OPINION — In the past few months, numerous U.S. politicians have suggested that Ukraine should accept a ceasefire agreement that involves ceding some of its territory to Russia. Some of them are among a group of Republican Congressional Representatives who seem determined to block the passage of U.S. aid to Ukraine at any cost. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, in particular, said that “the idea that Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to the 1991 border was preposterous – nobody actually believed it.”
Putin echoed this proposal in his recent interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, arguing that the West should force Ukraine to negotiate with Russia by cutting off its supply of military aid.
Trump has also made claims that he will “end the war in 24 hours” if he is elected President. He stated that he would do this by attempting to bluff both Zelenskyy and Putin in order to force them to make a deal – regardless of what that deal may look like.
While striking an agreement with Russia that cedes some of Ukraine’s territory may sound like a “quick fix” to some Western policymakers, this approach has already been attempted as a response to an earlier Russian invasion, and it has had devastating consequences for the country that agreed to it.
In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia after backing proxy forces and provoking a conflict over the Georgian region of South Ossetia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy brokered a ceasefire in an effort to end the war, but Russia has violated this ceasefire with impunity over the last 16 years. Russia continues to occupy 20% of Georgia’s territory and cause harm to residents who live along the administrative boundary line (ABL).
For example, occupying forces have been slowly carrying their barbed-wire fences further into Georgian territory at night. This creeping advance is known as “borderization.” It leads to villages, farms, and schools becoming increasingly inaccessible and dangerous for locals, who approach the fence – which sometimes divides their own property – at their own peril, lest they risk kidnapping and detention by Russian forces.
This is just one of the tactics that Russian forces use to undermine Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity after signing a ceasefire agreement that they had no intent of ever following.
August War of 2008
Russia’s invasion in 2008 was the latest escalation in a series of wars on Georgian territory. The conflicts, which stretch back to the late Soviet period, centered around the level of autonomy given to the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Georgia gained independence.
Tensions between Abkhazia and the Georgian government increased before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, and wars over the status of Abkhazia broke out in 1992-1993 and 1998. War erupted in South Ossetia immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union and lasted from 1991-1992. Notably, Russia began systematically handing out tens of thousands of passports to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, trained and armed militias, and undermined civil authority in a campaign of creeping Russification.
It’s not just for the President anymore. Are you getting your daily national security briefing? Subscriber+Members have exclusive access to the Open Source Collection Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security. It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.
In 2008, Russia began bombing Georgian villages as tensions escalated over South Ossetia once again. Georgia attempted to retake South Ossetia by force, falling into Russia’s trap. Russian troops invaded en masse, and a full-scale war in Georgia began. However, even if Georgia had not fallen for Russian provocations, it is likely that Putin would have invaded anyway.
Although it was facing a country of only three million people, Russia suffered significant casualties and loss of equipment, but it was still able to overwhelm Georgian forces. It advanced beyond the territory that was in dispute, bombarding and occupying cities as its forces advanced toward the capital, Tbilisi.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy brokered the Six-Principle Ceasefire Agreement in an effort to end the war. There was significant fear that Russia would seize the capital and end Georgia’s long-sought independence. Although the ceasefire terms favored Russia, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had little choice but to sign the deal.
The Reality of Ceasefire Agreements
When one signs a ceasefire with Russia, that rarely means the fighting actually ceases. Russia has consistently violated the terms of the agreement, and it continues its aggression toward Georgia today.
Soon after signing the ceasefire agreement, the Georgian UN representative expressed deep concerns to the Security Council on August 19th, 2008. Despite “[commiting] to renounce the use of force” and to “[withdraw] Russian forces to their lines of deployment prior to 7 August 2008,” the representative maintained that the dire situation in Georgia had not changed. He stated that Georgia was fully complying with the agreement, but a sizable portion of the country, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia, was still occupied by Russian forces.
The Russian UN representative stated that the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia was contingent on Georgian forces returning to their “places of permanent deployment,” as stated in the agreement. The other members of the Security Council emphasized that Russia must withdraw its troops from Georgia, which was supposed to begin a day earlier, before the rest of the agreement could be implemented. France proposed a draft resolution calling for compliance with the ceasefire agreement, but the Russian representative refused to support it. He stated that the Security Council’s “attention should be focused on endorsing the Six-Principle Ceasefire Agreement and singling out individual elements of that plan; interpreting them to suit the purpose of ‘political propaganda’ was counterproductive.”
