Ukraine peace plan, could it work?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Supermature
That's absolutely correct. But those are the de facto starting points for negotiation.
On paper, Mr Zelensky's current 10 point plan envisages the return of all its 1991 territory, Russian reparations and the prosecution of Russian leaders for war crimes. Clearly that's not going to happen.
The Ukrainian 15 point plan that was almost ratified in the spring of 2022, but withdrawn at the last moment, was far more realistic. At that time, Ukraine was willing to consider a neutral status—whereby Ukraine would not join any military alliances or host forces of other nations on its territory—if it received security guarantees from its European allies. The status of the Russian occupied territory, including Crimea, was to be determined through further negotiations, following a ceasefire.
The NATO Secretary General has suggested that the conflict could drag on for 10 years. That prospect should help concentrate minds on both sides; for the people of Ukraine, it doesn't bear thinking about.
On paper, Mr Zelensky's current 10 point plan envisages the return of all its 1991 territory, Russian reparations and the prosecution of Russian leaders for war crimes. Clearly that's not going to happen.
The Ukrainian 15 point plan that was almost ratified in the spring of 2022, but withdrawn at the last moment, was far more realistic. At that time, Ukraine was willing to consider a neutral status—whereby Ukraine would not join any military alliances or host forces of other nations on its territory—if it received security guarantees from its European allies. The status of the Russian occupied territory, including Crimea, was to be determined through further negotiations, following a ceasefire.
The NATO Secretary General has suggested that the conflict could drag on for 10 years. That prospect should help concentrate minds on both sides; for the people of Ukraine, it doesn't bear thinking about.
OK, so where does Putin move back from there?
The OP is far in excess of that minimum point for Putin.
Original post by Quady
OK, so where does Putin move back from there?
The OP is far in excess of that minimum point for Putin.
The OP is far in excess of that minimum point for Putin.
Again, I agree.
The OP has drawn attention to need for a peace plan. I think that what is important is to look for a basis upon which negotiations might begin rather than to second-guess where they might end up.
(edited 2 weeks ago)
Original post by StriderHort
I'm not seeing any conditions on Russia there. Would this security guarantee be worth anything? If we haven't taken direct action now, what would be different, esp as Ukraine would apparently be banned from hosting troops or even holding exercises for all time.
These are very valid points and your concerns are fully justified.
However, if the conflict is to be resolved without what could turn out to be many more years of death and destruction, then we need to find a realistic starting point for negotiations.
In an important change of tone, Mr Zelensky has recently indicated that he wants Russia to participate in the next round of negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, due in November:
"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results...since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit
He has also said that he recognises that not all the territory lost to Russia since 2014, such as Crimea, could be retaken militarily due to the high human cost.
These are wise words. But the problem he faces is that last year he gambled on a counter-offensive that many observers - myself included - said was doomed to failure. As a result, his negotiating position has weakened.
Nevertheless, there are levers that can be pulled to encourage Russia to negotiate. While it will have the upper hand in any protracted war of attrition, the impact on living standards will eventually begin to tell, with unpredictable consequences for Mr Putin and his government. The West also holds the leverage over frozen Russian assets, which can be used both as carrot and stick.
The seeds of compromise are there. Reaching a settlement will be very, very difficult, but as the president of Switzerland has said, the alternative is to do nothing - and that would continue to inflict immense damage on the economies of Western Europe as well as Russia, not to mention the catastrophic consequences that would befall the people of Ukraine.
Original post by Supermature
These are very valid points and your concerns are fully justified.
However, if the conflict is to be resolved without what could turn out to be many more years of death and destruction, then we need to find a realistic starting point for negotiations.
In an important change of tone, Mr Zelensky has recently indicated that he wants Russia to participate in the next round of negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, due in November:
"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results...since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit
He has also said that he recognises that not all the territory lost to Russia since 2014, such as Crimea, could be retaken militarily due to the high human cost.
These are wise words. But the problem he faces is that last year he gambled on a counter-offensive that many observers - myself included - said was doomed to failure. As a result, his negotiating position has weakened.
