In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, an attempt to buy peace would be nothing more than an indefinite series of appeasements for the Kremlin. Such a transaction would result in a tur- bulent ‘peace’, the conditions and premises of which would be ever-changing. Beyond this, there are two other reasons why transactional peace would not work in this context. Firstly, president Vladi- mir Putin’s final objective isn’t money but a return to Soviet-era days, making the war unsolvable by economic means. Secondly, it would be ill-received by the president, who would likely view the transaction as a cheap display of western power in war where he seeks to counterbalance the west.
1.) Transactional peace would lead to an interminable cycle of temporary appeasements and low morale in Ukraine
To consider the unproductive approach of transactional peace, we can observe the global food crisis that has culminated during the war. Ukraine’s wheat exports account for approximately 10% of the world's supply. Since June 2022, Russian troops had blocked the exports of 20 million tons of grain from Ukrainian cities on the Black Sea. Though shipments continued on July 22nd due to diplomatic successes of the UN, the use of this war tactic still threatens food security in countries around the world.
This has been one of the greatest tests of western resolve in maintaining the sanctions they’ve imposed. Before a diplomatic agreement was reached in July, the Kremlin demanded a rollback of western sanctions which was subsequently denied. If these demands were met, it would signify to the administration that extortion can work in their favor and encourage it to push the boundaries of what is transactional. This would undoubtedly result in a vicious cycle of atrocities. The same concept can be applied to a one-time transaction for peace.
It is also essential that we acknowledge the societal consequences of such a transaction. If the west were to pay a price for peace, not only would that leave an encouraged aggressor but also a demoralized Ukrainian society. It would deprive Ukrainian individuals of a chance to fight for the integrity of their country and leave behind a warped national spirit, not to mention a sense of detestation for Russia.
2.) The war isn’t about money- it’s about nostalgia for the Soviet Era
Economic means are imperative to any actor in conflict. The Kremlin’s enormous economic means allowed this war to begin and will allow it to continue. Indeed, Russia’s oil and gas industry (which has been maintained during the war due to European reliance and substantial deals with China and India) continues to fuel the administration's war. The west has therefore relied upon sanctions to deter Russia in its war efforts, which have been detrimental to the state's economy. Thus, money has become increasingly important for Russia during the war. However, the Kremlin’s motives are fundamentally imperialistic. So the idea that Putin would accept payment for peace in Ukraine, in its final sense, is unrealistic.
Before the war, Putin perceived Ukraine’s heightened interest in joining NATO as an existential threat as western military power and political influence creeped closer to his borders. His initial intention with the invasion was to depose the Ukrainian government and terminate the country’s desire to join the military alliance. However, after an unprecedented pushback from the Ukrainian people, he has narrowed his focus on the Donbas. His primary goals are to “demilitarize and denazify” the region. Putin’s war is not motivated by money but by the perceived need to ensure the political neutrality of Ukraine. He’s nostalgic for Soviet-era days and is pursuing revanchist global reform, seeking to re-extend his control of post-Soviet states.
3.) A transaction of peace would throw off a balance of global power that president Vladimir Putin seeks
Since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Putin and his colleagues have continuously claimed that western states broke promises not to expand NATO. In the 90s, NATO gave assurances to the late Mikhail Gorbachev that it would limit expansions in the east. The military alliance's violation of its commitment to limited expansion has become a prominent theme in Putin’s foreign policy discourse. These concerns pushed him to launch the war. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that a suggestion of economic negotiations would be poorly received.
In the first place, such a transaction would display and make incontestable the scale of western power in matters of war, placing economic means as the highest motivator and source of power in the world. This would further throw off the balance of power that Putin seeks to achieve with his war. Secondly, if the transaction was completed, there would remain deep diplomatic trenches that Russia and the west would have to cross in order to achieve unmitigated peaceIn its absolute sense, peace is the final recognition of one anothers humanity and to coexist harmoniously despite political and cultural differences. It is an emotional and human phenomenon that must be worked on diligently by all parties, with an unwavering basis of understanding and compassion. It is true that economic means are important to war and define any state's global power. Despite this, peace is not transactional and, as we have seen, money is incapable of solving the human conflict of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Comments