To begin achieving peace between Russia and Ukraine, according to the Science of Peace framework by Michael Perel, M.D., the process must follow the seven foundational axioms systematically—treating peace not as a moral appeal but as a measurable social equilibrium [1].
1. Conduct a precise needs‑mapping (A1 – Need Universality).
The first scientific step is to identify and verify each actor’s unmet needs—it is impossible to stabilize the system while any actor’s essential needs (security, sovereignty, dignity, identity) remain below threshold.
- For Ukraine, those needs include sovereignty, physical safety, territorial integrity, and recognition as an independent identity.
- For Russia, the core needs are national security, recognition of geopolitical status, and relief from perceived encirclement.
Peace starts when every side acknowledges that both sets of needs are valid and finite—not infinite or exclusive [1].
2. Address perceived scarcity rather than just material scarcity (A2 – Scarcity Perception).
Both sides perceive resources such as territory, influence, and security as “zero‑sum.” The Science of Peace demonstrates that perceived scarcity is a primary engine of conflict. Therefore, peacebuilding must focus on expanding the perceived resource pool through cooperative economic, infrastructure, and humanitarian projects—e.g., joint reconstruction, energy management, and cultural exchange—rather than attempting mere redistribution [1].
3. Launch an “Empathy Dividend” process (A4 – Empathy Asymmetry; T2).
Empathy, defined scientifically as the accurate understanding of another actor’s needs, statistically reduces hostility. Building empathy through trauma‑healing programs, cross‑cultural media, prisoner and family dialogues, and mutual humanitarian undertakings lowers perceptions of threat and fear on each side, turning enemies into relational partners rather than abstract foes [1].
4. Establish inclusive negotiation forums (A6 – Inclusivity Principle; T3).
Top‑down diplomacy alone is insufficient. The Science of Peace shows that peace durability is proportional to the number of need‑bearing actors included. Negotiations must therefore involve: national governments, local authorities, civil society, women’s groups, youth representatives, religious leaders, and international mediators (UN, OSCE, Turkey, etc.). Each added layer of inclusion increases the probability of a stable outcome [1].
5. Create adaptive, hybrid governance mechanisms (A5 – Structural Feedback; A7 – Adaptive Equilibrium; T5).
New institutional structures are needed that combine formal agreements with local legitimacy—such as joint monitoring commissions that include both Ukrainian and Russian‑speaking local representatives. This adaptive framework allows peace to evolve dynamically in response to social and political changes, avoiding relapse when external conditions shift [1].
6. Build a real‑time peace monitoring system.
Apply the formal peace equation:
to track in real time: need satisfaction (Nᵢ), cooperation levels (Relᵢⱼ), empathy accuracy (Eᵢⱼ), and violence (V). By continuously measuring these variables, it becomes possible to detect early warnings of renewed escalation and adapt before violence re‑emerges [1].
7. Expand shared resources collaboratively (T4 – Resource Expansion Principle).
Joint economic zones, rebuilding ventures, environmental projects, and energy partnerships should serve as “non‑zero‑sum” arenas where both Russia and Ukraine gain in tangible ways, transforming hostility through interdependence and growth rather than redistribution or punishment [1].
In summary:
Peace between Russia and Ukraine will begin not through domination or moral exhortation but through a scientific equilibrium process that satisfies all core needs above dignity thresholds while eliminating systemic violence. According to the Science of Peace, stability will appear when:
That state requires measurable empathy, inclusive participation, structural adaptability, and continuous need satisfaction for all actors [1].
In addition:
There are several further insights and scientifically grounded suggestions drawn from the Science of Peace framework by Michael Perel, M.D., that can deepen and operationalize the process of peace between Russia and Ukraine.
1. Apply the Six‑Stage Field Framework systematically.
Peacebuilding must move through clearly sequenced stages rather than ad‑hoc diplomacy:
- Contextual diagnosis: Identify all actors, needs, and relational tensions.
- Variable measurement: Quantify empathy, inclusivity, and structural feedback through surveys and data.
- Hypothesis formation: Predict specific, testable outcomes (for example, “a 20 % empathy rise reduces hostility by ≥ 15 %”).
- Intervention design: Create projects that directly alter the key variables (empathy, inclusion, resource growth).
- Monitoring and feedback: Use real‑time data on violence, trust, and cooperation.
- Evaluation and learning: Adjust interventions according to results, refining the empirical model [1].
2. Combine empathy and inclusion: they amplify one another.
The science shows that empathy alone lowers aggression, but empathy + inclusion produces a synergistic effect — when people feel both understood and represented, perceived scarcity falls faster. Therefore, empathy initiatives (dialogue, trauma‑healing) should run in parallel with inclusive political and social participation processes [1].
