俄乌战争是个意外，解决办法却需超常

The Russia-Ukraine War Was an Accident, but the Solution Must Be Exceptional

——Toward a New International Order of Intersubjective SymbiosisBy 

By  Archer Hong Qian

Context of the Times

The Russia-Ukraine War, which erupted on February 24, 2022, is not only the most severe geopolitical conflict of the 21st century but also starkly exposes the inherent contradictions and fragility of the current international order.

Despite the tragic lessons of the Winter War, the successful conclusion of the Cold War, the punitive measures of the Gulf War, humanitarian interventions during the Kosovo War, the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Libya’s president for crimes against humanity, and the international community’s weak appeasement in the Crimea and South Ossetia crises, the eruption and persistence of the Russia-Ukraine War—escalating from invasion to confrontation—has been a tragic and painful accident.

This applies to the Russian people under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, the Ukrainian people under Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s leadership, and to all those worldwide who value a rules-based international order and peaceful development.

The greatest shock for Putin was the Ukrainian people’s election in 2019 of a “Marvel-like” superhero in Zelenskyy, who had already taken office on May 20 three years prior. Zelenskyy, undaunted in the face of danger, leveraged Javelin anti-tank missiles obtained during Donald Trump’s first term in 2017, along with widespread civilian mobilization, to lead Ukraine in swiftly thwarting Russia’s advances.

Yet, this tragic and painful accident has once again highlighted the fundamental contradiction in the dual principles of “sovereignty and human rights” within the current international order and international law. It is precisely this contradiction that renders all peace plans aimed at resolving international and domestic conflicts susceptible to bias and partiality.

Now, after nearly three years, the Russia-Ukraine War has reached a stalemate. Both sides are exhausted yet unwilling to stop, and all proposed peace plans risk favoring one side, leading to near-impasse solutions.

As a Chinese proverb aptly states: “When the mountain appears to have no more paths, a hidden village emerges beyond the shaded willow trees and bright flowers.” This tragic and painful war—which, as Trump remarked, should never have happened—presents a positive opportunity to reassess and reconstruct the global order and to resolve the contradiction between sovereignty and human rights in international law.

Thus, we, the Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation (Canada), based on the philosophical understanding of intersubjective symbiosis, reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the post-World War II United Nations framework. In this spirit, we humbly propose a “Third Path” for peacefully resolving the Russia-Ukraine War, inviting critique and insights from the warring parties, the international community, and experts in international political science.

Framework for Analysis
Through a tripartite structure of Accident Analysis, Contradiction Diagnosis, and Solution Proposal, we present principled perspectives for addressing this crisis.

Part I: Accident Analysis – From Predicted Victory to Blitzkrieg Failure

I. Putin’s Misjudgment and Strategic Confidence

Putin anticipated:

1. Rapid Capture of Kyiv through a blitzkrieg forcing Ukraine to surrender.
2. Western Hesitation due to energy dependence and internal divisions.
3. Ukraine’s Weakness in resisting aggression.
4. Outdated Statecraft: Assuming war strategies of the past would succeed.

II. Unexpected Developments

1. Zelenskyy’s Leadership: Staying in Kyiv inspired national unity.
2. Trump-Approved Weapons: Javelin missiles critically undermined Russian tanks.
3. Russian Army’s Failures: Logistical and morale issues caused setbacks.

III. A Dramatic Turn

Russia’s blitzkrieg strategy failed, turning the war into a prolonged conflict.

Part II: Contradiction Diagnosis – The Dilemma of Sovereignty and Human Rights

IV. Core of Sovereignty

• Rooted in the Westphalian system, sovereignty emphasizes territorial integrity.
• Russia distorted sovereignty to justify aggression.

V. Rise of Human Rights

• Human rights gained international recognition through post-war declarations.
• Humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and Libya embodied global commitments.

VI. The Conflict Between Sovereignty and Human Rights

• Double Standards: Western responses to human rights abuses vary by context.
• National Self-Determination: Balancing independence aspirations with sovereignty and human rights remains complex.

Part III: Solution Proposal – The Third Path and Reshaping Global Order

VII. The Limitations of Current Proposals

1. Putin’s Annexation Strategy: Violates international law and escalates tensions.
2. Zelenskyy’s Recovery Plan: Faces logistical and governance challenges in disputed territories.
3. Trump’s Ceasefire Plan: Lacks solutions to sovereignty-human rights contradictions.

VIII. Core Principles of Resolution

1. High-Threshold Independence:
   • Democratic referenda under international supervision for disputed regions.
   • Newly independent states must remain neutral and refrain from joining other nations for 50 years.
2. Revised Sovereignty:
   • Sovereignty should prioritize regional human rights, with mechanisms for flexibility in humanitarian crises.

IX. Implementing the Third Path

1. Referenda for Disputed Regions:
   • Options include autonomy, independence, or UN trusteeship.
   • Supervised by a restructured UN Trusteeship and Human Rights Council.
2. Global Symbiosis Council:
   • Merging the Trusteeship and Human Rights Councils into a new body to ensure fair implementation.
3. Neutral Buffer Zones:
   • Independent states in disputed regions must remain neutral and avoid alliances.
4. Global Technical Support:
   • AI and blockchain to ensure transparent governance and fair outcomes.

Part IV: Strengths of the Third Path

X. Advantages of the Proposal

1. Balance Between Sovereignty and Human Rights:
   • Supervised independence avoids bias and ensures stability.
2. A Practical End to the Russia-Ukraine War:
   • Neutral buffer zones address territorial disputes.
3. Reshaping the Global Order:
   • Replacing the current UN Security Council with the Global Symbiosis Council addresses its failings.
4. Preventing Global Hegemony:
   • Ensures no empire or alliance can dominate international systems.

Part V: Global Implications

XI. A New International Framework

1. Global Peace and Symbiosis:
   • The Third Path creates a sustainable model for peace.
2. Foundation for a Global Symbiosis Charter:
   • Provides experience for future international agreements.
3. Empowering Governance in the AI Era:
   • Technical transparency strengthens global cooperation.

Conclusion: A New Chapter for Peace and Symbiosis

The Third Path provides a practical solution for peacefully ending the Russia-Ukraine War. It represents an innovative approach that transcends traditional adversarial thinking and the monopolization of resources through privilege. By enabling a high-threshold mechanism for national self-determination and ensuring oversight by the Global Symbiosis Council, this approach seeks to resolve the deep-seated contradictions between sovereignty and human rights. At the same time, it lays the foundation for restructuring the international security framework and advancing the concept of global symbiosis.

Ending war and reshaping order is not merely a solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict; it marks the beginning of a new chapter for global peace and symbiosis. Through this path, any aspirations for world domination by empires, alliances, or axis powers will become factually impossible!

I have said before that the world has entered the historic moment of Globalization 3.0. This transformation is not only about changes in U.S. domestic policy, but even more so about reshaping the international political and economic order of Globalization 2.0.

The Russia-Ukraine war was an accident—an extraordinary accident requiring an extraordinary solution (Reference). Of course, this disastrous accident has now continued for 1,121 days of destruction. Likewise, Trump’s 2020 election defeat was also an accident, which led Putin—whose mindset remains in the Globalization 1.0 era (which he perceives as “Russification”)—to make a fateful decision that plunged Russia into a hellish war.

With Trump’s return, he is bound to continue this historic transformation (Transformation). This Transformation requires the world to adapt to intersubjective symbiosis thinking.

After 60 days of joyful celebration mixed with complaints, the pace of transformation may slow down slightly in the coming months, but this period will be critical—if the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire holds, we may witness a major shift in the international political landscape by 2025!