How to Forge a Comprehensive Peace Agreement with Russia Ending the War in Ukraine

Would Russia Accept Ukraine becoming a Major Non-NATO Ally with an ‘ironclad’ guarantee NATO troops would stay out and a peace agreement recognizing its legitimate security interests?

President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Geneva Summit in June 2021. Before the meeting, the Biden administration stated a willingness to discuss all issues of Russian concern. Sadly, Biden has refused to talk to Putin for the past few years and the administration has refused to talk to the Russian government to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.

Editor’s Note: This article is the last in a three-part series of articles discussing how to end the war in Ukraine and forge a grand strategic partnership for peace with Russia to counter China’s drive for global hegemony. Here are links to Part I and Part II of the series. This proposal is intended as a backup proposal in case Russia refuses to accept my previously published peace proposal with more favorable terms for Ukraine.

The Challenge of Balancing the Objectives of Both Sides in a Peace Deal

For the past few months, I have been brainstorming ways the US can break the diplomatic logjam with regards to negotiating an end to the war between the Western powers and Russia in Ukraine with a serious peace proposal that might be minimally acceptable to both sides of the war satisfying their most fundamental interests. There have been several peace proposals in Western circles since but most of them have been fundamentally unserious, essentially setting terms for Russia’s surrender including full military withdrawals, massive Russian reparations to Ukraine and even war crimes tribunals for Russian political and military leaders including Putin himself ignoring conditions on the battlefield in which Russia, the mightiest nuclear superpower on the planet, has been winning the war virtually from the moment they invaded.

My assumption is that these Western analysts were unwilling to risk condemnation by their neo-imperialist peers, let along by Ukrainian government officials, for publishing peace proposals which had at least some slim chance of being accepted by Russia and ending the war, saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of brave Ukrainian patriots in the process. Rather, they sought praise for echoing the calls for Russia’s unilateral surrender while claiming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was somehow unprovoked and the consequence of some purported plan by Russian President Vladimir Putin to begin reassembling the component parts of Russia’s lost empire which Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev voluntarily surrendered over three decades ago.

Only a select few Western strategists have demonstrated the courage to propose realistic, however unpopular, peace terms minimally acceptable to the presumptive victor in this war on the best terms realistically achievable for Ukraine. In June 2022, I published a 15-point peace proposal in The National Interest to end the war that received much attention, that I modified three weeks later to be more favorable to the Ukrainian side. Ukrainian government operatives condemned me as one would expect true Stalinists would as “an information terrorist” subject to being tried by a war crimes tribunal for the supposed war crime of proposing a popular referendum for the Donbass region to choose whether to remain with Ukraine or not, a referendum Ukraine might well have won, a ‘crime’ fellow national security strategist Edward Luttwak was also accused of committing at the time.

Picture of me above former Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) on Ukraine’s 2022 blacklist

In July 2022, Ukraine placed me on their enemies list along with 27 other Americans, a list that has since been expanded to include 390 Americans notably including President Donald J. Trump. Undeterred and having devoted my entire adult life to serve as a champion for peace, I published a second peace proposal immediately after the Russian annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts in September 2022 for which I was placed on a second Ukrainian blacklist along with 34 other Americans including Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Now that Putin has modified his peace proposal again, I am publishing a brand-new peace proposal, which while I have no illusions that Ukraine will consider, I hope will receive due consideration by both the US and Russian sides.

For both sides, territorial gains or losses are of much lesser consequence than whether Ukraine will remain under the US military sphere of influence or return to its pre-war February 2014 Maidan coup status as a permanently neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. The biggest issue for Russia, even more than returning Ukraine to a neutral state, is the perceived existential threat posed by NATO troops, bases, and nuclear-capable long range ‘strike systems’ in Ukraine so any peace agreement must take into account Russia’s legitimate security concerns in this regard or else it will serve to incentive Russia to attack Ukraine again in the near future.

Nine months after rejecting the Istanbul agreement in which Putin offered to withdraw from all pre-war controlled Ukrainian territory in exchange for neutrality, Biden sent CIA Director William Burns to Moscow to offer that Russia could keep all its annexed territories from Ukraine in exchange for giving up its demand that the US guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO and return to being a neutral state. Accordingly, it is clear that the administration doesn’t really care about helping Ukraine regain any of its lost territories and appears content to leave them under indefinite Russian control and appears willing to cede additional Ukrainian territory to Russia as well in exchange for Russian recognition that Ukraine shall remain in the US orbit. Rather, the administration’s primary objective is to do whatever is necessary to keep Ukraine as a permanent US protectorate perpetually dependent on the US for its security, no matter what the cost in terms of death and destruction to Ukraine by his decision to prolong the war indefinitely. With its ten-year security agreement with Ukraine, the Biden administration is attempting to lock in perpetual US military support for Ukraine for the next decade even if President Trump wins re-election to maintain continued US domination over Ukraine.

As evidenced by Russia’s rejection of Biden’s offer to let it keep all of its annexed territories in exchange for agreeing to allow Ukraine to remain on a path to NATO membership, it seems extremely unlikely Russia would accept even a more limited NATO membership for Ukraine while the Biden administration will not accept anything less than Russia dropping its insistence that Ukraine return to being a neutral state, permanently giving up its US satellite state status. Sadly, the diplomatic impasse has greatly worsened by the signing of the ten-year security pact between the US and Ukraine on June 13^th which prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to significantly harden his negotiating position and declare for the first time the following day that he would not accept a peace agreement unless Ukraine agreed to cede Russia additional Ukrainian territory which Russia did not annex in 2022, amounting to approximately four percent of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory.