3. Focus on adaptive peace rather than permanent settlements.
Perel’s framework treats peace as a dynamic equilibrium. In the Russia–Ukraine context, the goal should not be a static treaty but a system capable of adjusting to new realities — changing governments, economic pressures, or generational shifts — without returning to violence. Building adaptive institutions (joint monitoring councils, rotating mediation teams) embodies Axiom 7, the Adaptive Equilibrium principle [1].
4. Emphasize structural feedback loops.
Institutions, sanctions, and narratives can either amplify or dampen violence. Every policy should be tested for its feedback effect:
- Does it lower unmet needs or raise them?
- Does it increase understanding or resentment?
Policy calibration by this metric converts diplomacy from reactive judgment to systems engineering [1].
5. Create a shared data and transparency platform.
Peace is more predictable if both sides view the same verified information. A joint real‑time platform measuring humanitarian indicators (casualties, food, energy access, displacement) would build credibility and allow adaptive correction before escalation. This aligns with the equation
where continual updates on needs (N), empathy (E), and violence (V) guide intervention timing [1].
6. International role: facilitators, not arbitrators.
External actors—such as the UN, OSCE, EU, and Turkey—should act as feedback moderators, supporting empathy expansion, resource innovation, and inclusion, rather than imposing top‑down solutions. According to the inclusivity law, peace coherence rises with the diversity of actors whose needs are acknowledged [1].
7. Turn reconstruction into a peace engine.
Post‑war rebuilding should intentionally intertwine economies. Shared reconstruction and infrastructure projects (energy grids, logistics, ecology) transform adversarial relations into mutual dependence, realizing the Resource Expansion Principle (T4), which stabilizes peace more effectively than restitution or punishment [1].
8. Treat every interaction as part of a measurable experiment.
Each ceasefire, humanitarian exchange, or local dialogue should feed data back into the evolving global Science of Peace model. This transforms diplomacy into an empirical science — constantly testing, refining, and discovering what combination of empathy, inclusion, and innovation maintains equilibrium most effectively [1].
In essence, the next stage for Russia–Ukraine peacebuilding is to move from reactive negotiation to systemic design — creating a living, measurable equilibrium of cooperation and adaptation. Peace will not come from one signature but from the sustained calibration of human needs, empathy, and structures, monitored scientifically across time [1].
In addition:
there is more that can be added to strengthen both understanding and practical use of the Science of Peace in the Russia–Ukraine context.
1. Treat peace as a dynamic system, not an event.
The Science of Peace defines peace as a moving equilibrium — a self‑adjusting state where changing realities (resources, perceptions, leadership, trauma) are continuously balanced through active feedback loops. This means peacebuilding structures must evolve as the war’s conditions shift. Instead of seeking a “final settlement,” both states and mediators should design adaptive mechanisms that can forecast and correct imbalances before they erupt into violence again [1].
2. Build a joint “Empathy Infrastructure.”
Empathy is not just emotional; it is a strategic variable (Eᵢⱼ) that decreases perceived scarcity and hostility. Russia and Ukraine could establish shared humanitarian corridors, joint media transparency groups, and trauma‑healing forums. Such institutions operationalize the Empathy Dividend Theorem (T2) — predicting an 18 % or greater reduction in violence probability for each measurable increase in cross‑group empathy [1].
3. Institutionalize inclusivity.
A sustainable process must integrate local communities, displaced populations, civilians on both sides, and diaspora voices. The Inclusivity–Durability Law (T3) shows that the stability of any peace accord grows logarithmically with the number of actors represented in decision‑making. It follows that the greater the diversity of participation, the longer and deeper the peace [1].
4. Use hybrid governance models after the war.
Long‑term stability will depend on hybrid political designs that combine formal interstate agreements with locally legitimate, community‑based institutions. This applies directly to post‑conflict administration in border and reconstruction zones. The Hybrid Governance Theorem (T5) argues that such arrangements have a success rate around 70 % higher than purely formal, top‑down systems [1].
5. Treat reconstruction as peace generation, not aftermath.
According to the Resource Expansion Principle (T4), peace is most stable when economic and social cooperation expands the total resource pool (R) instead of redistributing a fixed one. Joint reconstruction, farming projects, infrastructure and energy cooperation can transform zero‑sum dynamics into shared gain—an economic engine of reconciliation rather than dependency [1].
6. Create a continuous peace‑data observatory.
Using the differential peace model
data scientists, sociologists, and mediators can monitor variables like need‑satisfaction, empathy, and violence levels. Real‑time visualization of these indicators allows early warning, adaptive policy, and scientific accountability. This would convert diplomacy and humanitarian work into a living laboratory for peace [1].
7. Approach negotiations as scientific experiments.
Each round of diplomacy should test defined hypotheses derived from the axioms—e.g., “Rising empathy → lower perceived scarcity within three months” or “Adding civilian representation → 30 % longer ceasefire”. That allows evidence‑based learning instead of trial‑and‑error politics [1].