Russia’s refusal to comply with the ceasefire agreement escalated sharply on August 26th, 2008, when it recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries. At a Security Council meeting, the Georgian representative argued that this was illegal and it “contradicted all the Council resolutions on Georgia and the principle of territorial integrity.” As the Russian government has done ad nauseam, the Russian representative referenced the hypocrisy of the West to unilaterally recognize Kosovo while condemning Russia’s actions in Georgia.
Putin had stepped aside from the Presidency for a term and was serving as the Prime Minister when Russia invaded Georgia. He voiced justifications for the recognition at the time that were similar to his later claims that Lenin artificially created Ukraine. He argued that Georgia was created by Stalin, who was an ethnic Georgian, and that those who support Georgian territorial integrity are Stalinists.
Putin even went as far as to say that, despite their invasion days earlier, “We have never encroached on the sovereignty of Georgia and do not intend to do so in the future.”
Subscriber+Members have a higher level of access to Cipher Brief Expert Perspectives and get exclusive access to The Dead Drop, the best national security gossip publication, if we do say so ourselves. Find out what you’re missing. Upgrade your access to Subscriber+ now.
In the weeks after the agreement was signed, Russia continued to occupy both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the undisputed Georgian territory it had seized. This includes the city of Gori, which is about an hour outside of Tbilisi, as well as Zugdidi, Senaki, and Poti in western Georgia. Eventually, Russian forces withdrew from undisputed Georgian territory, but they continue to occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia today.
By 2009, Russia used its Security Council veto to end both the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia and the OSCE monitoring mission that observed South Ossetia. Russia also continues to forbid the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) from entering Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement. Eliminating and refusing access to monitoring missions in the territories it occupies is a blatant effort by Russia to prevent the world from seeing its oppressive, violent practices in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and allow it to fortify its military presence on Georgian territory. It is a clear abuse of its Security Council veto power and another example of Russia’s refusal to comply with the ceasefire agreements it signs.
Russia’s Occupation of Georgia Today
In the years that have followed Russia’s invasion and the signing of the ceasefire agreement it never adhered to, the world has gradually stopped paying attention to Georgia. Russia has since begun using hybrid tactics against Georgia, which are “more subtle and cost-efficient.” This includes the slow seizure of Georgian territory through borderization or moving the fence that delineates Russian-occupied territory during the night. This leads to villages, farms, and schools becoming increasingly inaccessible and dangerous for locals, who approach the fence – which sometimes divides their own property – at their own peril, lest they risk kidnapping and detention by Russian forces.
Russia has continued to build up its military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, essentially turning the two regions into “military bases by deploying modern offensive weapons and stationing troops on the ground.” This presents an existential threat to the government in Tbilisi because Russia has the equipment and means to conquer Georgia at any time. In some spots, Russian forces are positioned a mere 20 meters from the highway that bisects the country from East to West. There is not a clear alternative route, apart from some poor quality, unreliable roads in the South of Georgia that are frequently closed in the winter. This places Georgia in an extremely vulnerable position. If the Kremlin decided that it wanted to conquer Georgia entirely, Russian forces could split the country in half in 10 minutes. This is the threat that Georgians live under every day because of Russia’s occupation.
Fear of renewed violence helped the Georgian Dream party come to power. The party has since implemented policies of appeasement rather than staunch opposition to Russian aggression. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Tbilisi did not implement additional sanctions against Russia. Georgia is so economically dependent on Russia that if the Kremlin imposed even minor sanctions against Georgia, it could send the country’s economy spiraling.
However, Russia’s aggression has been unable to change the Georgian public’s desire for EU and NATO membership. As many as 81% of Georgians back the country’s accession to the EU, and 73% support NATO integration. While the Georgian Dream party advocates for joining the EU and NATO, its actions often reveal its policy of appeasement, which is entirely opposite from the views of the public.
