Realism’s Path to Peace: beyond the war in Ukraine

It is logical and painfully evident that starting a war is always easier and faster than ending it. Internal and international wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, and throughout the Middle East confirm this. War itself brings no benefits, but suffering, destruction, and instability. Despite the growing unrest and tension in the world, we must not give up our efforts for a more peaceful and humane century. In the current state of open and latent wars in Eastern Europe, there are essentially only three scenarios: bad, much worse, and… a hopeful one.

1. Ukraine has been bleeding for four years now, losing people, territory, and infrastructure. Today, the most probable scenario is the continuation of the war. Without a reasonable political solution and constructive diplomatic efforts, a destructive military path will advance. Interventions against infrastructure and facilities in Russia are numerous, but Russia is capable of sustaining a long and exhausting war. Even with the support of the collective West so far, Ukraine does not have the strength to expel Russian troops, nor even to stop them.
2. A catastrophe derived from the escalation of the war cannot be ruled out. Two world wars emerged from Europe. The great tragedies of the 20th century could be repeated if the escalation continues or if fanaticism gains ground. NATO has not managed to apply a wise and effective conflict prevention policy. The EU has gradually gone from being the fruit of Schuman's peace project to a consumer of peace. The unprecedented rearmament promoted today by NATO and the EU may deter future aggressions and strengthen the defense industry, but it will not bring peace or generate prosperity.
3. Unfortunately, after the 2014 coup d'état and the outbreak of internal war in eastern Ukraine, France and Germany did not commit enough to guarantee the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, which both signed. Ukraine could have remained integral, democratic, and multinational. After the annexation of Crimea a latent Cold War-type confrontation began between the West and Russia. After the United States refused to negotiate a new common security architecture in Europe and to renounce plans for Ukraine's future accession to NATO, in February 2022 Russian troops invaded Ukraine. A large-scale international war broke out. A true peace agreement, acceptable to Russia and Ukraine and backed by the United States and the EU, can only emerge on the basis of a shift in relations between the two decisive parties in a decade of confrontation: the United States and the Russian Federation. They are de facto parties to the current proxy war. This shift is possible if President Trump's determination to stop the war in Ukraine, confirmed at the Alaska summit in August 2025 with President Putin, continues firmly. Unfortunately, European leaders have not been able so far to act with determination and offer a realistic solution.

Building Europe means building peace

A complete peace agreement acceptable to the parties in conflict has not yet been reached. Therefore, every constructive effort to achieve such an agreement between Russia and Ukraine must be valued. France and Germany have failed to secure peace in Ukraine during the last decade. Unfortunately, the current European (EU) leadership does not follow the mentality or policy of the founding fathers of reconciled and united Western Europe, such as R. Schuman, K. Adenauer, A. de Gasperi, or J. Monnet.

The path to peace is narrow and difficult. In the spirit of Monnet, building Europe means building peace. However, this vision and process require a new and solid foundation. The strategic paradigm shift raises difficult questions:

"Building Europe means building peace"

First, is it possible to transform by 180 degrees the political, security, and economic relations between two parties of the conflict that cannot defeat each other mutually? Second, is it possible to make the war in Eastern Europe materially impossible and that peace be stable and lasting? Third, is it possible to achieve it in a short time?

I am convinced that, despite everything that is happening today, the current geopolitical situation allows to answer these three questions affirmatively. There is a surprising solution, perhaps even provocative, but realistic.

This realism is based on the history of the Euro-Atlantic area after the Second World War, on the civilizational and cultural aspects of the nations involved and on the ongoing international consultations. We can have many criticisms and reservations about the actions of Donald Trump and his administration towards Europe, Venezuela or Iran. But his will to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible is evident. This will can become a decisive factor. The realism of the proposed vision is already demonstrated in some points of the agreement that is being gradually discussed between the United States, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the EU.

A scenario of peace in the spirit of Schuman and Marshall

I am convinced that peace in Eastern Europe can be achieved through an updated combination of the principles of the Schuman and Marshall plans. Their authentic historical results remain inspiring, proven, and valid today. The original Schuman plan sought to prevent future wars and devastation in Europe. For the participating countries, this project became a reality and has operated successfully for over 75 years. And George Marshall proposed including and financing the reconstruction of the defeated aggressor country: Germany.

"Economic and commercial cooperation must encompass the key resources for war: energy, infrastructure, and raw materials"

Today we need an analogous action. I am deeply convinced that the Schuman and Marshall 2.0 plans are possible. Transforming the confrontation between two superpowers into long-term strategic cooperation interests both countries. Leaders come and go, but nations remain. However, leaders can leave a positive legacy that elevates the lives of their peoples. The joint effort of East and West, Moscow and Washington, was key to the victory over Nazism and Fascism in Europe. Similarly, the peaceful disappearance of communism was achieved more quickly thanks to dialogue and cooperation.

The basis of this peace initiative must be an agreement between the United States and Russia. Economic and commercial cooperation must cover the key resources for war: energy, infrastructure, and raw materials. It is also important to open common markets in technology, artificial intelligence, and intellectual property. This agreement must remain open to all free nations, especially from Europe, North America, and Central Asia, accompanied by a shared security agreement.

This cooperation could lead to the creation of a great West-East Community from Anchorage (Alaska) to Vladivostok (Kamchatka). In such a community, war would be unthinkable, as it was in Western Europe after 1950. It would be an unprecedented force for world peace and stability.

A dignified peace agreement

A grand agreement of this type would help to create a new community and to lay the foundations for a dignified peace acceptable to the United States, Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. This agreement must include: return of refugees, respect for fundamental rights, transitional administration of disputed territories, democratic self-determination, transitional justice for war crimes, restoration of the rule of law, and end of sanctions.

The Marshall Plan 2.0 would provide economic stability, growth, and reconstruction. Efforts of reconciliation, dialogue, and trust-building would also be necessary. Reconciliation would generate new relationships among nations.

This framework would allow an acceptable way out for everyone, without latent conflicts. Lasting peace in Europe is a demanding but noble goal. Innovation not only arises from new ideas, but from reinterpreting old ones. I trust that creative and responsible efforts will prevail over violence and war in the near future.