As Donald Trump’s White House places huge pressure on Ukraine to sign a peace deal, a team of experts has published a new study examining what they describe as a worldwide shift towards authoritarian peacemaking – a model of conflict resolution shaped not by international institutions or liberal democracies, but by authoritarian and semi-authoritarian states whose interests lie in control, influence and geopolitical advantage rather than long-term solutions.
Traditional peacemaking which resolved conflicts is eroding
The study, set to be published in journal Washington Quarterly, traces how traditional peacemaking – rooted in international law, rights and negotiated compromise – has been eroded over the last two decades. According to the authors, the Iraq War, the post-9/11 security paradigm and growing global competition have weakened the norms that once governed international conflict resolution.
This has opened space for powerful states to broker deals that prioritise strategic gain over accountability or the wishes of the affected population, as seen in the Ukraine peace plan drawn up by the USA and Russia.
Authoritarian peacemaking just freezes the conflict
The research draws on the concept of ‘Revisionist Conflict Management’, a framework relying on transactional bargaining, economic incentives and top-down deals that freeze conflicts rather than resolving their causes. The authors argue that these patterns are increasingly visible in conflicts across the Middle East and Africa – and now in Europe too.
The findings have particular resonance for the current efforts to end the war in Ukraine. The proposals floated by the USA give greater weight to Russian territorial “realities on the ground”, and involve conversations where Ukraine’s role is more limited than expected for a state whose sovereignty is at stake. This reflects concerns highlighted in the research – that peace deals in the current climate risk being shaped by external actors, not those living with the consequences.
The study compares this dynamic to earlier conflicts where authoritarian or centralised governments acted as mediators while pursuing their own agendas. In the authors’ view, this risks creating “victor’s peace” arrangements that halt fighting but entrench dominant states’ interests, leaving questions of justice, accountability and democratic legitimacy unresolved.
Ukraine does not want to cede territory
The researchers note that public opinion in Ukraine remains strongly opposed to ceding territory, and that Ukrainian society continues to insist on a settlement that restores borders and addresses wartime abuses. The tension between these expectations and geopolitical pressure, they argue, is emblematic of the broader global transition their study describes.
“By examining the Ukraine case through this lens, our research offers a wider warning about the international system – as global power becomes more fragmented and traditional norms weaken, the nature of mediation itself is changing,” said Oliver Richmond, Professor in International Relations, Peace & Conflict Studies at The University of Manchester. “The Ukraine conflict could become a defining example of what peace looks like in a world where authoritarian logic increasingly shapes diplomatic outcomes.”
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
