American historian Timothy Snyder, specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust, warns that any negotiation with Russia risks failing if it ignores the realities on the ground, Ukraine’s sovereignty, and the historical lessons of compromises made in the face of aggressors.
In an opinion article for Kiev Post, starting from the peace plan in Ukraine negotiated in secret between the US and Russia, which has inflamed spirits on both sides of the Atlantic, Snyder formulates ten essential principles for a potential peace agreement.
The professor emphasizes that „peace cannot be built on the backs of victims” and that Ukraine must be supported until Russia gives up its goal of destroying its statehood.
Here are the ten basic principles formulated by the American historian:
1. In effective negotiations, concessions are not made in advance
We do not yet know what is being conceded (on behalf of Ukrainians) in the current proposal, but in the past, the Trump administration has floated the idea of huge concessions: that Ukraine should not join NATO; that Russians should not be prosecuted for war crimes; that Russia should not pay war reparations. It is counterproductive and unjust to make concessions in advance, in exchange for nothing – especially on behalf of other people.
2. Ukrainians must be listened to
Officials of the aggressor state, Russia, are pleased that their position underpins the American proposal. Americans should listen to Ukrainians. Russians know why they invaded Ukraine. They know how they think they can dominate Ukraine and how they can destroy its independence. There are few signs that the current Trump administration understands these Russian objectives or understands well enough how Ukrainian and Russian states function to see the danger. If Ukrainians are not allowed to speak frankly, not only they – but all of us – will suffer.
3. Agreements that exclude relevant parties are unlikely to succeed
After World War I, countries considered aggressors were practically excluded from significant parts of the negotiations. There were other causes of World War II, but this was one of them. Today’s situation is much more dramatic: the obviously victimized country – Ukraine – has been excluded.
– Source: [Spotmedia](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/eveniment/planul-de-pace-al-sua-pune-presiune-pe-kiev-pretul-greu-pe-care-ar-trebui-sa-l-plateasca-ucraina)
4. How the war started matters
Since the end of World War II, a fundamental principle of international order is that aggression for changing state borders is illegal. An agreement that rewards Russia weakens international order and makes a future war more likely. An agreement that defends Ukraine has the opposite effect: it strengthens world order and makes a future war less likely.
5. Nuclear war would be a catastrophic outcome
Successfully resisting Russia, Ukraine greatly reduces the risk of nuclear war. But if Ukraine is perceived as defeated (for example, by forcing an unfair agreement), other countries in Europe and Asia will conclude that they need to build nuclear weapons to deter a future Russian (or Chinese) invasion. This is already intensely discussed and well known. Nuclear proliferation will lead to a much more dangerous world and a higher mathematical probability of nuclear war. To prevent this, Ukraine must be perceived by the rest of the world as successfully defending itself. This is a reasonable condition for any peace proposal.
6. Participants must assess their own vulnerabilities
President Trump’s desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize is probably the most well-known emotional vulnerability in the history of international relations. But if this desire leads to a hasty and poorly thought-out attempt to make peace, war will only escalate. Russians will be more than happy to support a PR campaign for Trump to receive the prize, even as they escalate the war against Ukraine after an ill-conceived attempt at understanding.
7. The domestic politics of countries matter
Democracies are different from tyrannies and fight for different reasons. Russia fights because Putin has personal ideas about his place in history and similar others. Ukraine fights because Ukrainians do not want to be subjugated. So, convincing Ukraine to stop the war must involve the Ukrainian people, not just President Zelensky. The American administration seems to start from the premise that the war is a kind of real estate dispute between two people. But Ukrainians are not fighting for Zelensky. They are fighting for their lives and for the idea of a decent life. Although we may forget, they cannot forget mass murder campaigns, torture, and numerous child abductions. „Security guarantees” are not, therefore, an abstraction.
– Source: [Spotmedia](https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/eveniment/zelenski-spune-ca-nu-se-teme-de-trump-si-dezvaluie-cum-l-a-ajutat-regele-charles-crede-ca-europa-ar-putea-fi-atacata-de-putin-inainte-de-incheierea-razboiului)
8. Enforcement mechanisms are necessary
Russia has violated every agreement it has ever signed with Ukraine. Moscow’s assurances that Russia will not attack are more than meaningless. Assurances that we will somehow help are also empty – we offered such guarantees in 1994 when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and it did not help. Enforcement mechanisms mean actions triggered automatically by a new Russian aggression. And this is only possible within organizations. Ukrainians are right to want to join NATO. It is a real security guarantee. Russia attacks countries that are not NATO members. It does not attack NATO member countries.
9. For Ukraine, the crucial concept is sovereignty
The same goes for Russia: its objective is for this war to lead to a situation where there is no longer a sovereign Ukrainian state. This means that negotiators must be extremely careful to avoid any Russian intrusion into Ukrainian internal politics: for example, requests to change the Constitution or impose laws. At the same time, negotiators must respect the essential elements of a country’s foreign policy: the right to choose alliances, the right to decide if foreign troops are on its territory, the right to establish its own defense and foreign policy. An agreement that does not respect Ukrainian sovereignty in these fundamental ways will not only be illegal and unfair: it would reward Russian aggression in the most profound way, guarantee its repetition, and destabilize the region and the world.
10. Peace is more than just the temporary absence of hostilities
Peace must mean the reconstruction of Ukraine. If reconstruction is not at the center of a peace agreement, peace cannot last. Reconstruction will entail huge business opportunities for Ukraine’s allies – much more substantial and predictable than anything in Russia. Ukraine needs long-term assistance for its NGOs, regions, and central government, as well as accession to the European Union. This cannot be achieved if negotiators rush. And, of course, it requires the participation of all of Ukraine’s allies.
This war can be ended, but the basic logic remains the same as always: Ukrainians must be supported so that Russia no longer aspires to destroy their country. This is the foundation. Negotiations will work when this objective is achieved, concludes historian Timothy Snyder in conclusion.
G.P.