First, territory: Where Moscow continues to demand land it does not fully control, and Kyiv refuses to surrender sovereign territory simply because Russia claims it.
History offers instruments for separating the immediate requirement to stop killing from the permanent legal resolution of a border.
The Korean War ended not with a peace treaty but with an armistice. The territorial question remained unresolved while South Korea built one of the world’s most successful economies behind the line.
THE FIVE TICKING TIME BOMBS FORCING PUTIN TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE
Germany offers an even more relevant lesson. West Germany originally followed the Hallstein Doctrine, resisting recognition of East Germany because Bonn feared that accepting the division would legitimize it permanently. But in 1972, West Germany changed tactics without surrendering the destination.
Through the Basic Treaty, Bonn dealt with East Germany as a political reality and granted it de facto, but not de jure, recognition. The two states established practical relations and accepted the existing border as the reality they had to manage, while West Germany expressly preserved the political objective that the German people could someday regain their unity.
That distinction matters enormously for Ukraine. A battlefield line can be acknowledged without recognizing Russian sovereignty over any occupied territory. The fighting can stop without Kyiv signing away the legal claim.
Ukraine can spend the next generation building the country behind that line into an armed, prosperous, economically integrated European state, while refusing to legitimize a conquest.
West Germany stopped trying to resolve the map before building its future. Instead, the future changed the map. The map can wait — the war cannot. A version of “agree to disagree” and move forward, with history leaning towards a future reunification.
Minsk was paper. This is architecture.
The obvious objection is that Moscow simply uses another agreement as Minsk III, a pause during which Russia simply reloads for the next invasion. That is a genuine threat.
But Minsk had no multinational force preparing to deploy after a ceasefire. It had no Ukrainian defense industry approaching $55 billion in annual production capacity, no European defense economy moving toward €454 billion ($614 million) in annual spending, and no approximately €210 billion ($284 million) in Russian central-bank assets immobilized inside the European Union.
Ukraine is largely a recipient of Western military capability, but is now becoming part of Europe’s arsenal. The difference is that this time the paper would sit on top of a military, industrial, and economic structure built to survive any violation.
Russia needs a peace dividend, too
There is another element of this negotiation that receives far less attention.
If we want a settlement to survive, Russia must have something economically and strategically valuable to gain, not as a reward for aggression, but to establish a new path. It does not receive Western recognition as a conquered territory. It does not receive absolution for the destruction it caused. It receives a path to prosperity and global recognition.
Phase-one compliance could begin with limited sanctions relief.
Continued compliance opens selected financial and commercial channels; compensation and reconstruction obligations determine the disposition of frozen Russian assets; strategic-arms negotiations restore Moscow to a table it valued, after the New START’s expiration (“New START” was a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia); longer-term compliance gradually allows investment, markets, and technological relationships to reopen; and Russian sovereignty, not servitude: an alternative to increased dependence on Beijing.
The choice offered to Russia should therefore be larger than war or sanctions.
Continue down the current path and become progressively more dependent upon a vastly larger Chinese economy, while diminishing Russia’s global significance; or, become a post-war Russia with multiple economic relationships and restored strategic global relevance.
Peace cannot rest solely upon Ukraine fearing another war; Russia must have reason to fear losing the peace. That is the same principle underlying the Middle East Abraham Architecture: Military strength deters the first shot, while economic interdependence raises the price of firing the second.
The children come first
One obligation stands above the architecture: The children must come home!
The European Union estimates that nearly 20,500 Ukrainian children have been unlawfully deported or forcibly transferred to Russia and Russian-controlled territory since the full-scale invasion. Their return cannot be left to the ceremonial end of the negotiations. It should be a non-negotiable prerequisite for the first meaningful stage of sanctions relief.
Borders can remain disputed. Asset claims can be negotiated. Economic relationships can reopen in phases. Children are not bargaining chips. No settlement can be called peace while they remain in captivity.
Beyond the board
Upon completing this endgame, something larger comes into view.
A Middle East increasingly capable of defending and enriching itself through regional security and economic integration; a Europe increasingly capable of structuring and financing its own peace, with Ukraine becoming one of its most influential military and industrial partners; and an America transitioning from being the world’s exhausted front-line policeman, into the strategic partner that helps allies build structures capable of sustaining themselves and prospering.
Two sovereign emergences on two continents. Different cultures. Different institutions. Different threats. But the same architectural principle: collective security strong enough to discourage aggression, economic interdependence valuable enough to make peace worth protecting, and regional nations assuming greater responsibility for maintaining both.
That was the deeper proposition behind the Abraham Architecture.
UKRAINE ISN’T JOINING NATO. NATO IS JOINING UKRAINE
The endgame on this board is not the end of the game. Beyond it lies the larger project: a working infrastructure of cooperative peace, where nations remain fully sovereign while gaining security and prosperity from their neighbors. That architecture deserves its own examination.
Critics will count the captured pieces. History will celebrate the endgame.
Jacqueline Cartier is a corporate and legislative strategist focused on communications, crisis leadership, public trust, and emerging technologies that shape human behavior and decision-making. Follow her on LinkedIn.