Forging Peace: From Centuries of War to Ukraine's Future

Introduction

For centuries, war has been a brutal constant in human affairs, with nations locked in cycles of conquest and revenge that have left countless lives shattered. Yet even from the ashes of the most devastating conflicts, lasting peace has managed to emerge through the alchemy of pragmatic diplomacy and difficult compromises.

As the world watches Russia's invasion of Ukraine with horror, it is all too easy to succumb to a sense of despair – that this conflict, like so many before it, will rage unabated until one side is utterly vanquished. History, however, offers a more nuanced perspective. Time and again, wars that once seemed intractable have eventually found resolutions, however imperfect or painful.

From the neutrality imposed on once-belligerent states, to the pragmatic federalization of fractured nations, the ethnic partitions that divided lands and peoples, and the territorial losses enforced by decisive military victories, the annals of the past are replete with examples of how even the most vicious wars can be brought to an end through diplomacy. It is these well-trodden paths that may hold the key to unlocking peace in Ukraine.

This article explores the hard-learned lessons from how the major conflagrations spanning 300 years of human conflict concluded. In doing so, it aims to discern a route forward for the current crisis – one that acknowledges the harsh realities of geopolitical compromise, but also the moral imperatives of sparing civilians further misery. For as History Future Now has long maintained, it is only by understanding our past that we can hope to build a better future.

Part 1: Wars Ended by Neutrality

Among the potential paths to peace, the imposition of official neutrality has proven to be an effective, if often unpalatable, resolution to conflicts spanning centuries. The precedents are numerous:

In the aftermath of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 established Belgian territories as a "Perpetually Neutral State" to act as a buffer zone between France and the Dutch Republic. This enforced neutrality ultimately paved the way for an independent Belgian nation over a century later.

In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna reorganized Europe's political geography in 1815, enshrining the principle of neutrality for Switzerland. Despite being at the heart of the continent's power struggles, the Swiss Confederation was prohibited from joining future military alliances and hosting foreign armies – a status it maintains to this day.

A century later, the armistice that ended World War I's bloodletting enforced strict demilitarization and neutrality on the Netherlands. Under the terms of the 1919 settlement, the Dutch were barred from joining military alliances, while their sovereign territory was subject to allied oversight to uphold the restrictive peace terms.

More recently, the Austrian State Treaty of 1955 paved the way for a fully independent and officially neutral Austria after a decade of four-power occupation following World War II. The settlement prohibited union with Germany and barred Austria from hosting foreign military forces – a controversial condition given the Soviet fears of a remilitarised, U.S.-aligned stronghold on their borders.

Could a similar policy of legally-enshrined permanent neutrality be the key to resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict? The potential benefits are evident: By committing to non-alignment and agreeing not to join NATO or host foreign forces or bases, Ukraine could alleviate core Russian security concerns that Moscow has long cited as the pretext for its invasion.

In exchange, Russia would be compelled to withdraw its forces from all internationally-recognized Ukrainian territory aside from Crimea, while robust international security guarantees – potentially involving U.N. peacekeepers to monitor the demilitarized borders – would preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Yet as the Dutch and Austrian examples illustrate, any such settlement would constitute a bitter concession for Ukraine. Having fought and bled to defend its independence, being forced to relinquish its sovereign right to self-determination on future alliances could prove an unacceptable price. There is also the risk that a neutrality agreement, however legally binding, may only delay rather than permanently resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict if residual grievances fester.

Ultimately, while flawed, the model of imposed neutrality stands as one of the few historically-proven formulas for halting even the most protracted and vicious wars through pragmatic compromise. As the coming sections explore, it is merely one of several potential pathways the world may choose to pursue in its quest to forge a sustainable peace in Ukraine.

Part 2: Federal Solutions to Civil Wars

When the fires of civil war have burnt themselves out, one path that has repeatedly emerged from the ashes is the federalization of the conflicted state along ethnic, linguistic or geographic lines. By devolving significant autonomy to feuding regions while preserving a unified national framework, such federal solutions have proven to be effective, if imperfect, means of resolving sectarian tensions.

Perhaps the most famous example is the conclusion of the American Civil War in 1865. Despite the Union's military victory over the Confederate secessionists, pragmatism ultimately prevailed. Under the framework of Reconstruction, the former rebel states were gradually re-admitted as semi-autonomous members of an enduring federal republic. This allowed for the preservation of state identities and local decision-making while enshrining national unity and civil rights protections for all citizens.

A more contemporary model can be found in the Dayton Accords of 1995, which finally ended the bloody Yugoslav Wars. The settlement crystallized Bosnia and Herzegovina as a highly decentralized federal state composed of two sub-national entities – the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska and a Bosniak/Croat federation. While imperfect, the federal structure prevented further ethnic cleansing while allowing the warring peoples a degree of self-governance.

