At a moment when diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine risk stalling, a proposal inspired by the Kosovo model offers a different strategic pathway—one that could provide negotiators with leverage, create political space for Kyiv, and present Moscow with a face-saving framework grounded in principles it has itself endorsed.
Speaking at Horizons of Freedom: War in Ukraine, Hybrid War in Europe and the Global Democratic Struggle, part of the international conference Defending Democracy: Horizons of Freedom, Professor Edward P. Joseph outlined why revisiting the Kosovo model may be both realistic and strategically advantageous.
Why a New Approach Is Needed
Joseph framed his argument around three core considerations: what such a model would offer to the United States and its partners leading negotiations; what it would give Ukraine; and what it would provide to Russia—an unavoidable factor in any viable peace settlement.
The current negotiating model, he argued, depends on pressure that does not presently exist. With the latest diplomatic efforts placing responsibility squarely in Moscow’s hands, there is a real risk of collapse. If that happens, the international community will face a stark question: What comes next?
It is precisely here, Joseph suggested, that the Kosovo model demonstrates its value.
The Kosovo Precedent
The Kosovo model is rooted in UN Security Council Resolution 1244, adopted after the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. Crucially, this resolution occupies a deliberately ambiguous middle ground: it neither declared Kosovo independent nor ruled out that possibility in the future.
This ambiguity is not a weakness—it is the model’s core strength.
Joseph emphasized a critical and often overlooked point: Russian President Vladimir Putin has been a consistent and vocal defender of Resolution 1244. Putin has repeatedly insisted on full respect for it and has explicitly argued—both publicly and in discussions with the UN Secretary-General—that Kosovo and Ukraine are “absolutely the same.” His long-standing claim is that NATO’s actions in Kosovo set a precedent that Russia is now entitled to follow in Ukraine.
While many in the West argue that Kosovo was fundamentally different because Serbia was militarily defeated, Joseph noted that Putin rejects this distinction entirely. For him, the two cases are identical—and that assertion can be strategically leveraged.
Taking Sovereignty Off the Table
At the heart of the Ukraine conflict lies the issue of security guarantees. Russia seeks to impose its own version, using military pressure to do so. The Kosovo model offers a way out of this deadlock by temporarily removing the question of sovereignty from negotiations.
If the issue of who ultimately “owns” disputed territories—such as Donbas—is set aside, progress on all other fronts becomes significantly easier. Under Resolution 1244-style arrangements, territory is placed under international administration, protected by peacekeeping forces, with its final status deferred to a later, internationally supervised decision.
What This Means for Ukraine
For President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, such a framework would provide a credible political narrative at home.
He could tell the Ukrainian public that the territory in question formally remains part of Ukraine; that international peacekeeping forces would be deployed, as they were in Kosovo; that an international administration—potentially under the UN, with OSCE involvement—would govern the area; and that displaced citizens would be able to return.
Most importantly, the final decision would rest with the people themselves, through a future referendum conducted under international supervision.
This approach allows Ukraine to pursue peace without being forced into immediate territorial surrender.
What This Means for Russia
From Moscow’s perspective, the model offers something tangible. As in Kosovo, there would be no exercise of Ukrainian sovereignty on the ground—no flags, no symbolic assertions of control. While Ukraine could maintain a formal claim, effective authority would lie with an international administration.
Joseph argued that Putin’s objectives extend beyond the territories currently occupied. He seeks maximum leverage and maximum gains. Paradoxically, the Kosovo model could offer him more than continued fighting—provided hostilities stop, peacekeepers are deployed, and the final status is postponed to a later referendum.
Under this framework, even territories currently under Ukrainian control could be placed under international administration without being transferred to Russia. For Ukrainians, this would normally be unthinkable. But the key distinction is that such areas would not fall under Russian sovereignty—they would be governed by a third party, mandated by the UN Security Council.
A Negotiating Advantage for the United States
For Washington, the argument would be powerful and difficult for Moscow to dismiss: the same principles Russia insists upon in Kosovo—principles Putin himself claims are universally applicable—would now be applied to Ukraine.
That symmetry, Joseph concluded, is the core of the proposal.
A Political and Strategic Response
In the discussion that followed, Roger Casale welcomed Joseph’s proposal as an example of clear-sighted strategic thinking. He suggested that the Westminster Alliance for Ukraine could help bring these ideas into debate within the UK Parliament, working alongside partners in Italy and across Europe.
Casale stressed that a ceasefire is indispensable. Without an end to the killing, no meaningful political process can begin. Yet he expressed deep skepticism about Putin’s willingness to agree to one, arguing that Russia is currently committed to sustaining its war machine.
For that reason, Casale insisted, Ukraine must continue to receive robust military support. Only strength, he argued, can force a ceasefire and open the door to diplomacy.
He warned that Europe is already effectively at war, including in cyberspace, and that defeat in Ukraine would have consequences far beyond the battlefield—jeopardizing Europe’s future and the global democratic order.
Casale concluded that while compromises and sacrifices will be unavoidable, Europe must remain united, confident in its collective strength, and anchored in shared democratic values. Political discussions about the future, he argued, must begin now—even as Ukraine is defended militarily.
“The only way to stand up to a bully,” Casale said, “is to show strength—collectively, urgently, and with full resolve.”
This article and refined transcript were prepared by the author with AI-assisted language refinement and editorial support. The content remains fully faithful to the original video address. All responsibility for interpretation and publication rests with the author.
Watch the full video from the conference: