How to Build Long-Term Peace Between Russia and Ukraine

Conflicts are inimical to the flourishing of a truly God-centred society. The darkness of the human heart can easily make it a distorting lens whereby even the best-intentioned acts come to be regarded with deep suspicion, and generosity and honesty are misconstrued as perfidy. Unhealed wounds can adversely distort relationships, often in ways that may not be fully appreciated by the parties themselves or by any who seek to help constructively. What is true for interpersonal relationships is also true of relationships between nations.

The command shared by Christians and Jews alike to create a world filled with a holistic sense of peace, shalom, does not mean turning a blind eye to injustice, be it personal or structural. The command to shalom is found throughout the Bible, but some of the most significant passages include:

• Leviticus 26:6: And I will grant peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and no one shall make you afraid; I will remove dangerous animals from the land, and no sword.’

• Deuteronomy 20:10: ‘When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.’

• Psalm 29:11: ‘May the Lord give strength to his people! May the Lord bless his people with peace!’

• Isaiah 9:5: ‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’

• Matthew 5:9: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’

These passages show that shalom is not just the absence of war, but a holistic understanding of peace that includes social justice, economic prosperity, and spiritual wholeness. It is a peace that comes from following God's commands and living in accordance with his will.

Indeed, another imperative, that of mishpat (justice) requires all people, as bearers of God’s image, to work for the restoration of the shattered and distorted social order in which we live. The achievement of justice is a necessary pre-requisite for the establishment of peace, but the justice to be worked for cannot simply be identified with the demands of any one class or party grouping – it must be truly impartial, without bias to the rich or the poor.

• Deuteronomy 1:17 ‘you shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's’.

Justice must be implemented in all spheres of life – political, social, and economic – so that we might live peacefully with one another. The two objectives of peace and justice are thus inextricably linked.

Peace and good governance are thus integral prerequisites for development. Unless the underlying relational issues can be dealt with, any intervention is likely simply to foster continuing conflict. Conflicts are destructive and divisive. They also distort community structures and inhibit the freedom essential for the healthy growth of all institutions – church, state, family, and the range of voluntary associations and enterprises which collectively make up what is called ‘civil society’.

The peacemaker’s objective is to facilitate harmony between conflicting parties while the prophet directly confronts injustice and those responsible for it. If one focuses exclusively on the peace-making role, there is the danger that we might underplay injustice and inequality in our attempt to encourage discussion and conciliation. In the prophetic role, one can run the risk of alienating one or other of the parties, or both, that one is trying to bring together.

The tension can only be sustained creatively by keeping in view the wider perspective. A biblical view of the world is based on the concept of covenant. While the covenant relates primarily to God’s relationship with humanity, if we approach Scripture to see what it says about a whole range of relationships, we will find that it provides us with a critique of present injustices and gives us an outline of what a transformed social order should look like. This vision can then be applied to a conflict situation in an informed and carefully considered way.

Christians and Jews, along with those of other faith traditions, are thus called to seek reconciliation in very real situations of conflict, without softening their opposition to the injustices which exist. As all humanity is created in the image of God one can expect to share common points of ethical concern with those from different faith communities.

Three elements: prophetic commitment, a healing spiritual dynamic, and a concrete vision for the systematic working out, in structural terms, of biblical principles, need to be brought together. This allows a framework to be worked out that does not confine the activities of Christians, Jews and other faith traditions, to the ‘personal’ sphere but sketches out the outlines of a biblical framework for society as a whole.

Peacebuilding is a specific form of peace-making. It is characterised by its systematic character and future orientation. It does not so much address current grievances as encourage those involved to look beyond the present conflict to ways of living peacefully together in the future. It lays foundations that rest on the common commitment of the participants, with the help of well-evidenced contributions by experts, and then proceeds to help those involved in the process to build systematically on these foundations. It thus transforms the participants from a disparate group drawn from across the political spectrum into an informed and well-equipped network, working together for peace.

Peacebuilding aims to sow seeds for peace that includes all people and communities within a just and workable framework for the future – unique to each conflict situation – by finding common ground and then setting clearly defined and realistic goals. These goals need to be determined after careful consideration of all the relevant aspects of the situation being addressed.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a good example. It is a tragedy for the people and country of Ukraine, but also the people of Russia, and it is having a significant impact on the global economy. It is a deep wound in the continent of Europe, threatening to drain and infect the lifeblood of the whole world.

There are a few possible scenarios that could play out. The outcome will depend on several factors, including the strength of the Ukrainian resistance, the level of Russian support for the war, and the willingness of the international community to intervene. However, the following possibilities can be envisaged:

• One or other side may make a decisive breakthrough, prompting the collapse of the other. However, given the logistic constraints on the Russians, which forced their withdrawal from the right bank of the Dnieper/Dnipro, and the lack of air support, let alone air superiority, necessary for a decisive advance by the Ukrainians, this is unlikely, But even so, the after-effects of the collapse of either protagonist might be disastrous in the short term for both Ukraine and Russia given the enormous instability which it will create, and, merely sow the seeds for a future conflict both within Ukraine and Russia and internationally.

