The end of Russia's global hybrid war starts in Ukraine
Many have come to perceive Russia's hybrid war against Ukraine as a gangrene threatening democracies worldwide. It began with Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and continues today military aggression in the Eastern front of Donbass. The trend which frequents Russian foreign policy lends itself to patterns of deliberate campaigns aimed at weakening others' democracies - infecting them with internal conflict, propaganda and separatism.
As we contemplate ways of curing Russia's separatist infection, particularly in the Eastern front of the Donbass region, the first requirement is the immediate introduction of a robust, U.N.-mandated International Provisional Administration that will supervise and support every step of reconstruction and reintegration of the Russian-controlled territories on Donbass back into Ukraine.
Tens of thousands have already died on Ukraine's Eastern Front.
Russia justifies its policy of strategic and often violent separatism as an evenhanded response to the West's support for Kosovo's independence and other imagined offenses by NATO, the EU and the United States. Just over 10 years ago, at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, President Putin reportedly lamented to President Bush that "Ukraine is not even a state." Putin's forewarning that the U.S.'s continued support of Kosovo's independence and NATO enlargement serves as justification for the Kremlin's misappropriation of territory from Ukraine, Georgia and other post-Soviet states. Since then, we have seen the Kremlin refine and expand its policy of strategic separatism to include support for Brexit, the further disintegration of the EU and its member states.
The newly adopted NATO 2018 Brussels Summit Declaration recognizes Ukraine's sovereignty and the relevance of UN Peacekeepers. It supports the use of sanctions "to promote a peaceful solution to the [Ukraine] conflict and to address Russia's actions." Despite international consensus calling for a robust UN peacekeeping mission in Donbass, Russia envisions UN peacekeepers only as security agents for OSCE monitors. Concurrently, the Kremlin is clinging to a malign interpretation of the Minsk Agreements designed to ensure that the Donbass conflict remains a gangrenous, frozen conflict preventing Ukraine's further European integration.
To achieve progress in resolving the conflict in Donbass, a new approach to Minsk is required. The Brussels Declaration may provide the U.S., France, the U.K., and Ukraine an opportunity to engage with Russia on the UN Security Council in pursuit of a solution broader than the introduction of a peacekeeping force to include an international provisional administration. The purpose of the IPA would be to expeditiously return Donbass to full Ukrainian sovereignty, support reconciliation and reconstruction and end the strategic separatist threat.
The Balkans were stabilized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which established an Interim Administration Mission for Kosovo. It is foreseeable that a similar UN Security Council resolution for Ukraine would break the current impasse. Of course, Russia would need to be granted a limited and controlled role within the carefully structured interim administration. In turn, good behavior within the interim administration could be rewarded, on a tit-for-tat basis, by a gradual lessening of sanctions.
Given Russia's veto on the Security Council, the composition and terms of reference of the IPA will require compromises by all sides. And, there are real risks involved in offering Russia a role inside the IPA. However, these risks must be weighed against the continued rot of Russia's armed intervention in Ukraine and an even more aggressive Russian pursuit of its policy of strategic separatism.
John DeBlasio, of Chicago, is founder and executive director the Global Peace and Development Charitable Trust, a philanthropic initiative that aims to promote peace and stability through civic engagement, journalism and the development of transformational leaders