In recent months, the diplomatic world has witnessed an unusual proliferation of peace plans for Ukraineas if it were a generous harvest typical of the summer-autumn season that Europe is experiencing. The German analyst Klaus Geiger, from the newspaper Die Welt: “These are the types of statements that the entire world loves to hear, after two and a half years of war and tens of thousands of deaths…”.
According to the criteria of
Within the framework of the UN General AssemblyLast week in New York, China made public a peace plan that was joined this Saturday by twelve countries, including Brazil, Colombia, Türkiye and Egypt. In July, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, He presented himself as a “missionary of peace” and completed a tour that included Moscow and kyiv, and the headquarters of several allied governments on both sides.
In June, 160 delegations had met in Bürgenstock (Switzerland) to explore peace initiatives, at the request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who last week, during his tour of USAspoke before the UN and met with President Joe Biden and the candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. In his interviews and speeches, Zelensky referred interchangeably to his victory plan and his peace plan.
That kyiv could carry out the war within Russian territory, in a profound and costly way for the Kremlin, would put Putin in a very complicated situation vis-à-vis its population, which until now, and except for the Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region in August and some bombings in areas near the border, has not suffered closely from the war.
But, Does this multiplication of proposals to end the war mean that the time has come to resolve the bloody conflict at a negotiating table? Not necessarily. As analyst Geiger stated, “since the start of the war, we have never been further from a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.” The German journalist explains: “Those who believe that it will be enough to be ready to make concessions to find a quick way out of the war are nourished by illusions or act irresponsibly.”
One of them is, without a doubt, donald trumpas became clear during his meeting with Zelensky in his office in Trump Tower, in Manhattan, last Friday. The meeting was on the verge of being canceled due to the annoyance caused to the Republican candidate by an interview given days before by Zelensky to the weekly The New Yorker.
Trump has even said that, if he wins the elections in November, he would be able to end that war “in a matter of 24 hours,” something that Zelensky questioned in the interview, suggesting that “Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war.” war, even if perhaps he thinks he knows.” He added that “it often happens with this war that the more deeply you look at it, the less you understand it.” And that almost frustrated the summit, which in the end did happen.
After the meeting, which according to witnesses was conducted in a cordial tone, Trump told reporters: “I think we can work on something that is good for both sides.” And although he did not delve into how to do it, he insisted that, if he wins the presidency again, he will be able to stop the war even before taking office in January. Zelensky, who was at Trump’s side when they both appeared before the media, was diplomatic: “We share the same vision, that the war in Ukraine must be stopped,” but made clear that “Putin cannot win and Ukraine must prevail.”
Avoid another Munich 1938
After 30 months of war, and after adding 70,000 dead and 130,000 wounded according to United States intelligence dataUkraine is about to be overwhelmed in terms of what it can commit in soldiers, weapons and economic resources. The morale of the citizens, which resisted remarkably during the first two years of the conflict, begins to falter, and this may worsen when a winter begins that will be especially harsh due to the fragility of the electrical system affected by the Russian bombings.
Waiting to get more support in arms and money from his Western allies, especially Washington, Zelensky focused his tour in the United States on promoting his “plan for victory.” Knowing that in the months to come international pressure will increase for him to sit down to negotiate, the president explained that he needs a change in “the rules of the game for Russia to make peace.”
As stated this Saturday in the newspaper’s editorial The Countrys of Madrid, “that seemed to be the purpose of the incursion of its army into the Russian province of Kursk, with which the Government also intended to inspire public opinion.” And, although it managed to shake not only its citizens but world opinion, it did not get Putin to relax his positions.
“To force this change in the rules of the game,” adds the Spanish newspaper, “kyiv proposes a show of force: it asks the allies to authorize it to hit Russia with long-range missiles provided by the West.” But also, in the event of a ceasefire and the beginning of negotiations with Moscow – which would necessarily start on the lines that mark the positions of each army today –, it demands the guarantee of more military and financial aid from the West, and the support of NATO, an organization he hopes to join soon.
