Three scenarios for Europe

In the current state of the ongoing hot and cold war in Eastern Europe, there are essentially only three scenarios: bad, much worse, and... hopeful.

A) The continuation of the war is currently the most likely scenario. Ukraine has been bleeding, losing people, territory, and infrastructure for four years. Even with the support of the collective West, Ukraine does not have the strength to drive out Russian troops, or even to stop them. Without a reasonable political solution and constructive diplomatic efforts, only the destructive military path is moving forward. Attacks against infrastructure and facilities in Russia are numerous, but Russia is capable of waging a long and exhausting war.

B) A catastrophe through the escalation of war cannot be ruled out. Two world wars have originated in Europe. The tragedies of the 20th century may be repeated. NATO has failed to implement a wise and effective policy: the prevention of war. The EU has gradually changed from the fruit of a peace project to a consumer of peace. The unprecedented arms race that NATO and the EU are currently engaged in may deter future aggression and strengthen the defense industry, but it will not bring peace or create prosperity.

C) A genuine peace agreement acceptable to Russia and Ukraine and supported by the US and Europe can therefore emerge on the basis of a turnaround in relations between the two decisive parties to the decade-long confrontation: the US and the Russian Federation. They are de facto parties to the current proxy war. This turnaround is possible if President Donald Trump remains determined to stop the war in Ukraine, as he confirmed at his summit with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.

Building Europe means building peace

An acceptable peace agreement, in the form of a package of conditions and solutions acceptable to the warring parties, has not yet been found. Therefore, every constructive effort to reach an agreement between Russia and Ukraine should be appreciated. The European powers (France, Germany, the United Kingdom) have failed to secure peace in Ukraine over the past decade. Unfortunately, the current EU leadership does not follow the convictions and practices of Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer, the founding fathers of a reconciled and united Europe after World War II.

The road to peace is narrow and difficult. In the spirit of Jean Monnet: building Europe means building peace. However, such a vision and process require a new and strong foundation. A change in the strategic paradigm raises complex questions. First, is it possible to turn political, security, and economic relations between superpowers around 180 degrees? Second, is it possible to make war in Eastern Europe materially impossible and peace stable and lasting? Third, is it possible to achieve this in a short time?

It is certainly easier to answer such fundamental questions after the fighting has ended and a peace agreement has been signed. I am convinced that, despite everything that is happening today, the current geopolitical situation allows us to answer these three questions with a yes. A surprising, perhaps even provocative solution is realistic. Realism is based on the history of the Euro-Atlantic area after World War II and on ongoing international consultations. We may have many reservations about the actions of Donald Trump and his administration towards Europe or Venezuela.

However, his determination to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible is evident. This can be built upon and may prove decisive. The realism of the proposed vision is already evident in some points of the agreement that is gradually being negotiated between the US, Russia, Ukraine, and the EU (E3).

A peace scenario 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 are still inspiring, proven, and valid today. The original Schuman plan was about preventing further war and devastation in Europe. For the participating countries, this project became a reality and has been working successfully for more than 75 years.

Today, we need a similar approach. I am deeply convinced that Schuman and Marshall Plan 2.0 is possible. Transforming the confrontation between the two superpowers into long-term and strategic cooperation is in the interest of both countries and their successful development. Leaders come and go, but nations remain.

However, leaders can leave behind a positive legacy that will raise the lives of the nations concerned to a higher level. The joint efforts of the East and West, Moscow and Washington, were a prerequisite and the basis for victory over Nazism and fascism in Europe. Similarly, the peaceful demise of communism was achieved by non-violent means – through dialogue, understanding, and cooperation between the West and the East, between Washington and Moscow.

The basis of this peace initiative should be an agreement between the two Euro-Atlantic powers: the US and Russia. Economic and trade cooperation in the form of a common market must include the resources and commodities needed to wage war: energy and its infrastructure, and natural resources – rare minerals. It is equally important to open up information technology, artificial intelligence, and intellectual property to the common market.

An agreement on a common market for the above-mentioned resources and commodities between the two powerful protagonists must be open to all free countries, especially in Europe, North America, and Central Asia. This must logically be accompanied by an agreement between the participating states on common security. Mutually beneficial cooperation could gradually lead to the creation of a large west-east community stretching from Anchorage in Alaska to Vladivostok in Kamchatka, via Europe and Central Asia.

War in such a community would become impossible and unthinkable, as was the case in Western Europe after 1950. Such an extensive zone of common security, cooperation, and prosperity in the northern hemisphere would represent an unprecedented force for peace and stability throughout the world. Initial reactions to this vision are encouraging. Thanks to Schuman's proposal and Adenauer's agreement, France and Germany began peaceful cooperation in the field of coal and steel after 1950.

Schuman's plan for a united Europe was an unprecedented political innovation. For many Europeans, reconciliation and unification with a former enemy and aggressor was a utopia, for others a provocation, and some in France considered it treason. However, the unthinkable partnership and friendship gradually became a reality. This great and creative innovation, supported by the firm commitment of national governments and parliaments, proved to be a genuine and constructive path to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Europe.

Unfortunately, this process of peace-building has not encompassed the entire continent from the Atlantic to the Urals in recent decades. We are now paying a very high price for many failures in the necessary efforts.

The path out of war is possible. However, genuine statesmanship, political courage, goodwill, and programmatic perseverance are key to shaping this new path. For peace to be sustainable, the roots of conflict must be removed. And conflict prevention lies in sharing security and strategic resources. The roots of our common Judeo-Christian civilization invite us to mutual respect, beneficial cooperation, and a life of peace and unity.

A dignified peace agreement

Such a grand agreement will not only serve to create a new West-East community in the northern hemisphere, but will also lay the foundation for a dignified peace agreement that is acceptable and beneficial to the US, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the states of Europe.

The package of conditions and compromises must include the return of refugees and displaced persons, respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of citizens, including ethnic minorities, transitional, time-limited administration of disputed territories with international support (UN, OSCE), respect for the transparently expressed will of the inhabitants of the affected territories for democratic self-determination, the application of transitional justice and the restoration of the rule of law, and the lifting of all sanctions. Marshall Plan 2.0 will set out the conditions and offer effective assistance for economic stability, growth, and prosperity.

Special support must be given to the targeted and dynamic reconstruction of destroyed territories and infrastructure. Such a process also requires constructive efforts towards reconciliation, dialogue, and trust-building, and will bring about new relations between nations and states. This basis for a dignified peace agreement can be an acceptable and face-saving solution for all, without gray areas, disputed territories, or postponed or hidden confrontations.

Lasting peace in Europe is a challenging but noble and enriching goal. Innovation comes not only from new ideas, but also from the ability to see old ideas in a new light. I am convinced that creative, constructive, and responsible efforts can prevail over the forces of conflict, violence, and war in the near future.

Hydepark is a space for free discussion; published opinions may not reflect the editorial line of Štandard. The author is a former Slovak European Commissioner.