A viable path to peace in Ukraine

Asia Times | Jeffrey D. Sachs

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs proposed a single-package peace framework for the war in Ukraine to be adopted by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII. Guaranteed jointly by the five permanent members of the Security Council, the proposal mandates Ukraine adopt permanent constitutional neutrality modeled on Austria's 1955 law while rescinding NATO's 2008 Bucharest expansion pledge.

To enforce this geopolitical compromise, an armistice line would freeze current holdings, triggering reciprocal territorial withdrawals, including Ukrainian forces exiting Donetsk and Russian troops leaving Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and Sumy. Sanctions would be lifted during 2027. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe would monitor demilitarized buffer zones, while the European Investment Bank administers a multilateral reconstruction fund supported by Russia and Western states. Ratification by the Verkhovna Rada and the Russian Federal Assembly would permanently conclude hostilities, restoring European energy transit, free navigation in the Black Sea, and intermediate-range missile moratoria.

Comment

Embedding a peace architecture within Chapter VII of the UN Charter attempts to transform bilateral territorial arrangements into binding international obligations. While the 1955 Austrian State Treaty relied on multi-power guarantees during a rigid bipolar order, imposing Chapter VII enforcement requires durable consensus among the permanent five members of the UN Security Council. Without unanimity among the veto-wielding powers, the legal enforceability of any demilitarized zone along the line of contact collapses back onto unilateral deterrence.

This enforcement vulnerability directly alters the institutional responsibilities assigned to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Delegating monitoring mandates to OSCE unarmed civilian missions creates a significant disconnect between legal oversight and physical interdiction capabilities. Consequently, any breach of the proposed intermediate-range missile moratorium would instantly bypass OSCE observers and require recourse to the UN Security Council, where sovereign vetoes can freeze institutional action.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which mechanism provides more effective security guarantees for a neutral state—a Chapter VII resolution under the UN Security Council, or multi-power guarantees similar to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty, when permanent Council members possess conflicting strategic interests?

While Chapter VII resolutions theoretically carry binding international authority, their practical deterrence depends entirely on the absence of a permanent member's veto. The 1955 Austrian State Treaty succeeded primarily because the surrounding Cold War balance of power created a mutually acceptable buffer without requiring active collective enforcement. Consequently, the available evidence points toward geopolitical alignment among guarantor states, rather than formal UN Security Council codification, as the decisive factor in sustaining permanent neutrality.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article