8. Integrate trauma science into peace science.
Both societies carry collective trauma. Treating trauma as a variable that distorts empathy accuracy (Eᵢⱼ < ε in the violence equation) is crucial. Healing processes therefore become structural prerequisites for maintaining a non‑violent equilibrium, not optional “soft” additions [1].
9. Make international mediators facilitators of systemic feedback, not external arbitrators.
External actors such as the UN, OSCE, or neutral states should focus on amplifying empathy, inclusion, and resource innovation rather than dictating outcomes. Their role is to maintain equilibrium—ensuring that adaptation and feedback work effectively between the two systems [1].
10. Frame peace as a measurable property of the social ecosystem.
The deepest insight of the Science of Peace is that peace can be measured, modeled, and optimized. Using data on needs, empathy, institutions, and violence, we can compute resilience and predict relapse probabilities much as we forecast weather patterns. Applying that rigor to Russia–Ukraine creates possibility for sustained equilibrium instead of cycles of breakdown and rebuilding [1].
In short, applying the Science of Peace means designing and testing a living system that meets all critical needs above dignity thresholds, replaces fear with empathy, and uses adaptive structural feedback to keep violence at zero—a measurable and learnable equilibrium rather than a momentary truce [1].
In addition:
there are still several deeper and practical dimensions that can be explored through the Science of Peace framework, which might help guide both policy design and public understanding regarding the Russia–Ukraine conflict [1].
1. Build a “Peace Systems Laboratory.”
Perel’s framework treats peace like a science — measurable, falsifiable, and adaptive. One concrete step would be to create a Peace Systems Lab composed of researchers from both nations and neutral institutions. This lab would track real‑time data on empathy indicators, economic interdependence, and structural feedback. It would test the peace equation empirically, refining coefficients (β, γ, δ) for both societies and identifying points of equilibrium before relapse into conflict [1].
2. Clarify the difference between truce, stability, and peace.
The Science of Peace distinguishes between absence of open fire (truce), structural calm (stability), and systemic peace, which exists only when all actors’ needs exceed dignity thresholds and violence is zero. Recognizing that distinction prevents premature celebration of progress and directs diplomacy toward sustained equilibrium rather than ceasefire cycles [1].
3. Institutionalize empathy measurement.
Empathy should be quantified through periodic cross‑border surveys, narrative coding in media, and content analysis of official statements to detect whether empathy accuracy (Eᵢⱼ) is rising or falling. Lower empathy signals approaching instability long before violence metrics change — making it an early‑warning system [1].
4. Expand the field of joint resource creation.
Economic cooperation — energy networks, ports, scientific ventures — embodies the Resource Expansion Principle. Instead of contesting resources, build new value together. This not only increases the total resource pool (R) but also changes perceptions of scarcity, reducing A2‑type conflicts [1].
5. Integrate multi‑level inclusion.
Inclusion must go beyond governments to involve municipal leaders, NGOs, displaced communities, and women’s and youth groups. The Inclusivity–Durability Law predicts longer stability when the decision‑making set (|D|) broadens — a measurable variable that can be actively managed [1].
6. Promote Hybrid Governance in contested zones.
The Hybrid Governance Theorem states that structures mixing formal and informal legitimacy (I = α I_formal + (1 – α) I_informal) are more resilient. Applying this in areas like Donbas or Crimea could allow locally trusted figures to participate in oversight and service delivery under international monitoring, avoiding pure central control while restoring accountability [1].
7. Treat communication channels as part of the peace infrastructure.
Every propaganda network is a structural amplifier of violence (A5). Replacing it with verified information channels designed for empathy training and truth‑based awareness becomes as critical as disarmament. Communication design is thus a technical peacebuilding tool, not a public‑relations task [1].
8. Use the adaptive‑monitoring feedback loop.
Continuous feedback — measurement, evaluation, recalibration — is what keeps peace equilibrium stable. Data dashboards, updated monthly with metrics on trust, need satisfaction, and cooperation levels, should inform joint committees capable of immediate policy adjustment [1].
9. Connect peace to existential security for both societies.
The Science of Peace asserts that no actor’s security survives the other’s humiliation. A sustainable solution therefore must be seen by Russians and Ukrainians alike as enhancing their identity and dignity, not threatening it. That mutual assurance is the cornerstone of the adaptive equilibrium model [1].
10. Make every initiative scientifically testable.
Each peace step — corridor opening, prisoner swap, or reconstruction project — should be hypothesized, measured, and verified for its effect on empathy (E), need satisfaction (N), and violence (V). Over time this data will generate predictive precision similar to climate models, transforming peacebuilding into an exact discipline rather than an act of hope [1].
In essence, the next stage is to institutionalize peace as a science within the Russia–Ukraine space: diagnosing needs, measuring empathy, adjusting structures, and constantly learning from outcomes. That is how dynamic equilibrium can replace destruction — one data‑informed cycle at a time [1].