Another example is the 1995 Sudanese Peace Agreement that ended the First Sudanese Civil War by granting autonomy and a federal system to the south, despite leaving many underlying grievances unresolved that reignited conflict in 1983. This illustrates both the potential and limitations of federal solutions.

In Ukraine's case, could a similar federalization potentially break the current impasse with Russia? One possibility is the reorganization of Ukraine into a loosely-bound federation. The Russian-speaking Donbas republics of Donetsk and Luhansk could be granted expansive autonomy over economic, cultural and legislative affairs while remaining nominally under Kyiv's jurisdiction. This internal solution could persuade Moscow to accept the territories' reintegration within Ukraine's borders.

The challenges, however, are immense. After years of fighting Russian-backed separatists, Kyiv may be unwilling to cede such sweeping powers to regions it perceives as being under foreign occupation. Federalization could also embolden other pro-Russian oblasts to demand similar autonomy, progressively decentralizing Ukraine. There are also concerns that such a arrangement simply delays further conflict by leaving the root issues of the Donbas unresolved indefinitely.

Yet if federalisation prevented even a fraction of the devastation witnessed in Bosnia or the U.S. Civil War's Reconstruction Era, it could represent an imperfect but pragmatic compromise to halt Ukraine's suffering. As World War I's ruinous aftershocks demonstrated, forcing defeated peoples into permanent subjugation often plants the seeds for future conflicts.

Part 3: Partition as Conflict Resolution

At the bleakest nadir of ceaseless war, when all other options have been exhausted, a final resolution historically remains: the permanent ethnic or territorial partition of the disputed lands themselves. By acceding to the divisions that fueled the original conflict, such partitions have repeatedly allowed warring peoples to extricate themselves into separate sovereign realities.

One of the earliest and most seismic examples was the 1667 Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth following years of Russian invasion and civil strife. The settlement formally divided the once-powerful kingdom along the Dnieper River, with the western Polonized territories becoming a Russian satellite while Lithuania proper fell under Swedish control. The partition formalized the diverging futures of the slavic peoples.

Over two centuries later, the traumatic Partition of India in 1947 ended the Indian independence movement at the cost of unspeakable violence. As British colonial rule fractured, the new dominions of India and Pakistan were established by carving apart the subcontinent along religious lines. Over 10 million people were uprooted and up to 2 million perished in sectarian bloodshed, but the partition established the foundations of the modern nation-states.

The partitions of Korea in 1945 and Vietnam in 1954 along the 38th and 17th Parallels respectively were interim measures after World War II that similarly formalised separations to end active conflicts, despite resulting in further civil wars between the divergent states.

Could some form of negotiated partition potentially provide a resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, however abhorrent the human costs? One potential scenario is a negotiated division along linguistic lines. Russian forces withdraw from all of Ukraine aside from Crimea and the Donbas republics, which are ceded to Russia. Meanwhile, Russian-speaking populations in other Ukrainian oblasts are granted a window to emigrate to Russia or the newly-annexed territories.

The advantages are obvious - it conclusively solves the driving issue of sovereignty over Russian-majority lands. Yet the practical and ethical implications are staggering. Millions of civilians would be forced from their homes based on ethnicity, upending the very principle of national self-determination that sparked the war. There are also complex questions of navigating vital economic links, energy infrastructure, and the rights of minorities in each proto-state.

Ultimately, any partition plan would be a tragic last resort. As the harrowing aftermath of India's Partition showed, ethnic unmixing solves conflicts by formalizing segregation into official national policy. It is a grim path that should only be contemplated when all other options have been truly exhausted.

Yet history has proven that even such draconian measures can end cycles of perpetual violence when both sides accept the inescapable realities. For Ukraine, the most humanitarian path forward may ultimately lie in acknowledging what can and cannot be territorially preserved.

Part 4: Decisive Military Victory

Throughout the centuries, some of history's most brutal conflicts found their denouement not through diplomacy, but via the overwhelming military subjugation of one side by the other. The resulting peace settlements were then dictated by the victor, regardless of the human cost.

The Seven Years' War of the mid-18th century is a prime example. Initiated by the rivalry between Prussia and Austria for regional hegemony, it eventually drew in all the major European powers in a vicious cycle of shifting alliances and colonial conquests. After years of bloodshed across multiple continents, the war ended in 1763 with the Treaty of Hubertusburg - a resolution which formalised Prussia's territorial aggrandisement at the expense of the defeated Austrian Empire.

The conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars themselves in 1815 saw France decisively defeated and occupied by Allied forces, resulting in territorial losses, reparations and restrictions on its military under the Treaty of Paris and Final Act of the Congress of Vienna.

A more contemporary precedent is the First Gulf War of 1991. Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a U.S.-led multinational coalition comprehensively defeated Saddam Hussein's forces through a devastating air campaign and ground operation. The resultant peace terms were severe - Iraq was forced to withdraw from Kuwait, pay reparations, destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and submit to crippling economic sanctions and no-fly zones that preserved the status quo for over a decade.

