Jesús Daniel Romero from Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute for Poder & Dinero and FinGurú
I. Executive Summary
This technical document draws historical and strategic parallels between the Paris Peace Accords of 1973—which ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War—and the current peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia under U.S. leadership.
Based on my direct experience negotiating with authoritarian regimes in Asia, this analysis warns of the dangers of ceasefires without verification, negotiations without full sovereignty, and agreements with no timelines or automatic sanctions.
Unlike in 1973, the United States today has decisive tools:
● A coherent diplomatic leadership under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also directs the national security strategy regarding Ukraine.
● A strategic agreement on rare minerals with Ukraine, which ties compliance with peace to concrete economic benefits and automatic sanctions.
This document recommends an approach based on:
● Verifiable timelines
● Automatic sanctions
● Structured economic guarantees
● International oversight
II. Strategic Context
Vietnam 1973: The Paris Peace Accords
● Signed between the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the Viet Cong.
● Promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of U.S. troops, and political reconciliation.
● South Vietnam was sidelined; effective compliance mechanisms were not implemented.
● In less than two years, Saigon fell.
Ukraine 2025: U.S.-Led Negotiations
● The U.S. resumed diplomatic contact with Russia in February 2025.
● Ukraine was initially excluded from the core discussions.
● Russia escalated its attacks while negotiating.
● As in Vietnam, doubts exist about the viability, verification, and sovereignty of the agreements.
III. Five Strategic Parallels
Sovereign Empowerment in Peace
○ Vietnam: South Vietnam lacked the capacity to sustain the agreements.
○ Ukraine: Risk of decisions being made without its full consent.○ Lesson: Peace without strong sovereign actors is unsustainable.
Ceasefires as Tactical Pauses
○ Vietnam: The ceasefire allowed Hanoi to rearm.
○ Ukraine: Russia continues to attack while negotiating.
○ Lesson: Ceasefires must be verified in real-time.The Illusion of Honor
○ Vietnam: The U.S. sought a political exit, not a lasting solution.
○ Ukraine: Risk of rushed agreements due to electoral pressure.
○ Lesson: Peace must serve the strategy, not the image.Verification Deficit
○ Vietnam: The international control mechanism was symbolic.
○ Ukraine: There is still no real verification structure.
○ Lesson: Verification must be institutionalized.Delayed Justice and Human Cost
○ Vietnam: The issue of prisoners and the missing was tardy.
○ Ukraine: Deportations, civilian killings, and war crimes require immediate attention.
○ Lesson: Justice cannot be sacrificed for diplomatic convenience.
IV. Time as a Strategic Factor
Time is not neutral in peace negotiations: it is a power tool.
● For aggressors: It allows them to rearm and gain political ground.
● For diplomats: It can generate pressure for weak agreements.
● For victims: It slows justice and prolongs suffering.
Peace must be built with time, not in spite of it.
V. Compliance Timeline with Automatic Sanctions and Mining Guarantees
Every peace agreement must include clear deadlines, automatic penalties, and verifiable economic guarantees, primarily through the mineral agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine.
1. Compliance Milestones by Dates
● +15 days: Total cessation of airstrikes, missiles, and drones.
● +30 days: Verified withdrawal of Russian troops.
● +45 days: Activated international inspections.
● +60 days: Initiation of war crimes investigations.
● +90–180 days: Progressive activation of investments linked to the mineral agreement.
2. Automatic Sanctions for Immediate Enforcement
If milestones are not met, sanctions must be activated without further voting:
● Level I: Total financial and energy sanctions.
● Level II: Automatic increase of military assistance to Ukraine.
● Level III: Freezing of assets, visa bans, and referrals to international courts.
3. Strategic Guarantees Through the Minerals Agreement
The U.S.-Ukraine rare minerals agreement (Reuters, 2025) functions as a compliance guarantee:
● Access to minerals only with verified compliance.
● Investments are tied to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
● Western economic interests make protecting Ukraine a strategic priority.
4. Oversight and Transparency
Proposal: creation of a Multilateral Peace Accountability Commission (MPAC):
● Verification by satellite, OSINT, and international missions.
● Public tracking dashboards.
● Automatic activation of sanctions for non-compliance.
VI. Red Lines and Traps to Avoid
Exclude Ukraine as an equal partner.
Accept a “frozen peace” as a solution.
Lift sanctions without full verification.
Recognize illegally occupied territory.
Postpone justice to “preserve dialogue”.
Inadequately finance reconstruction.
Offer ambiguous security guarantees.
Subordinate peace to electoral calendars.
VII. Conclusion
History does not repeat itself, but it warns. Vietnam fell not due to a lack of diplomacy, but due to a lack of compliance.
The conflict in Ukraine offers the United States the opportunity to correct that error. Lasting peace requires:
● Binding timelines
● Automatic sanctions
● Economic guarantees based on critical resources
● Full sovereign participation
● International oversight with real authority
A peace without punishment is a surrender. A peace with punishment is a protection.
References
Atlantic Council. (2025, May 16). Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal matters. https://cepa.org/article/why-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-matters/
Council on Foreign Relations. (2025, April). Ukraine war diplomacy intensifies. https://www.cfr.org/article/ukraine-war-diplomacy-intensifies
Kyiv Independent. (2025, May 27). Russia changes drone tactics to bypass Ukraine’s air defense, Air Force says. https://kyivindependent.com/russia-has-changed-drone-attack-tactics-against-ukraine-to-bypass-air-defense-ukraines-air-force-says/
Lawfare. (2025, May 23). Charting a path forward for the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-a-path-forward-for-the-u.s.-ukraine-minerals-deal
NPR. (2025, May 25). Russia hits Ukraine with the largest air attack of the war so far. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/25/g-s1-68868/russia-ukraine-drone-missile-attack
Reuters. (2025, May 8). Ukraine’s parliament ratifies minerals deal with US, hopes for more arms. https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-parliament-ratifies-minerals-deal-with-us-hopes-more-arms-2025-05-08/
Reuters. (2025, May 26). Russia launches war’s largest air attack on Ukraine, kills at least 12 people. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-drone-fragments-set-kyiv-apartment-building-ablaze-official-says-2025-05-24/
Reuters. (2025, May 27). Ukraine revamps minerals sector, eyes billions in investment from US deal. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-revamps-minerals-sector-eyes-billions-investment-us-deal-2025-05-27/
Security Council Report. (2025, March). In hindsight: The US pivot on Ukraine and shifting Security Council dynamics. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-03/in-hindsight-the-us-pivot-on-ukraine-and-shifting-security-council-dynamics.php
U.S. Department of State. (2025, January). U.S. security cooperation with Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/
Wikipedia contributors. (2025, May). Ukraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement. On Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93United_States_Mineral_Resources_Agreement
Jesús Daniel Romero, LCDR (Ret.) U.S. Naval Intelligence. Co-Founder and Senior Fellow of Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute
Former Director of Policies and Negotiations, Joint Task Force for Full Accountability (JTF-FA) and Joint Prisoner of War/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC)
Negotiated directly with China, Myanmar, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia
Comments