A reparations-NATO trade-off.

Phillips P. OBrien

Dec 15, 2022

OP-ED

I’ve been thinking about what is actually the most difficult question to answer in this war at present, and that is—what does any peace settlement involve? I don’t think we are close to having peace negotiations at present for a number of reasons. First and foremost both sides seem convinced that they can improve their position by continuing to fight. The Russians seem to believe that if they can make it through the winter, they can assemble a new army from their recently mobilized/conscripted soldiers, and in doing so go back on the offensive in the Spring/Summer of 2023. The Ukrainians believe, clearly, that they are in a better shape militarily going forward, and that the winter presents chances for even more gains on the heels of their successes in Kharkiv and Kherson. Not surprisingly I still think the war is trending strongly in Ukraine’s favor, but my view doesn’t matter. As long as both sides believe that they can gain more by fighting over negotiating, there will be no peace.

At some point, however, there will be negotiations for a peace arrangement (it might take a while for a full fledged treaty to be agreed). There will have to be negotiations for one basic reason—neither side can conquer the other. Russia will never be able to conquer Ukraine and Ukraine will never be able to conquer Russia (Vladivostok really is a long way away). This means that eventually the two sides will have to negotiate.

Now those negotiations will have to cover a huge amount of issues, from borders to future security guarantees, to reparations and Ukraine’s eventual relationship with the EU and NATO. What I’ve been wondering about is the relationship that might be established between reparations and Ukraine’s possible membership of NATO. I was struck by this tweet exchange earlier today, which talked about the difficulty that emerges when reparations are put on one of the sides in the war.

Gérard Araud @GerardAraudWar reparations: “win-win “ ? Ask the Germans: their 1919 war reparations were linked to their exports. Ask them whether it was a “win-win” solution… To get war reparations, you need a decisive victory, not only the recovery of Donbas and Crimea but going much further. https://t.co/eM6ygq345KBIforPeace @BIforPeace@GerardAraud War reparations from 🇷🇺 to 🇺🇦 could be tied to the volume of 🇷🇺 energy exports to 🇪🇺 The sooner 🇷🇺🇪🇺 trade relations normalise and the more 🇷🇺 can export, the sooner 🇺🇦 will be rebuilt. For a succesful peace deal we need to find win-win solutions.6:17 PM ∙ Dec 14, 202215Likes2Retweets

One of the people argues that Reparations should come from basically levying fees on Russian energy sales while the French diplomat Gerard Araud basically doubts the general value of reparations.

This is a really tricky question, where do the funds come to rebuild Ukraine after this war? The costs of Ukrainian reconstruction will be massive. One recent estimate is that we are talking about 500-600 billion Euros just to rebuild Ukraine.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-war-reconstruction-500-billion/32161282.html#:~:text=The%20postwar%20reconstruction%20of%20Ukraine,the%20Austrian%20newspaper%20Die%20Presse.

And the longer the war goes on, the more this will go up.

Now, natural justice says that Russia should pay—and in many ways Russia can pay as it has the energy resources to generate income like this. However what I’m wondering, is whether it makes sense to make an offer to Russia. The offer would be simple—the EU/USA/Canada/Japan create a financial aid body to rebuild Ukraine after the war, and in exchange, Russia drops its opposition to Ukraine joining NATO and the EU. In other worlds, Ukraine’s supporters pay to rebuild Ukraine and in exchange they get a crucial new ally/partner.

The deal would be attractive in a number of ways, for everyone concerned.

For Ukraine this secures both of its primary goals. The country will get rebuilt after this horrible war, but in getting rebuilt it also has its long term security and independence guaranteed by being made a member of NATO and the EU. This membership provides the kind of security guarantee that is obvious. We can see just how timid Russia is these days with NATO countries, and if this war has shown anything, it is that being in NATO is the best possible guarantee for territorial integrity for a European state. It will take Russia a long time to rebuild from this catastrophe, my own feeling is two decades, but Russia will rebuild. When they do, if the Russian state remains revanchist, it will be vital that Ukraine is in NATO and the EU for its own prosperity and security.

For NATO States and Japan the benefits are clear. For a deferred percent of their annual military spend on their militaries (NATO states alone spend 1.2 trillion dollars a year—see below), the security of Europe will be settled for a generation. With Ukraine in NATO, the final piece would have been added to European security it might be said. Ukraine has proven its military capabilities, and when you add it to the growing strategic capabilities of other Eastern European states (see Poland) the Baltics and the Nordics, you will have a formidable military presence—even without adding the traditional great European powers of Germany, France and the UK. For the USA and Japan adding Ukraine to NATO really does allow a pivot to Asia. Europe should be strong enough going forward with Ukraine anchoring the alliance so that the USA can really rely on a European alliance to do the job of looking after itself (mostly). You add it all up, and for an affordable sum, the security situations of NATO states and Japan are transformed.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293301/combined-defense-expenditures-nato/#:~:text=The%20combined%20defense%20expenditure%20for,during%20the%20provided%20time%20period.

For Russia, the benefits are also clear. The peace will not be punitive financially, even if people emotionally want it to be. Russia will come out of this war with its military in tatters as it is, humiliated and humbled. If at this point, its spared reparations on the condition that Ukraine is allowed into NATO and the EU both, it might also lead to the kinds of deep introspection the Russian state requires. Russia would have lost, and lost decisively, and will be faced with the kind of European alliance that makes any thoughts of future war practically impossible. At the same time, it will be spared reparations. Could this backfire, possibly, but it could also possibly lead to a more pro-European Russia which would see a better future if it faced west.

What do you think? Is this a feasible basis for some of the negotiations?

© 2022 Phillips P. OBrien
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

……………..

A comment from reader Vlad Sanyuk. Liked by Phillips P. OBrien

“well, as a Ukrainian, I don’t believe we will have sustainable peace without joining NATO and EU, but aside from that we will not see a “rebuild”, because business and private investors will not invest, in meaningful amounts, in a country where there is a possibility of another full-scale war in 10-20-30 years, it doesn’t make any sense. So do I want to have russian reparations? Yes, I do, this is a right thing to do, from basic justice standpoint. But what I want much more is sustainable development for Ukraine, I don’t want to emigrate, because of risk of another war (which I believe will definitely happen, if Ukraine will not join NATO), so trading 300 blns USD for a guaranteed joining NATO and EU looks like a good deal to me. From funding perspective, I believe much more in private business and investments, because it will than multiplicate, there will be more workplaces, higher avg salary etc, rather than in some fixed amount of euros.”

“I don’t know if I’m right, but that’s a good thought to think about :)”