The American Conservative quoted a Russia expert who noted that Putin’s latest peace offer, though much less generous than his previous ones, prove he has no interest whatsoever in conquering Ukraine let alone attacking NATO.

“Indeed, as the esteemed Russia expert Nicolai N. Petro of the University of Rhode Island tells me, “Russia is offering something that Ukraine is not—a way to end the bloodshed; just withdraw troops. Note that no recognition of territorial concessions is being asked for.” As Professor Petro points out, “Putin's proposal puts the lie to Western statements that Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine, and from there will move to conquer all of Europe. He has explicitly limited Russia's territorial objectives to the four partially occupied regions. Period.”

Given Putin did not demand Ukrainian neutrality in his latest June 14^th peace offer, but only that it would declare it would never join NATO, one compromise that could potentially satisfy both sides would be for Russia to acquiesce in Ukraine becoming a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), a designation given by the US government for countries that are not NATO allies but have strategic working relationships with the US military. Ukrainian MNNA status was first proposed in Congress in 2014 and again in 2019 but has never been approved. The revelation that Russia may have been willing to give up its demand for neutrality for Ukraine during peace negotiations in November 2023 in exchange for its acceptance of most other Russian demands further suggests this might be an acceptable alternative for Moscow.

Current US Major Non-NATO Allies include Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Thailand. Russia might also approve of Ukraine keeping all its bilateral security agreements, apart from the one Biden just signed for a ten-year security agreement, committing Western nations to provide military assistance to Ukraine in the event it is attacked by Russia following the conclusion of a peace agreement ending the war. Ukraine has been a US strategic partner since 2021, some might consider to be greater than a MNNA status, however, Ukrainian non-NATO ally status might still be useful in reassuring Ukraine of America’s commitment to ensure its security as part of a peace deal ending the war with Russia.

Indications are that time is quickly running out for Ukraine to obtain a peace deal from Russia with anything resembling reasonable terms. The Ukrainian army has been running out of men to fight Russia at an alarming rate. Ukraine reportedly only had 500,000 troops left as of November 2023. Now, a former US national intelligence offer reports it has been reduced from 1.3 million troops in November 2022 to 300,000 troops inside Ukraine citing the Financial Times as a source for his assertion, suggesting Ukraine may have suffered up to one million casualties during the past eighteen months. General Oleksandr Syrskyi, who serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, recently reported that Russia has more than doubled the number of its tanks from 1,700 to 3,500 and armored personnel carriers 4,500 to 8,900, has tripled the number of its artillery and has surged the number of its troops in Ukraine by more than five times from 100,000 to 520,000 since the war began. He reports that Russia is currently in the process of surging the number of its troops in Ukraine to 690,000 by the end of this year. With Ukraine incurring 1,000-2,000 casualties a day, it may be mere months away from a total military collapse that could see Russian forces advancing westward all the way to the Dnipro and beyond, potentially surrounding or partially surrounding Kyiv once again and forcing Ukraine to surrender on Russia’s terms.

Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine has served to make Russia much stronger militarily, not weaker with Russia increasing the size of its active-duty military forces by fifty percent to 1.5 million and doubling its military spending as a percentage of its GDP to Soviet-era levels. According to a recent article in Responsible Statecraft:

“Russia is outproducing all of NATO and the U.S in terms of ammunition, rockets, and tanks. Though there's not a lot of information available on artillery tube/barrel production rates, Russia is outstripping the U.S. and NATO weapons production by running its very large Soviet era factories 24/7 to produce ammunition, vehicles and other military. This suggests that it is also likely doing the same when it comes to artillery tube production, as well as producing brand new artillery.”

So Russia’s military production is far outpacing NATO’s 32 member states combined even though their combined GDP is approximately eight times higher underscoring the fact that Ukraine’s military defeat is inevitable and that immediate and urgent diplomatic action must be taken to prevent it from losing additional territory and potentially its national independence.

At a CNN townhall in May 2023, in response to a question as to which country he wanted to win the war in Ukraine, President Donald Trump replied he wanted to end the death and destruction and suggested he wanted the US to win it by helping to negotiate a peace agreement acceptable to both sides of the conflict.

President Donald Trump has pledged to end the war within twenty-four hours after becoming President. Politico reported last week that General C.Q. Brown has praised Trump’s pledge to end the war providing that the US continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition after the war ends. The Politico article noted: "Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown said on Friday that it would “be great” if former President Donald Trump fulfilled his campaign promise to end Russia’s war in Ukraine in 24 hours. “If he can get it done in 24 hours, that’d be great,” Brown said. “It stops the conflict … and then we get back to more global security.” 

A Comprehensive Proposal to End the War in Ukraine

The purpose of this peace proposal is to provide a useful roadmap for how the West can break the diplomatic logjam following the issuance of Putin’s latest peace proposal and provide a useful template for a potential NATO counteroffer for the resumption of diplomatic negotiations. Implementation of this peace proposal could enable Ukraine and its Western backers to step back from the nuclear precipice and de-escalate a crisis over a Ukrainian military collapse following a massive Russian military offensive in northern Ukraine that threatens Kiev again. British, French, Polish and even some Baltic leaders have stated their contingency plan for such a Ukrainian military collapse would be to immediately send a large force of combat troops to Ukraine to defend Kyiv and the Dnipro River line from advancing Russian troops to prevent western and Central Ukraine, that Putin has said that would trigger a Russian nuclear escalation which could potentially cost the lives of hundreds of millions. Sadly, both the US and Ukraine have rejected Russia’s last peace proposal so the prospects of a massive Russian summer offensive in northern Ukraine are higher now than they have been during the past couple years.