Nevertheless, there are levers that can be pulled to encourage Russia to negotiate. While it will have the upper hand in any protracted war of attrition, the impact on living standards will eventually begin to tell, with unpredictable consequences for Mr Putin and his government. The West also holds the leverage over frozen Russian assets, which can be used both as carrot and stick.
The seeds of compromise are there. Reaching a settlement will be very, very difficult, but as the president of Switzerland has said, the alternative is to do nothing - and that would continue to inflict immense damage on the economies of Western Europe as well as Russia, not to mention the catastrophic consequences that would befall the people of Ukraine.
However, if the conflict is to be resolved without what could turn out to be many more years of death and destruction, then we need to find a realistic starting point for negotiations.
In an important change of tone, Mr Zelensky has recently indicated that he wants Russia to participate in the next round of negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, due in November:
"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results...since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit
He has also said that he recognises that not all the territory lost to Russia since 2014, such as Crimea, could be retaken militarily due to the high human cost.
These are wise words. But the problem he faces is that last year he gambled on a counter-offensive that many observers - myself included - said was doomed to failure. As a result, his negotiating position has weakened.
Nevertheless, there are levers that can be pulled to encourage Russia to negotiate. While it will have the upper hand in any protracted war of attrition, the impact on living standards will eventually begin to tell, with unpredictable consequences for Mr Putin and his government. The West also holds the leverage over frozen Russian assets, which can be used both as carrot and stick.
The seeds of compromise are there. Reaching a settlement will be very, very difficult, but as the president of Switzerland has said, the alternative is to do nothing - and that would continue to inflict immense damage on the economies of Western Europe as well as Russia, not to mention the catastrophic consequences that would befall the people of Ukraine.
I agree in general that this has to end in some form of settlement, pretty much unless Russia is willing to obliterate the entire country. I wish I could say for sure we would stop them.
I think my main worry is what would be in any practical way actually deterring Russia in the future? They munched up Crimea with minimal blowback and as much as their further bites into Ukraine directly have caused a lot of political and economic isolation along with obvious military losses, we always knew Russia would take steps to adapt therefore economic and soft power threats have diminishing returns. What credible security guarantee could we give Ukraine that wouldn't have much the same conflicts as the NATO membership that was deemed such an aggravating issue to begin with? "Oh it's like being in NATO, but no one commits to our to collective defence!"
With that in mind, what stops Russia simply pivoting to another Soviet era neighbour and doing the same? safe in the knowledge they know other powers won't decisively or strongly act for a while and they're already insulated against sanctions etc. I think any agreement will pretty much need an ongoing gun to Russians head, to be blunt about it.
Original post by Supermature
Again, I agree.
The OP has drawn attention to need for a peace plan. I think that what is important is to look for a basis upon which negotiations might begin rather than to second-guess where they might end up.
The OP has drawn attention to need for a peace plan. I think that what is important is to look for a basis upon which negotiations might begin rather than to second-guess where they might end up.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of peace plan?
Just as nobody disagrees with the concept of a peace plan for the middle east or an end to world hunger.
Edit
But this thread isn't asking about the concept of peace between Ukraine and Russia, its asking about a specific plan.
(edited 2 weeks ago)
Original post by Supermature
These are very valid points and your concerns are fully justified.
However, if the conflict is to be resolved without what could turn out to be many more years of death and destruction, then we need to find a realistic starting point for negotiations.
In an important change of tone, Mr Zelensky has recently indicated that he wants Russia to participate in the next round of negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, due in November:
"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results...since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit
He has also said that he recognises that not all the territory lost to Russia since 2014, such as Crimea, could be retaken militarily due to the high human cost.
These are wise words. But the problem he faces is that last year he gambled on a counter-offensive that many observers - myself included - said was doomed to failure. As a result, his negotiating position has weakened.
Nevertheless, there are levers that can be pulled to encourage Russia to negotiate. While it will have the upper hand in any protracted war of attrition, the impact on living standards will eventually begin to tell, with unpredictable consequences for Mr Putin and his government. The West also holds the leverage over frozen Russian assets, which can be used both as carrot and stick.