We share the same vision, that the war in Ukraine must be stopped,” but he made it clear that “Putin cannot win and Ukraine must prevail.”
Zelensky knows that, barring a significant change in the correlation of forces, starting negotiations would imply being willing to give up part of the territory that Russia invaded.. But without this change in the correlation, Putin would not be content with those territories, but would require Ukraine to distance itself from its Western allies and NATO, which, in the long run, would lead to turning it into a satellite country, as it is. today Belarus. And the only way to inoculate against that would be to soon join NATO, whose charter provides, in its article 5, for the collective defense of the entire Organization in the event of an attack against one of its members by a country outside the Organization. NATO.
“Although it would still be a terrible precedent,” a European diplomat in Paris explained to EL TIEMPO, “especially since it resulted from military aggression, both in Washington and in European capitals know that it is possible that kyiv will have to give up part of of those territories, especially those that have a significant presence of population of Russian origin.”
What must be avoided, explains the source, “is that these concessions are the prelude to more demands from the Kremlin, as happened when Hitler demanded a part of the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic, the so-called Sudetenland, and in the Agreements of Munich in September 1938, France and the United Kingdom gave in, convinced that this guaranteed peace, when in reality it was the prelude to the Second World War.
Victory and peace plan
During his visit to the United States, Zelensky presented his victory plan to Biden, and offered Trump a version of it, but called it a “peace plan.” The truth is that, for Ukraine, they are two sides of the same coin. Or, put another way, Ukraine needs a military victory – or at least a major shake-up that rebalances forces – as the basis for a peace negotiation.
Although its comprehensive content has not been revealed, it is evident that one of the axes of the victory plan is the authorization that Zelensky demands from the United States and its allies in Europe, to be able to use long-range missiles supplied by them, in attacks on the interior. from Russia. That kyiv can carry the war inside Russian territory, in a profound and costly way for the Kremlinwould put Putin in a very complicated situation in front of his population, which until now, and except for the Ukrainian incursion in the Kursk region in August and some bombings in areas near the border, has not suffered closely from the war.
Fearful of the eventuality of authorization from Washington and NATO as a whole for kyiv to use these powerful missiles, the Russian leader announced last week adjustments to the nuclear doctrine: the change involved expanding the definition of “aggressor states,” from so that those who supply those long-range weapons to Ukraine fit within the definition. In this way, the Kremlin suggests that if the West gives Zelensky free rein for these types of attacks, the Kremlin could consider a nuclear response.
For now, everything remains in the realm of hypotheses, since neither Washington nor European capitals have given Ukraine the go-ahead to launch such attacks inside Russian territory, or at least they have not said so publicly. Nor have they opened the door for kyiv to formally begin its process of joining NATO, something that Zelensky considers vital to protect itself in the future, if there is an agreement with Putin at the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, Russian troops continue to advance on the front in eastern Ukraine, and although they do so slowly and at a terrifying cost of more than a thousand daily casualties, the combination of this progression with bombings against electrical infrastructure and other strategic services It raises questions about how much longer Ukraine will hold out before accepting a negotiating table where Putin has an advantage.
What can come out of a negotiation under these conditions? “As long as Putin lives – maintains analyst Klaus Geiger – it is realistic to think that ‘peace’ can only resemble a cold war (…), not a peace based on a commitment contained in a written agreement.” Geiger imagines that what may come out of the table is “a freezing of the conflict in which both parties will consolidate the front through mutual deterrence.”
With a dictator like Putin, he adds, “no compromise is feasible” and thus “peace can only be guaranteed by weapons, not by the paragraphs of an agreement.” And that is something that Washington and its NATO partners must understand, to authorize kyiv to use long-range missiles and open the doors of NATO to it.
MAURICIO VARGAS
ANALYST
THE TIME
#impossible #negotiate #peace #Ukraine #Analysis #Mauricio #Vargas