This proposal seeks to bridge the gap between the absolutist US position that Ukraine will join NATO in the near future and the Russian position which is that Ukraine must revert to its pre-February 2014 Maidan coup neutral buffer state status. I should note that my personal preference would have been that Ukraine had signed the Istanbul Agreement, would have been far more just for Ukraine, had Biden not vetoed it and chosen instead to prolong the war in Ukraine and its ensuing death and destruction indefinitely. We can only assume he did so for imperialist purposes to ensure Ukraine remains a US protectorate, perpetually dependent on the US for its security, given the fact that there was no other logical explanation for his decision to do so.

Given President Biden’s rejection of all previous Russian peace offers issued since the war began, this proposal may well represent the best terms that both the US and Russia could conceivably accept unless Biden were to accept Putin’s previous proposal for a permanent cease-fire and peace agreement along the line of control in exchange for permanent Ukrainian neutrality outside of NATO and Putin were to agree to agree to it. Putin's pre-June 14th peace proposal to accept the current line of control without demanding any additional Ukrainian territory remains the best possible peace deal Ukraine could possibly achieve. However it may now be out of reach for Ukraine since Zelensky refused to negotiate peace with Russia for the past two years since it was first offered.

Given a choice between having to give up Russia’s main objective of Ukrainian neutrality in exchange for more territory, I believe Putin would happily give up his demand for more Ukrainian territory in exchange for a full Western military withdrawal from Ukraine along with a guarantee it will never join NATO since territory has always been a secondary objective of Russia’s Special Military Operation. President Volodymyr Zelensky, on the other hand, would likely prefer acceding to Putin’s demand for additional Ukrainian territory to Russia in exchange for Russian ascent to Ukraine continuing as Western military client state.

Russo-Ukrainian War Peace Proposal

1.      The parties recognize this treaty as signifying the permanent end of all hostilities between them in the desire that they shall never again resort to arms against each other but shall resolve any future disputes through peaceful diplomatic means.  The Russian Federation recognizes the presently constituted government of Ukraine as legitimate.  Ukraine commits never to formally join NATO and will prohibit the stationing of any allied troops or bases on its territory for any period or purpose other than embassy security, except in the case of invasion of its territory by a foreign power. Ukraine shall amend its constitution to remove all reference of its previous goal of becoming a NATO member state. In exchange for Ukraine agreeing to never become a formal member of NATO, the Russian Federation agrees to drop its insistence on permanent Ukrainian neutrality and consents to Ukraine becoming a Major Non-NATO Ally aligned economically and militarily with the Western powers. The Russian Federation further accepts Ukraine’s right to retain all the bilateral security guarantees it has received from the European Union and sixteen Western nations.

2.      The Russian Federation recognizes Ukraine’s right to continue its membership in the NATO Partnership for Peace program, its participation in the NATO-Ukraine Council and its November 2021 strategic partnership agreement with the United States. Ukraine may continue to have its army trained by NATO military trainers and engage in joint military exercises with NATO providing such training or exercises do not occur on Ukrainian territory. However, Ukraine is expressly prohibited from allowing any nuclear capable combat aircraft or nuclear-capable missiles on its territory except for missiles with ranges of 40 kilometers or less as provided under this agreement. Furthermore, the Russian Federation agrees that Ukraine will be allowed to join the European Union.

3.      The United States guarantees that NATO will never expand eastward into additional former Soviet republics. In return for Russia agreeing to acquiesce to Ukraine continuing to align with the Western alliance, the US, UK, France, and Germany will commit to never station or deploy their military forces in Finland, excluding those necessary for embassy security, except in the event of a direct military attack against NATO. Finland’s NATO membership shall be based on the pre-July 2016 Warsaw Summit status quo during which no allied troops were present in former Warsaw Pact member states or former Soviet republics that had become NATO member states. In exchange for these guarantees, the Russian Federation will acquiesce to Finland’s and Sweden’s ascension into NATO as well as that of any other European country that wishes to join the alliance. Finland shall not be restricted in terms of the number of troops, types or quantities of conventional weapons that it may deploy on its territory.

4.      In exchange for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from and the return of all Russian occupied territory in Kharkiv oblast, Ukrainian troops shall be completely withdrawn from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts and Ukraine shall recognize continued Russian control of all four oblasts along their constitutional borders as well as Crimea. The parties to the agreement declare themselves open to further peacefully negotiations regarding future border adjustments while forever renouncing the use of force to revise them unilaterally to ensure future peace and stability in Europe. In return, the Russian Federation pledges to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine along its new, internationally recognized borders.

5.      Ukraine commits to remaining a non-nuclear power in recognition of the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to which Ukraine is a signatory. Ukraine further reiterates its commitment to abide by the terms of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction in refraining from producing or possessing weapons of mass destruction including radiological weapons. Ukraine will close all its foreign biological labs.

6.      All Ukrainian far right and ultra-nationalist political parties including the Ukrainian National Assembly, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, Svoboda, Ukrainian National Union, Right Sector and National Corps shall be permanently banned from participation in the Ukrainian government and all such militias including the Misanthropic Division and the Azov regiment, which is part of Ukraine’s National Guard, shall be permanently disbanded. The Russian language shall be restored to one of the two official languages of Ukraine with equal status to the Ukrainian language. The rights of Ukraine’s Russian minority population as well as the rights of Ukraine’s Orthodox Christian church members shall be guaranteed.

