Towards Perpetual Peace: Ukraine, Russia, and the Reform of the United Nations

When Immanuel Kant penned his celebrated essay Zum Ewigen Frieden (“Perpetual Peace”) in 1795, he was offering both a philosophical sketch and a practical programme. He imagined a world in which republican states, bound by law and mutual recognition, could render war obsolete. His proposals—abolition of standing armies, respect for sovereignty, and a federation of free states—have echoed down the centuries, inspiring elements of the League of Nations and the United Nations. Yet the record since has been dismal. War persists; aggression has not been outlawed; the institutions designed to prevent conflict have been captured by the very powers most adept at perpetuating it. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is the latest and most egregious proof of this failure.

Nevertheless crises can create opportunity. Out of the wreckage of war, a new international order may yet be fashioned. If Ukraine achieves a just outcome, if the remnants of the Russian empire are partitioned into governable states, and if the United Nations undergoes radical reform, then Kant’s “perpetual peace” might once more seem imaginable.

A Just Outcome in Ukraine

Peace in Europe cannot be secured while Ukraine is left mutilated or coerced. For peace to be just, Ukraine must retain her sovereignty, territorial integrity, and freedom to choose her alliances. Anything less would embolden aggressors elsewhere. Ukrainian victory—defined not merely by survival but by restoration—would represent a decisive vindication of international law. It would also shatter the myth, cultivated by Moscow, that brute force prevails over rules and treaties.

Such an outcome would create precedent. It would show that collective resistance by liberal democracies, aided by international solidarity, can deter and defeat imperialism. The symbolism would extend beyond Eastern Europe: Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Caucasus, and Africa would all be reassured that law, not might, can still be decisive.

Partition of the Russian Empire

The Russian Federation, despite her modern name, remains an empire in the classic sense: a vast conglomeration of subject peoples ruled from a distant centre. From the Caucasus to Siberia, minority nations are governed by coercion rather than consent. The imperial structure has proved ungovernable. Resources are extracted from peripheries to fund central power; dissent is crushed; the state lurches from over-extension abroad to repression at home.

Partition into smaller, more governable states would not guarantee stability, but it would create conditions for it. Independent Tatarstan, Chechnya, or Sakha could craft political systems reflecting local identities. Regions long exploited for Moscow’s benefit could reorient towards regional markets. Crucially, imperial ambition would be blunted. A fractured Russia could no longer project overwhelming force beyond her borders.

History offers parallels. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after 1918 liberated Central Europe from dynastic domination, though the interwar settlement left many tensions unresolved. The end of the Ottoman Empire allowed new states in the Balkans and the Middle East, albeit often under problematic mandates. The disintegration of the British Empire after 1945 produced dozens of independent states, many of which developed more responsive governance than imperial rule had allowed. In each case, empire’s demise was chaotic, but over time it proved a necessary step towards greater self-determination. Russia’s empire may follow the same trajectory.

Reform of the United Nations

The second necessary condition for Kant’s perpetual peace is institutional reform. The United Nations, founded in 1945, enshrined the principle of collective security but undermined it by granting the victorious powers of the Second World War a veto in the Security Council. This contradiction paralyses the organisation whenever one of those powers is itself the aggressor. Russia’s veto renders the Security Council incapable of censuring or restraining her invasion of Ukraine. The absurdity is stark.

Past institutional reforms illustrate both possibility and necessity. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the so-called Concert of Europe provided a century of relative stability, albeit through great power consensus. After 1919 the League of Nations sought to create a permanent mechanism for peace, but its reliance on unanimity and lack of enforcement powers doomed it. The creation of the UN in 1945 was itself an admission that the League had failed. Now, eighty years later, the UN shows the same symptoms: paralysis in the face of aggression, and reliance upon regional alliances to do its work.

A reformed United Nations would abolish the veto. Decisions would be made by majority or supermajority, ensuring that no single state can block action in defence of peace. International courts would have binding authority, with compulsory jurisdiction over disputes and enforcement mechanisms stronger than diplomatic censure. The auxiliary functions of the United Nations—its proliferating agencies on health, education, culture, and humanitarian relief—would be devolved to civil society or regional organisations. The core UN would be slimmed and sharpened to its original purpose: preventing conflict.

Obstacles and Prospects

Sceptics will object that such a vision is utopian. Why should the powerful surrender their privileges? Why would Russia accept partition? Why would China, Britain, France, or the United States renounce their veto? Yet history suggests that great transformations often occur in the aftermath of catastrophe. The Congress of Vienna followed Napoleonic war; the League of Nations followed the First World War; the United Nations followed the Second. A world reeling from the devastation of Ukraine may demand equivalent boldness.

Moreover the present order is already in crisis. The veto paralyses the Security Council; regional organisations such as the EU and NATO take on the tasks the UN cannot. If the United Nations does not reform, it will wither. Better to reform it deliberately than to let it decline into irrelevance.

Ukraine as Catalyst

The possibility of a Kantian order depends not only on structural reform but also on moral impetus. Ukraine embodies that impetus. She has become the testing ground for whether the principles of sovereignty, freedom and international law can withstand naked aggression. Her endurance has already galvanised unprecedented Western unity, drawn in new NATO members, and revived the language of justice in global diplomacy.

If Ukraine prevails, she will not only safeguard her own independence but will also supply the moral narrative required for broader transformation. Just as Belgium’s invasion in 1914 and Poland’s partition in 1939 became rallying cries for international order, so Ukraine’s survival may be the catalyst for a system finally capable of enforcing peace.

Ukraine’s role is therefore dual: she is victim of aggression but also potential architect of renewal. Her struggle may provide the political will, the historical momentum, and the moral authority to reimagine international society. Out of her sacrifice could emerge a reformed world order closer to the Kantian ideal: a federation of free states, governed by law, with perpetual peace no longer a dream but a practical horizon.

Conclusion: Towards Kant’s Vision

Kant admitted that “perpetual peace” was not likely to be achieved immediately. It was an ideal, guiding action even if never fully realised. Yet ideals matter. They set direction. They provide criteria for judging institutions and outcomes.

If Ukraine secures a just peace, if Russia’s empire fragments into governable units, and if the United Nations is radically reformed, then something approaching Kant’s vision may come within reach. Not the abolition of all conflict, but the establishment of a global order in which aggression is deterred, justice is enforceable, and smaller states are protected from predation.

The collapse of empires and the birth of institutions after past wars demonstrate that radical change is possible. The challenge is to ensure that the sacrifices of the present war are not wasted. Ukraine stands at the heart of this possibility: both the battlefield of Europe’s survival and the potential cradle of a more peaceful world order.