fact, only Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sharply criticized Kissinger’s proposal, which pleads for Russia to be allowed an honorable retreat from the aggressive war it initiated in Ukraine, so as not to be permanently pushed into the embrace of China and thereby permanently undermine European stability.
—
—
But Zelensky knows, or has been told, that the time is coming for a ceasefire and the beginning of serious Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. He is just trying to enter those negotiations with maximalist demands. And especially this moment is felt by H. Kissinger. Despite many criticisms, Kissinger’s proposal from Davos should actually be viewed as an announcement that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is entering a new phase and that the time for serious negotiations is coming, which will involve compromises from both sides.
A War in Which No One Can Win
The timing for the start of negotiations is determined by the current war outcome, but also by the broader geopolitical outcome of that war. Putin lost the war in Ukraine in the first week when he failed to conquer it. And in the following weeks, when he failed to halve it at the Dnieper. On the other hand, Zelensky cannot completely win. Because Ukraine cannot militarily take Crimea, which the Russians had already turned into their fortress due to its strategic importance before the annexation in 2014. But it can irretrievably lose the entire Donbas in the continuation of the war, which is now the focus of the Russian offensive.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine succeeded in uniting the EU, significantly strengthening and expanding NATO, the U.S. secured leadership in Europe’s defense-security policy, and the German-French energy flirtation with Putin was revealed, which made all of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, his hostage. But the continuation of the war threatens to break that unity and indeed, as Kissinger warns, pushes Russia into a permanent embrace with China, and the world into a major energy and food crisis and security imbalance.
It is certain that this Russian-Ukrainian war cannot end with anyone’s unequivocal military victory and that parts of Ukrainian territory will remain disputed for a long time – certainly Donbas. I do not believe that Zelensky will be explicitly asked to renounce Crimea. But that will be the essence. It is also certain that Vladimir Putin cannot be the one with whom negotiations will end (they may begin) and peace will be signed. Because to end the war, it is necessary to put a period on the project of the Russian world for which the invasion was initiated, at least until the next geopolitical stage, and to protect other neighboring Russian states. But the future of Vladimir Putin is an internal Russian issue. And at a given moment, the Russian military and intelligence establishment will likely find a solution. And between supporting the loser Putin and the future of Russia, they will choose – the future of Russia.