7.      The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces including Ground Forces, Air Forces, Navy and Marines, shall be limited to no more than 100,000 active-duty troops including National Guard personnel with a maximum of 500,000 troops in reserve. The State Border Guard Service (SBGS) shall be limited to its pre-war size of 50,000 personnel. Both the National Guard and the SBGS may be equipped with armored personnel carriers but may not possess any heavy weapons such as tanks, combat aircraft and artillery systems. Ukraine will be permitted to keep all its current weapon systems except for F-16 nuclear-capable strike aircraft as well as any missiles, artillery systems or combat drones with ranges in excess of 40 kilometers. In addition, all Air Defense Missile Systems (ADMS) with missile ranges in excess of 75 kilometers shall be prohibited. Prohibited systems may be sold or otherwise transferred to other countries. Ukraine shall be allowed to develop and produce such weapons for export with a range of not more than 280 km providing the total number of weapons in each category which are in Ukraine’s possession for export, or military purposes do not exceed the limits proscribed in this agreement.

8.      The postwar strength of the Ukrainian Armed Forces shall consist of no more than 350 tanks, 1,100 armored personnel carriers (with a maximum of 400 BMP vehicles), 600 howitzers (including self-propelled artillery), 100 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (including anti-ship missiles); 100 anti-tank guns (including tank destroyers with large-caliber guns), 150 heavy mortars, 400 anti-tank missile systems (including BMP vehicles anti-tank combat drones), 120 anti-aircraft artillery, 200 vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft missile systems and 650 Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). The Ukrainian Air Forces can have up to 100 fixed-wing and rotary-wing combat aircraft. The Ukrainian Navy may have up to four frigates or corvettes up to 3,200 tons each and 20 coastal patrol combat boats, missile boats and fast attack craft of less than 500 tons displacement. There shall be no limitations on the numbers of weapons that Ukraine can produce, acquire, or retain other than those listed above as well as a prohibition on Ukraine’s acquisition of bombers, torpedo/missile-armed submarines or warships with a displacement in excess of 3,200 tons.

9.      There shall be no restrictions on the number of troops, tanks, tank destroyers, armored personnel carriers, ATGMs, medium caliber mortars, anti-aircraft artillery, MANPADS or non-combat aircraft and non-combat drones that can be deployed on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dnieper River. However, Ukraine shall not deploy any ‘strike systems’ including howitzers, heavy mortars, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air defense missile systems or combat drones, nor will it deploy any combat (fixed or rotary-wing) aircraft on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dnieper River during peacetime.

10.  If Ukraine agrees to modify its constitution to enshrine its permanent neutrality, cut all ties with NATO, terminate its involvement with the NATO Partnership for Peace program and the NATO-Ukraine Council and end all NATO training programs and end all joint military exercises, the Russian Federation will agree to withdraw its demands for any additional Ukrainian territory other than what it currently occupies. Ukraine would also have to rescind all international agreements incompatible with its permanent neutrality such as its Strategic Partnership Agreement with the US and bilateral security agreements with NATO member states and the EU. Russia would  also withdraw its demands for Ukrainian military forces to be withdrawn from their current positions with the current line of control serving as the Russo-Ukrainian demarcation line. In addition, Russia will agree to remove restrictions prohibiting Ukraine from deploying “strike systems” on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dnieper River. Ukraine’s permanent neutrality will be guaranteed by the United States, the Russian Federation, Great Britain, the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, Italy, Belarus and Turkey with these nations committing to refrain from threatening force or using force against Ukraine, refraining from interfering in its internal affairs and committing to resolve all disputes peacefully and provide whatever assistance they deem necessary to provide to Ukraine in the event it is attacked by a foreign power to provide for its self-defense. (In accordance with Articles 1-5 of the April 15, 2022 draft agreement).

11.  Ukraine shall allow Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) weapons inspectors periodic access to their military bases and storage facilities to ensure Ukraine remains in compliance with these armaments’ limitations. All Ukrainian weapon systems, including combat drones that exceed the proscribed range limitation or are in excess of Ukraine’s maximum permitted quantity, shall either be destroyed under CSTO supervision or else sold or transferred to a country of Ukraine's choice. NATO is free to sell Ukraine tanks, non-nuclear capable aircraft, helicopters, patrol vessels as well as combat drones, artillery and missile systems within the above proscribed parameters.

12.  A six-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone, policed by UN and OSCE peacekeepers, shall be created along the entire length of Ukraine’s border with the Russian controlled oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia to provide a sanitary zone and increased security for both parties against the possible resumption of military conflict. In return for the normalization of all diplomatic, customs and trade ties between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, both parties agree to work together to ensure the Dnipro/Dnieper River is demilitarized, aside from police vessels, to ensure commerce and trade remains uninhibited to minimize potential disruptions to the Ukrainian economy to the border adjustments outlined in this agreement.

13.  All Prisoners of War, any civilians in captivity as well as the remains of all those who have died during the conflict will be returned to their respective countries with their treatment and care governed by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. All Ukrainian refugees shall have the right of return to Ukraine but shall not be compelled to do so. Both Ukraine and Russia will terminate their claims of war crimes committed by the other side in the International Criminal Court and any war crimes tribunals shall be conducted by the nations to whom the offending troops belong. Furthermore, there will be no reparations issued by either side. The US, EU and Japan agree to provide large-scale economic aid to assist in the process of Ukrainian reconstruction.