• A more likely possibility is that the conflict will continue for some time, with neither side able to achieve a decisive victory. This could lead to a protracted war that would have a devastating impact on both Ukraine and Russia.

• Another possibility is that the conflict could escalate into a wider war, involving other countries in the region or even NATO. There are continuing threats and dangers of a conflict that may escalate to nuclear confrontation.

• Finally, it is also possible that the conflict could be halted through diplomacy. This would be the best outcome for everyone involved.

In the last case, an armistice would end the continuing fighting without prejudging any long-term peace settlement. This would see the country divided into two parts de facto, with the eastern and southern regions falling under Russian control and the western and central regions remaining under Ukrainian control.

However, this cannot itself be a settlement, because, for the Ukrainians and the West, it would seem to reward aggression, while for the Russians, it would still leave Ukraine, as they see it, as a Western outpost threatening the Russian polity.

What is needed is the facilitation of a peacebuilding process, by an outside and independent body, so that the concerns of both sides can be moved beyond, and genuine trust established across the divides through a series of steppingstones leading eventually to a final peace settlement.

Some may object that it is too early to start thinking about the future, but sadly this is precisely the element that has been left out of so many conflicts which have resulted in disaster, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or many other instances this century, to say nothing of the countless instances in the last century or before.

One exception from the last century was the follow-through from the Second World War, with the Marshall Plan of US aid for the reconstruction of Western Europe, on the one hand, and, on the other, the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community, which brought together Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands to ensure the free movement of coal and steel and access to sources of production – both of which laid the foundations for the peace and prosperity which Western Europe subsequently enjoyed, and which is now taken for granted.

Relational Peacebuilding Initiatives (RPI) has developed the concept of a Mutual Convergent Development strategy for the Korean Peninsula in its book, No Other Way to Peace in Korea drawing in part on the European experience of a trade agreement between France and Germany to help rebuild relationships after the Second World War. Something similar could be envisaged for Ukraine.

A key component of the Mutual Convergent Development strategy for Ukraine could concern the Kakhovka Dam across the Dnipro or Dnieper River (to use the Ukrainian and Russian versions of the name of the river) which was destroyed on June 6, 2023.

The destruction of the dam has been catastrophic for both the Ukraine-occupied right bank (NW) and the Russian-occupied left bank (SE) of the Dnieper/Dnipro. Early estimates put over 80 settlements at risk of flooding, affecting tens of thousands of people on both sides of the river – both the Ukrainian and Russian-controlled sides, especially the latter which is more low-lying.

The flooding has already caused significant damage to delicate ecosystems, with concerns over damage being done to the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve, and Oleshky Sands National Nature Park. There is also the damage that will be done by the water moving foreign objects and substances, such as oil, fertilizer, sewage, and other chemicals from other areas into the ecosystems.

Most dangerous of all, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe currently occupied by the Russians, relies on water from the dam for its cooling. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring it and has said that there is no immediate risk to the plant, failure to restore the water-cooling supply or maintain the backup and other safety procedures, or to secure the site against any acts of war, could potentially result in one of the largest nuclear disasters in history.

Longer term, there is the loss of important irrigation to the whole region, a vital breadbasket for much of the world, especially the Middle East and Africa. There is also the supply of water from the Kakhovka reservoir to the Crimean Peninsula through the North Crimean Cana. Before the Russian annexation of the peninsula in 2014, 90% of Crimea’s freshwater needs came through the canal, which was shut following the annexation, and resumed following the Russian occupation of the area SE of the dam, but now no longer.

Using the historic precedent of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), an important steppingstone as part of the future peace process between the Russian and Ukrainian occupied areas would be the creation of a Lower Dnieper/Dnipro Water, Energy, and Environment Community. This Water, Energy, and Environment Community would allow for a distancing from the zero-sum nature of peace treaties and move towards a model of mutual gain and benefit between the parties to the peace treaty, with both Russia and Ukraine, benefiting from the resources and prosperity of the area.

The framework of the Lower Dnieper/Dnipro Water, Energy, and Environment Community would provide a way for the Kakhovka Dam to be rebuilt and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to resume the provision of power to both the Russian and Ukrainian-occupied areas. Restarting the supply of water to Crimea will be a major issue that will need to be included within the agreement creating the Community. It would be an important step towards building further and greater cooperation and trust with the final aim of restoring peace across a troubled and war-torn region as a stepping-stone to a wider settlement for the common benefit of all, not only Ukraine and Russia but the whole world.

(All Biblical quotations from the English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.)

Written by Dr Jeremy Ive and Pearson Stiller

The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.