The seeds of compromise are there. Reaching a settlement will be very, very difficult, but as the president of Switzerland has said, the alternative is to do nothing - and that would continue to inflict immense damage on the economies of Western Europe as well as Russia, not to mention the catastrophic consequences that would befall the people of Ukraine.
However, if the conflict is to be resolved without what could turn out to be many more years of death and destruction, then we need to find a realistic starting point for negotiations.
In an important change of tone, Mr Zelensky has recently indicated that he wants Russia to participate in the next round of negotiations sponsored by Switzerland, due in November:
"The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results...since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it."
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240731-ukraine-s-zelensky-says-he-wants-russia-at-the-table-for-next-peace-summit
He has also said that he recognises that not all the territory lost to Russia since 2014, such as Crimea, could be retaken militarily due to the high human cost.
These are wise words. But the problem he faces is that last year he gambled on a counter-offensive that many observers - myself included - said was doomed to failure. As a result, his negotiating position has weakened.
Nevertheless, there are levers that can be pulled to encourage Russia to negotiate. While it will have the upper hand in any protracted war of attrition, the impact on living standards will eventually begin to tell, with unpredictable consequences for Mr Putin and his government. The West also holds the leverage over frozen Russian assets, which can be used both as carrot and stick.
The seeds of compromise are there. Reaching a settlement will be very, very difficult, but as the president of Switzerland has said, the alternative is to do nothing - and that would continue to inflict immense damage on the economies of Western Europe as well as Russia, not to mention the catastrophic consequences that would befall the people of Ukraine.
When did President Zelinskyy say (including by intonation) that he didn't want a representative of Russia at peace talks?
Original post by Quady
I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of peace plan?
Just as nobody disagrees with the concept of a peace plan for the middle east or an end to world hunger.
Edit
But this thread isn't asking about the concept of peace between Ukraine and Russia, its asking about a specific plan.
Just as nobody disagrees with the concept of a peace plan for the middle east or an end to world hunger.
Edit
But this thread isn't asking about the concept of peace between Ukraine and Russia, its asking about a specific plan.
There are those who take the view that, given enough support, Ukraine can win on the battlefield and that a peace settlement at this time would amount to a victory for Mr Putin.
The opening paragraph of the initial post in this thread invites discussion about a peace plan before going on to make specific proposals.
My argument is that a victory for either side is extremely unlikely and that negotiations that should have ended the violence in the spring of 2022 should resume immediately. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, has said that we must be prepared for the fighting to continue for up to 10 years. If he is right, those who favour that course should ponder what it is likely to mean for the people of Ukraine.
I have intentionally avoided addressing any particular formula for peace other than referring to what was being discussed in 2022. What is important at this stage is to afford both sides the opportunity to put forward realistic proposals for compromise. This can only happen when Russia joins the talks. At the moment, it is unwilling to do so because it believes it is winning. That is, in part, down to the failure of last year's Ukranian counter-offensive.
It is up to Russia's allies to encourage it to participate in the proposed second round of negotiations in Switzerland, this coming November. But there is no point in holding those talks unless the Russian point of view is given a proper hearing. The negotiations in June focused exclusively on a slightly watered down version Mr Zelensky's 10 point plan. It was quite reasonable to put that plan forward as a starting point. Now we need to the hear what Russia and its allies have to say.
Original post by Quady
When did President Zelinskyy say (including by intonation) that he didn't want a representative of Russia at peace talks?
Ukraine was opposed to Russia participating in the first round of peace talks, held in Switzerland in June and so a Russian delegation was not invited. That, in turn, led to a number of countries, notably China, declining to take part.
The Zelensky administration now appears to want Russia to join the talks because, since then, Russia has gained the upper hand on the battlefield. For that same reason, Russia is currently hesitating.
I don’t think that Ukraine should have to give up any land even if at this point that might not be reasonably possible.
Original post by Talkative Toad
I don’t think that Ukraine should have to give up any land even if at this point that might not be reasonably possible.
