Concept for Sustainable Peace in Europe

By Frederik D. Tunnat

In the negotiations for a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia held so far, a crucial component is, in my opinion, missing.

An Old Idea in a New Form

What sounds foreign today once had a method: to secure peace, warring adversaries since antiquity exchanged hostages – not as a punishment, but as a guarantee of the peace achieved. These “hostages” often lived for years in the country of the former enemy, learned its language, culture, and way of life, and thereby later became ambassadors of mutual understanding. This thought could be modernized, or rather re-thought, for the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine: experience instead of isolation, personal contact instead of the cultivation of enemy images.

Learning through Living, Not through Instruction

My proposal for a modern “hostage” exchange program to secure future peace between the two countries stems from my own, exceedingly positive experiences with exchange programs. While as a child and youth I regularly spent time with English, French, and Swiss families, young people from England, France, and Switzerland came for return visits, which often spanned the entire holidays of a year. Additionally, young people from all over Europe – not just West and North – were constantly visiting us, as well as people from Southern Europe, Israel, Lebanon, Asia, and even those from beyond the Iron Curtain. I remember days when I sat together with young people from up to twelve different nations, while we established or cultivated friendships and forged networks for our future.

Understanding through Encounter

The idea of a broad-based exchange (a modern form of earlier hostage exchange) extends beyond Europe. The relationship between Europe and its immigration countries also suffers to this day from one-sidedness. Currently, people only migrate in one direction – physically as well as mentally. What is missing is the counterweight of shared experience and learning. An exchange between European youth and those from Africa, the Middle East, or Asia could help to ground expectations on both sides, break clichés, and open legal exchange routes. Europe would become visible in these countries, not just through television – and countries of origin would feel that they are being taken seriously, not merely managed as burdensome immigrants.

Less Talking, More Doing

The principle is simple: experience replaces ideology. One year on exchange changes more than ten years of discussion. Anyone who, as a young person, has seen what war or life under completely different conditions means will judge differently. Anyone who has lived in a foreign family, experienced another religion, another poverty, another discipline, can no longer think in prejudices. Peace is then no longer a moral mantra, but an expression of personal consequence.

Although my thought of a comprehensive exchange program, which goes far beyond Erasmus, is currently primarily directed at a specific exchange between Ukraine and Russia as a flanking measure of a peace agreement yet to be achieved, such a program could be oriented much further and more broadly. For instance, I can currently imagine, as long as the war still rages, a reverse exchange between Germans and Ukrainians, to give us an impression of the indescribable effort of survival in the face of the primarily Russian war against the civilian population of Ukraine. Conversely, we already have many Ukrainians in Germany. Such an exchange program would enrich the sometimes surreal discussion in Germany about military service, the increase in defense readiness, etc., with new arguments and more realistic assessments.

Something comparable would certainly be desirable regarding the increasing alienation between a significant part of the US population (keyword MAGA) and the population of Germany or Europe. Instead of accepting the unilateral isolation by Trump and MAGA, we should, in return for American support after the war, launch a motivated exchange program for Americans in Europe to break up and change their isolationist thinking through on-site observation. There would be infinitely many applications for modern “hostage exchange” programs. Currently, I would like to concentrate on the one between Ukraine and Russia for the given occasion.

“Bridges over Scorched Earth” – Idea for a bilateral peace and understanding program between Ukraine and Russia (after a peace agreement)

Objective

The Russian war of aggression has not only destroyed territorial peace in Europe but also the trust between two once closely connected peoples. Permanent stabilization of Europe requires a civil society peace architecture alongside security policy deterrence. This article therefore proposes a phased, bilateral understanding program between Ukraine and Russia (after the end of the war and as a flanking measure of a peace treaty), leading from humanitarian law via cultural cooperation to social trust. Core idea: Peace through encounter.

1. Prerequisite: Humanitarian Restitution

Any program for understanding between these two countries presupposes that Russia corrects the severe injustices committed:

• Return of deported Ukrainian children and civilians: full release under the supervision of UNICEF, ICRC, and OSCE.
• Financial compensation and rehabilitation funds for victims: borne by Russia, managed in trust by the international community of states.
• Symbolic recognition of the injustice: a joint humanitarian declaration by Ukraine and Russia as a moral minimum consensus for a new beginning.

Only after these pre-conditions are met could the actual exchange and development program begin.

2. Structure and Implementation

Phase Model:

• Contact & Reconstruction: humanitarian cooperation, exchange of professionals, medical and infrastructural projects.
• Learning & Understanding: education and culture programs, documentary processing, journalistic and academic cooperation.
• Interweaving & Future: founding of city and school partnerships, trade and environmental projects, professional exchange.

Sponsorship and Coordination:

• Bilateral: Ministries of Education, Culture, and Reconstruction of both states.
• International: OSCE patronage, possibly UN / EU mandate.
• Civil Society: Implementation involving multinational established organizations such as Rotary, Lions, Goethe-Institut, foundations, NGOs, religious communities.
• Financing: EU and UN programs, national contributions, private foundations, diaspora funds.

3. Governance and Control

• Rotating bilateral offices under OSCE mandate.
• Independent international evaluators ensure transparency.
• No party-political or propagandistic influence.
• Parity participation of Ukrainian and Russian representatives in all committees.

4. Expected Impacts (10-Year Perspective)

• Humanitarian Healing: Return and rehabilitation of victims.
• Cultural De-escalation: Reduction of mutual enemy images through real encounters.
• Social Stability: Local cooperation as an economic and social stabilizer.
• Political Prevention: Building lasting networks of trust – especially among the young generation.
• Strengthening European Security: Integration of the program into OSCE and EU neighborhood policy; a signal against future expansion and violence.

5. Political Scope

This idea cannot be a substitute for military security, but only a possible civilizational supplement. It aims to anchor peace deeply and enduringly, not just to agree upon it – and thus create the condition that future generations no longer experience war, but can only understand it.

Core Statement: “Truth before reconciliation, encounter before ideology, humanity before power.” Only if justice and a sense of reality form the basis of a future peace agreement can Europe or the EU help to build bridges between Russia and Ukraine – over scorched earth and hundreds of thousands of dead.