14.  Full diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine and between the Russian Federation and all NATO countries will be restored following the signing of this agreement. The parties will renew the bilateral 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership and will seek to normalize all diplomatic and trade ties, ending all sanctions, prohibitions and restrictions imposed against each another since 2014. 

15.  All US economic sanctions against the Russian Federation enacted from 2014 onward shall be rescinded upon the execution of this peace agreement by both parties and all seized public and private Russian financial and economic assets from the US or its NATO allies shall be restored to their owners. If any Russian financial assets have been liquidated, the government responsible for seizing them shall pay back the Russian government for the amount of money appropriated. The US shall encourage its western allies to rescind their economic sanctions against the Russian Federation as well.  

16.   The United States and the Russian Federation agree to begin negotiating a New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) II Treaty with a 3,500 operational strategic nuclear weapons cap based on never ratified START II Treaty levels. In exchange for Russia removing all its air and land-based nuclear weapons from Kaliningrad, Belarus and all territories previously controlled by Ukraine, the US will redeploy all its 150 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs from Western Europe to aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific. The US and Russia shall refrain from flying heavy bombers or deploying surface warships within two-hundred miles of the other’s territory, except for the Bering Strait.

17.   The US shall ensure that NATO shall not establish military bases in any former Soviet republics which do not belong to the Western alliance, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them apart from the provisions of Article Two of this agreement. Russia agrees not to establish military bases in the Western Hemisphere, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them. In return for Russia withdrawing its troops from Belarus and agreeing to allow Ukraine to remain aligned with the West, all US troops shall be withdrawn from the territory of NATO member states which joined in 1999 or thereafter. As part of this agreement, the US agrees to withdraw all Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missiles and dismantle its Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Sites in Redzikowo, Poland and Deveselu, Romania in exchange for a Russian withdrawal of all its nuclear capable delivery systems from Belarus. Both sides agree to work towards implementing additional reciprocal troop reductions in Eastern Europe by both Russia and NATO as part of a Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) II Treaty. Furthermore, the US and Russia agree solemnly pledge to one another that neither side will go to war against each other in the event they are attacked by a third party.

Under such an agreement, diplomatic and trade relations between Russia and Ukraine would be normalized and Ukraine will encourage its Western benefactors to normalize relations with Russia as well. The final agreement would be signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk because Zelenksy’s presidential term expired in May and Russia now views him as illegitimate.

Explaining the Terms

This agreement would allow Ukraine to have a total of 150,000 active-duty troops (including 50,000 Border Guards) whereas both drafts of the Istanbul agreement limited the total number of Ukraine’s active-duty troops including National Guard troops to 100,000. With a substantially smaller active-duty army than it fields today, the number of Ukrainian combat systems should be of less concern to Russia than their ranges which could be limited sufficiently to ensure Russia’s legitimate security interests are met.

Some US officials have denounced the Russian demands incorporated into this peace proposal as constituting "unilateral disarmament". However, it should be recognized that this agreement would be very far from a modern-day Treaty of Versailles in terms of allowances for heavy armaments such as tanks, combat aircraft, heavy artillery as well as air defense and anti-tank weapons, none of which were allowed post-war Germany following its defeat in World War One.  Even these reduced armament levels would leave the Ukrainian army stronger than either the German or British armies both in terms of numbers of troops, both active-duty and reserves, as well as in terms of numbers of main battle tanks with the UK having 228 tanks including tanks in storage and the German army boasting 328. Furthermore, the active-duty strength of the Germany Army, which is the second most populous nation in Europe after Russia, is less than 63,000 troops while the British Army strength is 75,166 troops so Ukraine’s army would be of comparable, if not greater, strength to theirs under this agreement.

Furthermore, when you add up all the weapon systems Ukraine would be permitted to have under the terms of this proposal, the maximum number of armored vehicles of all types they could have is 3,120 if you assume they are all vehicle mounted, although assuming they have 400 armored vehicles mounting ATGMs (such as BMP vehicles) the maximum number would be 2,720. It would be in Russia’s interests to agree to the higher naval ship limits for Ukraine in this agreement so Ukraine would have to use a higher percentage of its 100,000-man max limit to its naval forces thus limiting the size of the Ukrainian army in the event Ukraine opted to build up a strong navy to counter Russian naval power in the Black Sea.

In every case, except for the number of howitzers, the Ukrainian weapons arms limitations on the number of weapons in each category used in the peace proposal above are higher than the levels proposed by Russia in the draft April 2022 Istanbul peace agreement published by the New York Times last month. They are admittedly closer to the levels proposed by the Russian side, than  Ukraine’s because, whether one likes it or not, the fact is that the death and destruction in the war in Ukraine will never end without a peace agreement minimally acceptable to Moscow and there is no chance that they would agree to Ukraine’s NATO membership without having their positions on Ukrainian arms limitations mostly agreed upon. The provisions of this peace proposal would, in line with long time Russian demands since the war began, effectively decrease the size of Ukraine’s peacetime active-duty army by fifty percent. Certainly, that would be a major reduction in Ukraine’s military forces.

Banned weapon systems to be destroyed or sold include Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles (300 KM); Tochka (120KM) and Hrim-2/Grom/Sapsan Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (500 KM) as well as BM-30 Smerch (130 KM) and Vilkha-M Multiple Rocket Launch Systems (130KM). Prohibited strike systems of foreign design include, but are not limited to, US ATACMS (300 KM), British Sea Shadow cruise missiles (250 KM) French SCALP missiles (155 KM) as well as HIMARS missile systems (150 KM).

