How would you answer this question?
Imagine something unlikely for a moment: you’re in charge of deciding the conditions for peace in Ukraine, and there are two choices on offer.
Choice one: You could bring about peace right now, but on the following conditions: Russia would keep the territory it has illegally taken from Ukraine, there would be no punishment for war crimes, and it would not have to pay reparations for the damage its war has caused to Ukraine’s factories, schools, hospitals, museums, educational institutions, and critical infrastructure.
Choice two: Peace doesn’t happen until provisions are in place for reparations, war crimes trials, and the return of all stolen territory.
Personally, I would have leaned towards choice one. But having heard the answer of the President of the UN General Assembly, Dennis Francis, I now look at the issue differently.
Francis answered the question by saying there’s a short-term and a long-term way of examining this issue. In the short term, the blessings of peace are incalculable: people not being killed or injured, property and infrastructure not being destroyed, and refugee flows slowing or stopping. With peace, Ukraine can start rebuilding, people can start investing in health and education and a better future. There are few greater blessings than the blessings of peace.
I had thought Francis would go for choice one. After all, he’s President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and the organization’s purpose is to maintain and foster peace. I was expecting he’d give some version of “Peace at any price, just get to peace!” However, he said something less expected and more interesting.
In his view, the big, long-term issue is what he refers to as “the impunity problem.” When there’s no penalty for a country that invades its neighbor, what’s to deter the next country from simply coming in and taking from its neighbor whatever land, ports, rivers, factories, and other resources?
In effect, having no penalties for breaking international laws and norms becomes a green light for others wanting to do the same. It would enable the bullies of the world to take advantage of weaker countries. It would be a world of might makes right, as opposed to a system based on rules and law.
An immediate consequence is that nations would respond to a lawless international environment by spending more money on weapons, way beyond what they’re doing today. With the lesson of Russia’s open aggression paying dividends, both likely aggressors and their targets would have enormous incentives to menace or deter, and quite possibly also move toward nuclear, chemical, biological, and cyber weapons. The risk of wars could increase exponentially.
Another consequence of a more anarchic world would be less cooperation on global issues, such as climate change, health crises, and economic development.
That would very likely also threaten food availability, something that’s critical to all 8 billion of us. Wars mean crops aren’t planted or harvested or transported to where they’re needed. With less food, prices rise. In an anarchic world, for many millions if not billions of people, food could be unaffordable or even unavailable at any price. That in turn generates political upheaval.
The choice between achieving immediate peace and upholding a rules-based global order is fraught with complexity. The seemingly straightforward choice for swift peace must be balanced against the enduring principle of accountability, which is needed for maintaining international stability and preventing future conflict.
A peace built on injustice may ultimately prove fragile and transient. Such a peace, by providing no deterrent for future aggressors, might guarantee more war and more suffering.
Mitzi Perdue’s career includes being a former rice grower, past presidency of the 40,000 member American Agri-Women, and as a writer in the 1990s, her nationally syndicated column, “The Environment and You” was the most widely syndicated environmental column in the US. Mitzi holds degrees from Harvard University and from George Washington University. She was one of the US Delegates to the United Nations Conference on Women in Nairobi. Her work has appeared in publications including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Examiner, the Epoch Times, and USA Today. As a war correspondent, Mitzi has visited Ukraine three times as the guest of the Kyiv Region Police.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End: Deterring Russia’s Shadow War
Either Europe will continue allowing Russia’s shadow war to set the terms of escalation, or it will act now to prevent a larger war.
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
