This article by Dr. David Bennett argues that enforceability of a future treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is essential and that the conclusion of such a treaty would help prevent Russia becoming a satellite of communist China.
The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022- ) has become a trap for Russia because Moscow is progressively being reduced to becoming a satellite of China (the PRC) because of this war. President Vladimir Putin’s ambition to resurrect the Soviet empire by invading Ukraine in early 2022 might have been realized had Kiev been quickly overrun. However, the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance has been such that the nations of central and eastern Europe have had time to organise and to rally to an expanded North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) so that any future Russian intimidation may now be successfully countered.
Even though North Korean troops were despatched to assist Russia against Ukraine have apparently fought poorly, Beijing has still been the ultimate beneficiary, because the involvement of North Korean troops brought more time for communist China to ensure that internationally Russia is increasingly becoming more dependent upon its Chinese ally.
A potential circuit-breaker for Russia has been the return of Donald J Trump to the White House in 2025. The second Trump presidency offers Putin’s Russia the opportunity to re-establish economic and military ties with the United States so that Russia can take action to curtail its current trajectory towards becoming a Chinse satellite over the next five to ten years. It is therefore essential that Russia quickly end its war of aggression against Ukraine so that there can be an American-Russian rapprochement.
The potential for such a rapprochement is promising because the American and Russian presidents clearly have mutual respect for each other. This mutual trust has been reflected by the bi-lateral approach that the United States has adopted in seeking to directly negotiate with Russia an end to the current war. This direct bilateral approach of the Americans has inevitably led to tensions between Washington and the European Union (EU) as well as the Ukrainians.
Ukrainian unease concerning the Trump administration’s bilateral approach was manifested by the recent public verbal jousting at the White House between President Volodymyr Zelenski with President Trump and Vice-President J. D. Vance in late February 2025. Despite this public display of mutual personal hostility between the Ukrainian president with the United States’ leaders the underlying potential dynamics still exist there for an international agreement to be quickly enacted in order to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.
The above cited scenario is still viable because the key Russian demands that Moscow be allowed to keep the territory that it has acquired as a result of this war, that foreign troops not be subsequently deployed to Ukraine and that Kiev not be allowed to join NATO have been agreed to by the Trump administration. The major concern that the Ukrainians understandably have concerning these American concessions is the prohibition against any future deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine to deter Russia from re-invading their country following the signing of an international treaty.
It is therefore essential that enforceable guarantees be put in place to ensure that Russia does not violate an international treaty ending the Russo-Ukrainian War by subsequently re-invading Ukraine. This can be achieved by convening an international conference to terminate this war. Nations which partake in such an international conference can undertake to resist any possible future Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Signatories to such an international conference to end the Russo-Ukraine War such as Britain, France, Poland as well as Scandinavian nations can publicly commit to defending Ukraine in the wake of any Russian treaty violation. Such an international conference could also stipulate the creation of a Demilitarized zone between the Russian Federation and Ukraine as well as the deployment of non-military international inspectors / monitors to that zone.
Avoiding a Repeat of the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement
Cynics may argue that an international conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War will be sellout of Ukraine similar to the disgraceful 1938 Munich Conference. However, signatory nations which ratify any future treaty to end the current Russian-Ukrainian War have a vested interest in ensuring treaty compliance so that President Putin and his successors will know that military consequences would result should Moscow ever re-invade Ukraine.
Another international conference which saw a nation sold out was the January 1973 Paris Peace Agreement to end the Vietnam War. The fundamentals of this 1973 international agreement had already been previously negotiated between the United Staes and communist North Vietnam so that South Vietnam was reluctant to sign the treaty. The fact that Saigon did eventually sign this treaty was due to the secret assurances that President Thieu had received from President Nixon that the Americans would subsequently intervene via aerial bombing to counter possible communist violations of this 1973 treaty.
The fundamental South Vietnamese mistake which was made at the 1973 Paris Peace Conference was that President Thieu did not ensure that a clause of that treaty was that the United States commit to militarily enforcing the Agreement terms. Instead, the South Vietnamese leader placed his trust in President Nixon’s personal secret assurances to ensure North Vietnamese treaty compliance.
While President Nixon had every intention of honouring his secret assurances to President Thieu the onset of the Watergate scandal as well as subsequent congressional sabotage to the Viet-Nam conflict rendered the American president incapable of ensuring treaty compliance by Hanoi. Had there been a public and legally enforceable clause within this 1973 international agreement then the American Congress might not have been able to subsequently sabotage President’s Nixon’s intention to safeguard an important American ally.
Ultimately, the American failure to protect South Vietnam was due to reluctance on the part of Saigon’s allies to come to its defence following the 1973 international conference to end the Vietnam War. By contrast, EU/NATO states will have a vested interest in ensuring Russian compliance should an international conference be convened to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Ironically, the nation which stands to gain the most from a treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is Russia itself. This is because a termination of this war will endow Russia with the capacity to reset its foreign policy direction vis a vis a reproachment with the United States so that Russia can avoid consolidating its status as a satellite of the PRC.