As noted in the proposed peace treaty terms above, Ukraine could deploy regular army troops with tanks and armored vehicles to the left bank of the Dnipro during peacetime but no ‘strike systems’ defined as combat aircraft (including helicopter gunships), artillery (other than medium-caliber mortars and anti-aircraft artillery), missiles (other than ATGMs and MANPADS), or combat drones to create a sanitary zone for Russia while also providing for Ukraine’s security needs. Most ATGMs, medium-caliber mortars and MANPADS have ranges of six kilometers or less. Accordingly, Ukraine would essentially be committing not to deploy any weapons with ranges exceeding six kilometers in eastern Ukraine.

The Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea that has helped keep the peace in the Korean peninsula for over seventy years, following the signing of the June 1953 armistice, serves as a useful model for how a peace agreement ending hostilities between Russia and Ukraine might be enforced.

Meanwhile, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) would be increased from a depth of four kilometers in the previous proposal to six kilometers. Assuming its compliance with the agreement, Ukraine would then be unable to strike Russian air or ground targets beyond the 6KM DMZ across 75-80% of Ukraine’s borders with Russia’s new territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson. Ukraine would be only able to strike six kilometers deep into Russia across the borders of Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv oblasts and those portions of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts located on the right bank of the Dnipro River. Furthermore, no pre-war Russian territory would be within 100 kilometers of Ukrainian ‘strike systems’ which would be limited to 40 kilometers in range. This would satisfy Putin’s stated requirement for the creation of an extended “sanitary zone” protecting its territory from future Ukrainian missile strikes greatly increasing the chances that Russia would agree to the terms of this agreement.

The creation of this new DMZ, which would be manned by UN or OSCE peacekeepers, would not only serve to protect Russia from Ukrainian attack but, more importantly, would serve to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression as well. With Ukraine’s postwar eastern borders partially “demilitarized” to use the Russian term with no combat aircraft, heavy artillery, long-range missiles or combat drones, current and future Ukrainian leaders would likely be much less inclined to antagonize or threaten Russia by violating the terms of this agreement, thus helping to assure that Russia never had reason to ever invade Ukraine again. 

No other restrictions would be placed on the size or capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that could prevent it from maintaining a robust military deterrent as a hedge against potential but unlikely future Russian military aggression. It is worth noting that this agreement would not limit in any way the number of Ukrainian 81-82 mm mortars, rocket propelled grenades, automatic grenade launchers, recoilless rifles up to 90mm, or unguided, shoulder-fired rocket launchers up to 125mm. These weapons could be either hand-carried or vehicle-mounted and could be effectively utilized to destroy enemy tanks and helicopters at short-range by Ukrainian military forces including Ukrainian National Guard and Border Guards.

To sweeten the deal and ensure Russian acceptance of Ukraine remaining aligned with the Western powers, NATO would have to commit not to send any troops to Finland or set up any bases there. Prohibiting the presence of allied troops in Finland during peacetime would lengthen Russia’s “sanitary zone” it to two-thirds of its future border with NATO. Zelensky needs to realize that this peace proposal or a variation of it is the only possible hope he has of Ukraine remaining aligned militarily with the West While there is no guarantee that Russia would agree to this proposal, every effort must be made to negotiate a peace agreement acceptable to both the US and Russia to end the death and destruction from this unnecessary, manufactured war as swiftly as possible to avoid potential vertical and horizontal escalation.

The purpose of the 200-mile exclusion zone for opposing strategic bombers and surface warships is to prevent potential nuclear miscalculation. Notably, this limitation would not preclude the US from sending nuclear-armed submarines within that zone, nor would it preclude sending F-16 and F-35 fighter bombers capable of carrying B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, reconnaissance aircraft or even combat drones closer to Russia’s borders. I chose a 200-mile limit because that is the distance at which the US intercepted a joint Russian and Chinese nuclear bomber patrol off the coast of Alaska. If the US does not want their nuclear bombers and warships to travel within 200 miles of the US coast, it stands to reason we should be willing to accept a 200-mile limit from Russia’s borders as well as an important nuclear and conventional military confidence building measure to avoid inadvertent military conflict.

While difficult for Ukraine to implement due to the oversized influence they wield on the direction of Ukrainian foreign policy, Russia undoubtedly views the provision to ban Ukraine’s far right parties and neo-Nazi militias like the Azov regiment is critical to ensuring that their ability to blackmail Ukrainian leaders into a future military conflict with Russia is eliminated.

Why This Peace Agreement Could be Construed as a Victory for All Parties

Essentially, this peace agreement would preserve and perpetuate the status quo of Ukraine’s status as a US military protectorate and imperial dependency while also largely preserving the current status quo regarding the control of disputed territories. While Russia and Ukraine would both have to make major concessions under this agreement, While Ukraine stands to gain the most from a peace agreement ending the war, Biden, Putin and Zelensky would all have legitimate reasons to claim victory following the implementation of this peace agreement.

The Benefits of This Peace Agreement for Ukraine

Ukraine is veering closer to military collapse with the passage of every month with its armed forces having been whittled down from 1.3 million men in November 2022 to only 300,000-500,000 men today. Accordingly, it would benefit greatly from an end to the war and avoiding having to surrender vast swaths of its eastern territories following a massive Russian offensive in northern Ukraine, which could potentially succeed in capturing Kyiv and ending Ukrainian independence. It would be more secure with the creation of a six-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone (DMZ) to protect it from potential future Russian attacks with Russia agreeing to allow it to retain its bilateral security agreements with the US, the EU and other NATO countries.