Could such a decisive military victory by one side over the other provide the eventual key to unlocking peace in Ukraine? From Russia's perspective, a campaign of overwhelming force to definitively defeat Ukraine's defenses could compel Kyiv to eventually accede to Moscow's core demands - permanent Russian control over Crimea and the Donbas, constitutional neutrality barring NATO membership, and perhaps even territory concessions.

Yet despite its public bluster, Russia has thus far manifestly failed to achieve such a military outcome. Its forces remain bogged down by fiercer-than-expected Ukrainian resistance, exposing the limits of Russia's actual martial capabilities. For Ukraine, the human costs of even tactical Russian successes have proven catastrophic, making the notion of complete capitulation unthinkable.

Short of full-scale intervention by NATO forces to decisively rout Russia - an unprecedentedly escalatory scenario - an outright military victor capable of unilaterally dictating peace terms seems elusive. The path of imposed peace through overwhelming conquest appears improbable for either side, at least over the foreseeable future.

Part 5: Negotiated Settlements

If military victory remains implausible for now, that leaves only one remaining path out of the morass of Ukraine's conflict - a negotiated diplomatic settlement arduous enough to address the fundamental grievances driving both sides. History has proven that even the most difficult wars can eventually find resolution through robust peace processes and territorial reorganisation.

The Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück in 1648, collectively known as the Peace of Westphalia, ended the century of continental carnage triggered by the Thirty Years' War. Through gruelling diplomacy under the auspices of Norway and Sweden as mediators, the settlement reorganised large swathes of Europe's borders, granting sovereignty and religious rights to the warring principalities of the collapsed Holy Roman Empire.

The Treaty of Ghent in 1814 ending the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States is considered an early example of a pragmatic "peace without victors" through negotiated settlement that essentially restored pre-war realities and borders.

Similarly, the Congress of Vienna in 1815 represented the international community's attempt to restore stability and prevent further conflict in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. Over months of complex negotiations, borders were redrawn, spheres of influence reapportioned, and the outlines of a balance of power dictated across Europe. While flawed, the settlement helped maintain an uneasy continental peace for nearly four decades.

For Ukraine, any such "Westphalian" resolution would likely require the involvement of the United Nations and other global bodies as neutral brokers in negotiating an intricate series of territorial, political, security and economic accords. Russia would have to make tangible concessions on its core aims of absorbing the Donbas and Crimea into the Russian Federation in exchange for security guarantees restricting Ukraine's westward geopolitical pivot.

Kyiv, in turn, may have to begrudgingly accept some form of constitutionally-enshrined neutrality barring future NATO membership, along with robust protections for Russian minorities in return for preserving its truncated sovereignty and independence. Both sides would also have to confront complex humanitarian issues like refugees and governance of the occupied/contested areas.

It would be a fraught, imperfect and likely rancorous process - but perhaps the only path that respects Ukraine's territorial integrity and Russia's stated security concerns without sowing the seeds for further conflicts. As ceasefires and preliminary negotiations have continually faltered, a robust, internationally-backed comprehensive peace process may ultimately represent the best path forward.

Crucially, a diplomatic settlement premised on mutual concessions addresses the reality that neither Russia nor Ukraine can achieve an outright military victory in this conflict, no matter how much more blood is spilled. The human catastrophe can only be ended by pragmatic abnegation of each side's maximal aims in favour of a sustainable, if unsatisfying, arrangement.

Conclusion

As this exploration of three centuries of warfare has demonstrated, schemic conflicts can find resolutions through a multitude of eventual pathways - from neutrality and federalization, to partitions and decisive military victories, to comprehensive diplomatic settlements. Each approach has its own historical precedents to learn from, for better or worse.

Ukraine's ultimate path to peace may very well incorporate elements of multiple resolutions - perhaps a federalized regions with Russian autonomy and security guarantees coupled with internationally-monitored referendums to decisively settle the question of Crimea. Or it could see a partition of the Russian-majority lands through negotiated population transfers and border redraws. Or, most optimistically, a grand diplomatic process that makes incremental compromises acceptable to all sides involved.

What is clear from the long shadow of history is that even the most existential conflicts can eventually find political resolution once the human costs of perpetual war are deemed too steep. Ukraine, for all the horror it has endured, is unlikely to be the exception that shatters this foundational tenet of diplomacy and statecraft.

Forging a lasting peace will require all actors involved to confront harsh realities, abandon unattainable ideals, and engage in the type of candid give-and-take that so often proves elusive even for democratic societies - let alone authoritarian ones. It is an immense challenge, but one made slightly more tenable when guided by the examples hewn from centuries of human struggle for conflict resolution.

For as History Future Now has continually emphasized, it is only by understanding our past that we can hope to learn, to grow, and to build a better, more sustainable path into the future. On the road out of Ukraine's abyss of violence, the footsteps of those who trod similar paths before may prove to be the vital lodestar in these current darkest hours.