On 28 March 2025, during a visit to Murmansk, the largest city in the Arctic Circle and a major Russian port, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed placing Ukraine under a temporary United Nations-led administration to organise fresh elections and establish a government with which Russia could negotiate peace. He drew parallels to international interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and East Timor.
However these historical precedents differ significantly from Ukraine’s current situation. In Bosnia, the international community established a civilian mandate supervising domestic institutions as part of the Dayton Accords to which all the sides had agreed, following a devastating inter-ethnic war and with the consent of all parties involved. Similarly, East Timor lacked effective governance amid severe conflict, prompting the United Nations to build civilian institutions from scratch. In both cases, substantial international peacekeeping forces were deployed, a measure Russia opposes in Ukraine.
By contrast Ukraine maintains a stable and popular government led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who enjoys significant public support. Recent opinion polls indicate that a majority of Ukrainians back his leadership and policies. The proposal to replace Ukraine’s democratically elected government with a UN administration undermines the nation’s sovereignty and the will of its citizens.
Furthermore, Putin’s suggestion lacks clarity regarding the status of territories currently under Russian occupation, which constitute approximately 25% of Ukraine. It remains ambiguous whether the proposed international administration would extend to these areas or if Russia intends to withdraw and agree to an immediate ceasefire as part of the arrangement.
International reactions have been critical. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer dismissed Putin’s proposal as a delaying tactic, emphasising that the Kremlin’s disregard for peace initiatives demonstrates a lack of seriousness about ending the conflict. The United States reiterated that Ukraine’s governance is determined by its constitution and that any external imposition is unacceptable.
In conclusion, President Putin’s proposal appears to be an attempt to buy time while seeking further territorial gains on the battlefield. The analogies drawn to Bosnia and East Timor are inappropriate, as Ukraine’s situation involves a sovereign nation defending itself against external aggression, not internal collapse or civil war. The international community’s focus remains on supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and pursuing genuine diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
This sort of flippant suggestion by the Russian President is evidence that he has no interest in pursuing a peace agreement but rather continuing aggression on the ground in Ukraine but to seize as much territory as possible. The West is therefore faced with the same dilemma as ever: what is it actually going to do to bring this conflict to a conclusion. There are three broad options: tighten sanctions excruciatingly; send NATO and other "coalition of the willing" member states' armed forces into Ukraine on Ukraine's invitation; increasingly arm the Ukrainians so that they can make progress with their offensives (they began another incursion into Russian territory in Belgorod today); or take all three of these measures together. Those are the only options facing the West now.
