When people think about resolving territorial conflicts, they usually go for the traditional approach – drawing a line on a map that separates one side from the other. This vertical division of territory has been the solution for countless conflicts throughout history, creating clear borders that everyone can see and understand. But this simple solution often misses the more complex realities of modern conflicts, especially the web of economic interests and cultural identities that can’t be separated by a line on a map.

What if there’s a different way to think about this problem entirely? Instead of fighting over who controls which piece of land, imagine an arrangement that recognises the legitimate interests of all parties by separating what happens above ground from what lies beneath. Under this horizontal approach, Ukraine and its Western partners could have access to the region’s vast mineral wealth – those trillions of dollars worth of coal, natural gas and metals that make the area so economically important. Meanwhile the people living in eastern Ukraine could have real self governance and cultural autonomy they’ve been seeking.

This isn’t a new idea. The US has used similar arrangements with Pacific Island nations through Compact of Free Association agreements where local populations maintain their cultural identity and self governance while still being connected to broader economic and security frameworks. For eastern Ukraine, this could mean communities retain their Russian cultural ties and local decision making authority while the broader economic benefits of the region flow to support local development and Ukraine’s national interests.

Of course any such arrangement would need to reflect the wishes of the people actually living there. If there’s real uncertainty about what the people of these regions actually want, a carefully supervised referendum under UN oversight could help clarify their preferences. This horizontal approach basically acknowledges that economic interests and cultural identity don’t have to be locked together in an all or nothing arrangement – sometimes the most sustainable solutions come from recognising that different types of interests can coexist in the same space.