Ukraine may be prepared to give Russia 20% of its territory in exchange for de facto, not de jure, the designation of this occupation, according to anonymous officials active in peace negotiations. This is simply a controversial proposal that can affect the future not only of Ukraine, but besides of the full global order. The information came erstwhile erstwhile U.S. president Donald Trump announces his own peace plan to halt the war in Central and east Europe.
According to media reports (The fresh York Post), Trump's plan assumes the anticipation of sending European forces to Ukraine to oversee the ceasefire. In addition, a separate peace mission consisting of Ukrainian, Russian and third-country representatives — neutral and non-NATO forces — is being discussed. specified a mixed formation would oversee compliance with the truce on the front line. This component appears to be an effort to find a balance between the interests of both parties, without the engagement of NATO troops, which Russia considers a direct threat.
One of the most controversial aspects of the plan is the possible agreement of the US to recognise Crimea as part of Russia. That would be a 180-degree return compared to Washington's policy in fresh years. Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, further US administrations have refused to recognise this act and have supported Ukraine's sovereignty. If the fresh plan actually implies specified a gesture, it would be a serious concession to the Kremlin.
However, Ukrainian officials powerfully disengage from the explanation that they are ready to quit the land permanently. Their approach implies designation of business de facto(de jure). 1 of the advanced officials explained: “De facto” means that we admit that the Russians are occupying the area, but we do not say that Ukraine has forever renounced them. ‘De jure’ would mean we renounce them — and that is not an option’.
In the background of these talks, there are complicated diplomatic discussions. Ukraine's defence minister Rustem Umerov, who participated in talks with US representatives, pointed out that his ministry did not deal with political decisions and that Kiev's main nonsubjective remains to make specified a ceasefire mechanics that will be effective and manageable. His statements seem to be an effort to subdue media speculation that Ukraine is already close to an agreement with the US.
Meanwhile, Russia does not show real interest in peace. Despite the announced truce at Easter, Russian forces continued their attacks, breaking the ceasefire. specified actions only confirm that Moscow considers peace talks as a tool of pressure, not a real way to ending the war. In this situation, Trump’s proposals give emergence to mixed responses — on the 1 hand, a chance to halt violence, on the another hand, they can legitimize Kremlin’s imperial ambitions.
Trump himself, who has repeatedly declared his desire to end the war “in 24 hours”, now announces the details of his plan in a fewer days. On the fact Social platform, he wrote: “I hope Russia and Ukraine will scope an agreement this week. Both countries will then do large business with the US, which flourishes, and will make a fortune!’ specified rhetoric, more like a trade offer than a serious abroad policy, meets with criticism, but besides with the interest of those who believe that any impulse towards peace is worth considering.
However, the global context is complicated. A Europe that has accepted millions of Ukrainian refugees and supports Ukraine militarily and financially cannot afford to accept a solution that undermines the principles of global law. Recognise territories by force, even if de facto, means the creation of a precedent that can be utilized by another authoritarian states. In particular, China, which closely observes Western reactions, bearing in head its own claims to Taiwan.
From the point of view of Ukraine, possible concessions to territorial concessions are highly hard to accept socially. After more than a year of devastating war, immense losses of civilian population and demolition of infrastructure, any form of "reward" for an aggressor can be regarded by society as treason. Many families have lost their loved ones in defence of cities specified as Bachmut, Kherson, and Mariupol — saying present that these areas can stay under Russian control, even temporarily, provoke anger and opposition.
Russia, on the another hand, can usage this propaganda as evidence of the effectiveness of its aggression if it obtains formal or informal confirmation of the areas acquired. specified a "success" may motivate Moscow to further destabilise in the region or on another fronts. This can besides undo peace efforts, due to the fact that if aggression is rewarded, the motivation to negociate from the position of equality disappears.
Against this background, the question arises: is peace at all costs better than prolonged conflict? It's a dilemma that has accompanied wars for centuries. Peace without justice and safety can prove impermanence. If Ukrainian society does not accept the agreement as honest and honorable, there may be further tensions, even interior ones.
It is hard to foretell how the situation will make in the coming weeks. Trump announces the details of his plan, Ukraine sets clear boundaries, and Russia does not give signals for real deescalation. Meanwhile, the global community must find a balance between pragmatism and principles. Can you halt a war without betraying the victims? Is it possible that peace will not become an act of surrender?
No substance how the current talks end, 1 thing is certain: Ukraine's future cannot be the subject of a political game conducted above its heads. Each agreement must be based on the consent of Kiev and the acceptance by Ukrainian society. Otherwise, it will not be peace, but simply a break in warfare — and a prediction of the future conflict.