Original post by Wired_1800
Many Ukrainian lives are being deleted on the battlefield. For peace, i think Zelenksy should concede and make some compromises.
I don’t agree but I think that he might not have much choice.
Original post by Talkative Toad
I don’t agree but I think that he might not have much choice.
Yes, he needs to save Ukrainian lives. He should accept the deal and do the right thing.
Original post by Wired_1800
Yes, he needs to save Ukrainian lives. He should accept the deal and do the right thing.
I’m not sure about that.
Original post by Talkative Toad
I’m not sure about that.
Fair
Original post by Ambitious1999
The Ukraine civil war has been going on for nearly 3 years now and it’s costing countless lives a lot of money in aid and weapons supplies that the west can barely afford.
If Ukraine was split down the middle following the course of the Dnipro river, Ukraine could keep the western half and Russia could have the eastern half. The city of Kviv will be divided by the border with West Kviv going to Ukraine and the East Kviv going to Russia. After all that’s how peace was brough to Timor by having a separate East Timor. In this case peace will be achieved by having a separate East Ukraine.
Could this be the solution for peace?
If Ukraine was split down the middle following the course of the Dnipro river, Ukraine could keep the western half and Russia could have the eastern half. The city of Kviv will be divided by the border with West Kviv going to Ukraine and the East Kviv going to Russia. After all that’s how peace was brough to Timor by having a separate East Timor. In this case peace will be achieved by having a separate East Ukraine.
Could this be the solution for peace?
That would give Russia control over more territory than they do now. What possible incentive would Ukraine have to sign that.
The key to avoiding a North Vietnam (Russia) betrayal scenario is that Ukraine and Moldova gets NATO membership if they do cede anything.
(edited 1 week ago)
Original post by Wired_1800
Many Ukrainian lives are being deleted on the battlefield. For peace, i think Zelenksy should concede and make some compromises.
So as long as an invader makes some gains and causes casualties, the invaded country should capitulate and concede territory.
So, because Ukrainian forces have made advances into Russia and caused casualties, do you similarly claim that Russia should capitulate in concede territory in those areas?
You don't?
Gosh!
Original post by Wired_1800
Yes, he needs to save Ukrainian lives. He should accept the deal and do the right thing.
The quickest and most effective way to save Ukrainian lives is for Putin to order a cease fire and withdraw from Ukraine.
Would you support that move?
You wouldn't?
Gosh!
Original post by 2WheelGod
The quickest and most effective way to save Ukrainian lives is for Putin to order a cease fire and withdraw from Ukraine.
Would you support that move?
You wouldn't?
Gosh!
Would you support that move?
You wouldn't?
Gosh!
There is a peace deal to be signed. No need for hypotheticals.
Original post by 2WheelGod
So as long as an invader makes some gains and causes casualties, the invaded country should capitulate and concede territory.
So, because Ukrainian forces have made advances into Russia and caused casualties, do you similarly claim that Russia should capitulate in concede territory in those areas?
You don't?
Gosh!
So, because Ukrainian forces have made advances into Russia and caused casualties, do you similarly claim that Russia should capitulate in concede territory in those areas?
You don't?
Gosh!
Do you honestly believe that Ukraine has the upper-hand in this conflict?
Original post by Wired_1800
Yes, he needs to save Ukrainian lives. He should accept the deal and do the right thing.
As I understand it, President Putin is deleting the lives of Russians.
Given the pre-existing demographic issues in Russia surely President Putin needs to save lives?
Or is the objective of the special military operation to delete Russians in the 18-45 year age group?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I am giving up
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Jeremey Corbyn is a G
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How many countries have you been to?
- Study Medicine in Europe
- Work for a 17 year old.
- Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel payments
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Islam
- Kharkiv Institute Of Medicine And Biomedical Sciences
- Should i go for STP course of cardiac science
- would you recommend all nighters?
- Thinking of studying medicine in Bangladesh or India
- Favourite Prime Minister?
- How popular is Telegram in the UK?
- medicine in european university, tbilisi
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 3 weeks ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