In March 2023, the Georgian parliament attempted to pass a Russian-style foreign agents law, which would require Georgians who receive greater than 20% of their salary from overseas to register as “foreign agents” or become subject to significant fines. Given how much international aid Georgian civil society organizations receive from places like USAID, this law could have significantly harmed Georgia’s civil society and democracy. Mass protests broke out in front of the parliament building for several nights, against which police used water cannons and tear gas and made over 100 arrests. After a few days, Parliament withdrew the bill. Images of protestors waving EU flags while being repeatedly knocked down by water cannons came to epitomize Georgians’ European aspirations.
While the Georgian Parliament withdrew this Russian-style law, it is difficult to say what Georgia’s future will look like. The population strongly desires EU and NATO membership, but the prospects for this are even more unclear than Ukraine’s.
Surrendering Ukrainian Territory would be a Mistake
Much like Ukraine, Georgia sought deeper cooperation and integration with the West and was punished for it by a full-scale Russian invasion. Western countries urged them to sign a ceasefire agreement with which Russia had no intention of ever complying. In hopes of stopping the war, Georgia surrendered some of its territory to Russia, and they have been paying the price ever since.
Like in Georgia, Russia would occupy swathes of Ukrainian territory, abuse the human rights of those who live there and along the boundary lines, and build up its military presence in order to put pressure on Kyiv.
Russia would also most likely deny international monitoring missions access to occupied areas, as in Georgia. Russia and the de facto leaders of the territory would likely crush any civil society organizations, peace-building efforts, or communication with Ukrainians on the other side. Crossing the boundary line to visit relatives would likely be impossible. Ukraine would be trapped in a situation it is powerless to change, and its accession to NATO and the EU could be delayed for as long as Russia continues to occupy its territory. And like in Georgia, Russia would never stop trying to impose a government in Kyiv that would opt for a policy of appeasement, turn away from the West, and slowly enact illiberal policies, despite the deep desire of the population to join the EU and NATO.
Overall, a negotiated settlement with Russia would not be the “quick fix” some Western experts and policymakers are suggesting it would be. Instead, if Ukraine cedes some of its territory to Russia, it will provide the Kremlin with exactly what it wants – a way to control the direction of Ukrainian politics, violate any ceasefire agreements with impunity, and once again prove that the West will allow Russia to continue its reign of terror over its “near abroad” as soon as it becomes inconvenient to continue supporting its strategic partners. In other words, the West will once again support Ukraine for as long as it can, but not as long as it takes.
By implementing a “Russia reset” in 2012, after Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, the West failed to deter Russia from annexing Crimea in 2014. The West provided military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it defended itself against Russia in the Donbas for eight years, but by failing to deter Russia once again, it opened the door to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Now, support for Ukraine is fading, and if the West fails to deter Russia once again, acquiescing and pushing for a ceasefire that ultimately achieves Russia’s goals, Russia will likely attempt to seize the territory of another neighboring state in a few years. The costs may be significant, but Russia will have learned that the West will always back down eventually, and the cycle of suffering will continue.
The type of ceasefire some Western politicians are proposing would also abandon the Ukrainian population currently living under Russian occupation to the same fate that the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia currently face: a life in political limbo, subject to oppression by an unrecognized, authoritarian de facto regime that cares little for human rights, with a bleak economic future. Their best chance at a “normal” life will come from seeking employment or education in Russia, the country that has directly caused their suffering.
To end Russia’s invasion, the West must steadfastly support Ukraine with weapons and aid, implement new rounds of sanctions, cripple Russia’s hydrocarbon earnings, and wait for Russia to crumble from within. Putin is counting on the West to forget history and naively support another false peace. Yalta, Chechnya, Transnistria, Crimea, the Donbas, and Georgia show that Russian promises are not worth the paper they’re printed on.
The West must prove to Russia once and for all that it cannot seize the territory of its sovereign neighbors by force, violate international law, and indiscriminately target the civilian populations that it claims to be saving.
Based on Russia’s ongoing violations of the Six-Principle Ceasefire Agreement and its continuing aggression against Georgia, any ceasefire agreement that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia would be a severe strategic mistake.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.