Ukraine lost over thirty percent of its GDP during the first year of the war alone. Ending the war with a permanent peace agreement rather than a temporary cease-fire would enable Ukraine to rebuild its shattered economy with hundreds of billions of dollars in Western assistance. It would also stop the killing and wounding of an entire generation of Ukrainian men aged 25 and above with estimated casualties exceeding 300,000 killed in action and anywhere between 500,000-700,000 wounded in an unwinnable war with no realistic prospect of liberating any of Ukraine’s lost territories. Equally important, over ten million Ukrainian refugees could return to their homes to aid in Ukraine’s economic recovery and reconstruction efforts.

An end to the war would spare Ukraine’s cities from further destruction and allowing for the reconstruction of thousands of its roads, bridges, schools and hospitals, would be profound. The war has forced nearly half of Ukraine’s businesses to close while a peace deal could allow them to re-open, allowing millions of its unemployed citizens to return to  work. In addition, an end to the conflict would enable the reconstruction of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure to prepare for the coming winter given that half of Ukraine’s electrical power grid has been disabled by Russian attacks.  Furthermore, ending the war could potentially save hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives if this tragic and unnecessary war were to be allowed to continue for several months if not years to come.

Under the terms of this agreement, Ukraine would not be required to submit to Russia’s demand to modify its constitution for neutrality. Even though Ukraine would have to commit to never formally become a NATO member state, Ukrainian NATO membership is something that would never happen anyway because several NATO countries including Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey (and very possibly the US) would veto it, it would remain a western military ally. Accordingly, Ukraine would effectively be giving up little to nothing by agreeing to never formally join NATO.

Back in March 2022, Zelensky conducted a couple of TV interviews in which he stated NATO members had informed him that Ukraine could not join NATO while it was at war with Russia but stated Ukraine could obtain bilateral “Article V-style” security guarantees from NATO member states to ensure Ukraine’s neutrality outside of NATO. Back then, the Biden administration refused to offer Ukraine any security guarantees of its neutrality, but it has since signed a bilateral security pact, which is undoubtedly conditioned upon Ukraine remaining a loyal US client state. Two months ago, President Zelensky signed a security agreement with the European Union along with security agreements with Latvia and Lithuania bringing the total number of countries that have signed such agreements with Ukraine to sixteen including Japan.

Under this agreement, Russia would drop its demands for additional Ukrainian territory and drop all special restrictions on the types and ranges of weapon systems in eastern Ukraine outside of the overall limitations. As provided under Article Ten of this agreement, if Ukraine desired to keep all of the territory currently under its control and deploy strike systems in Eastern Ukraine, it could opt for the neutrality clause of the agreement to allow it to do so with its neutrality guaranteed by the members of the UN Security Council along with certain other NATO members which would commit to provide Ukraine with direct military assistance in the event it was attacked by Russia.

The Benefits of This Peace Agreement for the Russian Federation

Russia’s overall security situation would improve greatly from such a deal with the pledge that Ukraine would never join NATO and the withdrawal of all NATO troops and spy bases and the elimination of all extended range nuclear-capable strike systems from Ukrainian territory even if Ukraine remained a Major Non-NATO ally. Perhaps even more importantly, the withdrawal of US troops from Eastern Europe and US nuclear weapons from Western Europe would revolutionize relations with the West by eliminating the perceived existential threat to Russia from NATO.

This agreement would require Russia to give up its longtime goal of Ukrainian neutrality by allowing it to remain allied to the Western Powers and essentially remain a US protectorate which would be a huge concession for Moscow. However, in return Ukraine would have to accept Putin’s demand for full Russian control of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia, as well the prohibition of Ukraine deploying what Russian sources refer to as “strike systems” in eastern Ukraine that could be used for deep strikes inside Russian territory. In exchange for Russia agreeing to Ukraine remaining aligned with the West, a “sanitary zone” would be created in eastern Ukraine protecting Russian territory and in particular, the industrial Donbass region from future Ukrainian attempts to retake its lost territory by force. Finland would also become a de facto “sanitary zone” for Russia as allied troops and infrastructure would be banned there as well as in Ukraine.

Putin could boast that Russia had achieved virtually all the objectives of the Special Military Operation with Russia having succeeded in partially demilitarizing Ukraine with a significant reduction in the size and capabilities of its armed forces as well as a partial demilitarization of the US and its NATO allies due to the major diminution of their stockpiles of modern weapon systems and ammunition that would be required to fight a direct war with the Russian Federation.

He could also note that Russia successfully stood up to the military might of the collective West, succeeding in obtaining ironclad guarantees from NATO that they would never station troops or bases in Ukraine during peacetime and the establishment of a de facto “sanitary zone” protecting Russia from future NATO supported Ukrainian attacks on its territory. Putin could also showcase the restoration of Russian as one of Ukraine’s official languages and protections for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church ending Kyiv’s attempts to persecute its Russian minority population. Putin could also point to the reduction or even elimination of Western economic sanctions on Russia and the normalization of diplomatic relations between the US and Russia as a victory for Moscow. Ukraine would also have to ban neo-Nazi political parties and militias and give equal rights to its Russian minority.

