JASON SIBERT

The Ukraine War is the latest battleground in the current Cold War between the United States-led orbit and the China/Russia orbit.

The war is in its third year and has already cost a significant amount in terms of blood and treasure; it is also a battleground in Cold War II. The three major powers in the world —namely, the US (first), China (a close second), and Russia (a distant third) — are squaring off in this geopolitical contest. The results will undoubtedly be deadly if there’s a military showdown between the two orbits.

How do we defuse tensions? Writer Carter Malkasian offered a suggestion in his story “The Korea Model: Why an Armistice Offers the Best Hope for Peace in Ukraine.” In 1950, US troops, led by US General Douglas MacArthur, pushed into North Korea, but then China intervened. By the middle of 1951, there was a stalemate along the 38th parallel. Negotiations between the two sides began in the summer of 1951. Heavy bombing of the northern portion of Korea in 1952 destroyed factories and farms, food was scarce, and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung was ready for a ceasefire because he understood the situation. The diplomacy that ended the Korean War occurred amid considerable fighting, like what’s happening in Ukraine today.

As Malkasian states, the Korean Peninsula remains a focal point of intense geopolitical tension. A ruthless dictator rules North Korea, but South Korea has a robust economy and democracy. On a positive note, the carnage of the Korean War has been over for decades. He also pointed out that the Ukraine War resembles the Korean War and used it as a guide for a plan to end the conflict. Would Ukraine, or even a portion of it, prosper like South Korea after a ceasefire? Malkasian thinks that the answer is yes. He advocated a multilateral solution: “They should include the United Nations in any negotiations, since neutral arbiters are an asset. Finally, they should condition future security assistance and post-conflict support for Ukraine on Kyiv’s willingness to make some concessions.” Malkasian also advocated the involvement of the US, Ukraine’s supporters, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

He said an agreement is most likely to be struck when the conflict becomes frozen. It’s in a frozen state currently, with Russia bogged down in what it thought would be an easy war and Ukraine feeling the burdens of a war it didn’t start. President Donald Trump sought an end to the war in the election of 2024, but so far, Putin hasn’t been willing to stop the war, regardless of Trump’s proposals.  The writer admits that there are challenges in ending the war: “Yet if pursuing negotiations is a gamble, it is one with low risks and high potential rewards. Failure would merely yield the same result as doing nothing. Success, however, could preserve Ukraine, allay wider fears for democracy, deter further Russian aggression, and put fears of escalation to rest. The kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced would be a victory not just for Ukraine and its supporters but for the entire world, as well.”

Peace brings many benefits – lower security costs (military spending), reduced interference with the liberty of citizens of any one nation (no draft), and a focus on things other than war. The world’s power centers (Russia, China and the US) could cooperate in a world defined by international law and peace. However, we must find a way to leave the Cold War we’re in because it puts the world’s power centers in an adversarial relationship, a subject that’s beyond the scope of this story. Would a peace deal in Ukraine be a good starting point? Could a group of arms control deals that follow a Ukraine deal further de-escalate the current Cold War? One could argue that the Korean War brought a simmer to the first Cold War, to some extent. Our country, and others, could chart a new future if we can find the right path.

Jason Sibert of St. Louis, Mo., is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project