The Benefits of This Peace Agreement for the United States

Meanwhile, President Biden and other Western leaders could claim victory by stating that Western military assistance to Ukraine had succeeded in preventing Russia from taking control of all of Ukraine (an objective that the administration repeatedly and mistakenly ascribed to Russia) and helped force Russia to declare an end its invasion. Western leaders could also state that they successfully prevented an escalation of the war to NATO and restored peace and stability to Europe.  Biden could further boast that the US succeeded in its primary goal of getting Russia to concede to allow Ukraine to continue to be aligned militarily with the West and accept the retention of the US ten-year bilateral security agreement with Kyiv. Biden and his neoconservative Republican allies would be satisfied in noting that the US had achieved its primary objective of keeping Ukraine as a perpetual US protectorate, more dependent than ever on the US for its security. They could note that thanks in large part to Western assistance, Ukraine succeeded in maintaining the security and independence of nearly eighty-four percent of its prewar-controlled territory constituting nearly four-fifths of its internationally recognized territory.

Under this agreement, Ukraine would have to renounce its pursuit of NATO membership in exchange for becoming a Major Non-NATO ally. This concession should not pose a problem for the Biden administration which has reportedly informed Ukraine privately that it will not join NATO for the foreseeable future, given it appears satisfied with the current status-quo of Ukraine’s current informal, de facto NATO membership. Presumably, ending the war while keeping Ukraine as a loyal US protectorate would be much preferable to the Biden administration than Putin’s latest peace proposal which would entail Ukraine’s permanent neutrality while the administration could also point to the Russian concessions noted above as a “win” for administration Ukraine war policy.

Under the mutual security provisions of this agreement, the Russian threat to the US and NATO both in terms of conventional and nuclear attack would be eliminated as Russia would be transformed from an adversary into a strategic partner. Such a development would provide a useful counter against Chinese ambitions to become the global hegemon with the US no longer bogged down fighting a never-ending proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and with a new mutual security agreement between the US and Russia. Chinese President Xi Jinping would have to think twice about implementing his plan to blockade and/or invade Taiwan to force its reunification with the Chinese mainland by 2025, with the realization that the US could then allocate America’s full military might to respond to such a crisis.

Conclusion

It is in the US national security interest to incentivize both Russia and Ukraine to negotiate a compromise peace agreement as soon as possible to ensure Ukrainian independence and avoid a potential Russian escalation to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine and/or against one or more frontline NATO states where US military forces are based with catastrophic consequences. A relaxation of sanctions following a peace deal would likely provide badly needed economic relief, including significantly lower fuel, food, and energy prices, to tens of millions of financially distressed Americans and Europeans as our economies may be on the verge of teetering upon a new recession. It would also serve to significantly lessen the severity of the worsening global food crisis, which threatens to cause the deaths by starvation of millions of people in the Third World.

With the escalating Ukrainian military and territorial losses, the longer the Biden administration and its NATO allies delay in persuading Ukraine to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia, the weaker Ukraine’s negotiation position is likely to be, the greater the risk to Ukraine’s independence and consequently the more unfavorable the formal or de facto peace terms it will be forced to accept. While this agreement would be far from perfect from either the perspective of NATO, Ukraine or Russia, I believe it would go far to satisfy Russia’s and NATO’s minimum requirements to avert the increasingly likely outbreak of a Third World War that could result in the nuclear annihilation not only of Ukraine but potentially of the Western Powers as well were it to escalate to a full-scale nuclear exchange. For all these reasons it is not just in America’s national interest but in Ukraine’s national interest as well to finalize such a compromise peace agreement ending the war as soon as practicable.

© David T. Pyne 2024

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He currently serves as the President of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in early fall 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

July 22nd—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on the Dialogue Works podcast to discuss my new ten-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, transform Russia from an adversary to a strategic partner, end its threat to the US and NATO and deter Chinese aggression by neutralizing its alliance with Russia. Here is a link to the interview.

July 22nd—Interview with Pascal Lottaz on his Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss my new peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, transform Russia from an adversary to a strategic partner, end its threat to the US and NATO and deter Chinese aggression by neutralizing its alliance with Russia. Here is a link to the interview.

July 23rd—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss the Republican National Convention, the attempted Trump assassination and how Biden’s decision to drop out and endorse Kamala Harris for President will effect the outcome of the November 2024 presidential election. Here is a link to the interview.

July 26th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Patriot TV to discuss the Trump assassination and the threat from 80 missing Russian suitcase one kiloton nuclear weapons. Here is a link to the interview.

August 6th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss the Republican National Convention, the attempted Trump assassination and Kamala Harris’ decision to choose Tim Walz as her vice presidential running mate. Here is a link to the interview.

August 13th—Interview with Col. Rob Maness on the Rob Maness Show to discuss my new Ukraine War peace plan showing how Trump could end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration. Here is the link to the interview.

August 14th—Interview with Brannon Howse to discuss my new Ukraine War peace plan showing how Trump could end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration as well as Kamala Harris’ Manchurian vice presidential running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, who is a far left extremist enamored with the murderous Communist Chinese terror regime. Here is the link.

August 20th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss Kamala Harris’ decision to choose Tim Walz as her Manchurian vice presidential candidate and my latest plan to end the Ukraine War. Here is a link to the interview.

August 26th—Interview with Col. Rob Maness on the Rob Maness Show to discuss whether the US could win a full-scale war with China and talk about my latest China-Taiwan peace plan detailing how the US could negotiate a resolution to the conflict that would allow Taiwan continued self-rule and continued control of its armed forces.