Kiev’s last chance

Actually; I wondered about the title for this piece. It is not just Kiev’s last chance, but the last chance for everyone; Europe and Russia as well. The new US ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine is the best deal that can be drawn up. Please do read the full text of the plan. As usual, the Guardian feels free to present the plan, but not to publish the source. There is a whole theme here about how the Western media operates; Western media act as a kind of information middle-man, interpreting and narrative building. They rarely publish the actual sources, for people to make up their own minds. (I’d like to come back to this theme another day). The disgusting, war-mongering liberal Guardian [1] presents it as plan which “meets Russia’s maximalist demands”. One is tempted to say “falsely presents it”. Probably they haven’t done more than glance at it, before they talk it down. They are on the side of the liberal European elites, and Baltic nationalists, who, it seems, still want war. Not least, because having spent 4 years denouncing Russia in absolutist terms, anything which looks like a compromise will be a massive humiliation for them.

Real compromises for all sides

The plan contains obvious Trumpian traces. The ideas about investment funds [14] are obviously Trump’s contribution. It seems he likes to turn everything into a business opportunity. However; the plan also shows considerable evidence that serious, experienced, conflict resolution experts have been at work. Let’s consider a few points;

1.- A key sticking point for Ukrainian nationalists would have been Russian demands that Ukraine enact a law to make Russian an official language in Ukraine. (Lavrov was re-iterating this demand only last week). However, contrary to the (“false”!) claims in the Guardian – this is one of several red-lines which the document skilfully gets round:

Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

As this site has pointed out repeatedly; a huge irony here in relation to Russia’s demands for protections for the Russian-leaning minority in Ukraine, (I am not saying “Russian speaking”, because even Ukrainians who are nationalist, still often prefer to speak Russian), is that the EU itself has a demand that members respect minority rights! [2] So, crafting this demand in terms of the EU code takes the sting out of it, or should take the sting out of it for Ukraine. The text carefully avoids the specific demand for Kiev to enact a law making Russian an official language. They need, however, to enact a law preventing discrimination against Russian; the obvious compromise. Taken together with reference to the EU provision that member states must respect minority rights, this produces the best possible compromise in this regard. It is a thoughtful piece of work.

2.- Territorial concessions. Kiev will have to accept the transfer to Russia of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, and those parts of Kherson and Zaporizhia currently occupied by Russia. Another red line for Ukrainian nationalists would have been not giving up the small part of Donetsk still under their control, which Russia has absolutely demanded be transferred to them. The compromise is that it will be transferred to Russia but will remain a de-militarized zone; Russia cannot move troops into it. This is the best way of satisfying the Russian demand for the whole of Donbas, a position which Putin could not possibly back down from for domestic political reasons, while trying to make the pill less bitter for Ukrainian nationalists. Again; this is a serious and thoughtful compromise proposal.

3. There is a straightforward agreement that NATO will cease expanding and that “Russia will not invade neighbouring countries”. [3] NATO will have to put a statute in its constitution to the effect that Ukraine will not join NATO. [7]. The proposal for a clause in the NATO constitution removes the primary cause of this war.

4. European security is also taken into account. “Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine”. [16]. For Russia this is perhaps not a big loss as Russia, (contrary to the absurd claims in Europe), has, and never had, any intention of attacking Europe. Nonetheless it does represent a concession by Russia – to change their own law, to satisfy European hysteria. The other provisions, that the lifting of sanctions will be automatically cancelled should Russia attack Ukraine again [10] and even that such action would lead to a “decisive coordinated military response”, offer concrete security guarantees for Europe – who claim that “Ukrainian security is our security”. European jets will be stationed in Poland. (This helps keep Poland on board and also offers a small potential face-saver for Starmer and Macon and their “Collation of the Willing’).

5. A joint running of the Zaporizhia nuclear plant is proposed.

6. Global security is enhanced by a US-Russia affirmation to continue the nuclear control (Start or new Start) treaties.

7. Ukraine must hold elections within 100 days. This meets a Russian demand, but also should present no difficulties for Kiev as they would have to hold elections anyway once martial law is lifted.

Contrary to liberal presentations, this plan represents real concessions from Russia

This is a skilful document, which probably embodies the only possibility for a negotiated end to the conflict. It is a bold proposal in that it covers all angles; Russia- EU relations, Ukraine’s membership of the EU, questions of minority rights in Ukraine, territorial matters, the frozen Russian funds, the lifting of sanctions and reintegration of Russia into the G8, and global nuclear non proliferation. Contrary to what the Guardian will tell you, this proposal contains very significant concessions from Russia. They have to drop their claim to the entirety of Kherson and Zaporizhia provinces. Liberals like to mock this as dropping a claim to land they do not even occupy. And, while it is true that they do not occupy that land, this is, nonetheless an alteration in their stated war aims. There was a pompous ceremony in the Kremlin which incorporated all of Kerson and Zaporizhia; so this is a climb-down of sorts. (This site has long predicted that Putin would offer just this concession). Russia will not get their frozen in the EU funds back. They will have to pay something which looks like reparations with part of it, (though the document carefully avoids using that word), and the remainder will be invested in some kind of US-Russian investment vehicle for Ukraine. [15]. As mentioned above Russia will have to put into their own law a policy of non-aggression against Europe and Ukraine. In addition, both Ukraine and Russia are enjoined to: “undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice”. This latter, is a skilful approach which tackles both Ukrainian ultra-nationalism and excessive Russian patriotism, without humiliating either side. Russia will have to accept that Ukraine will get some US security guarantees and European jets will be positioned in Poland to potentially react in case of a further Russian “invasion”. In allowing the US to play a key role in implementing the agreement Russia implicitly accepts the leading role of the US. So; there are real concessions in this from the Russian side. It is not an unadulterated military victory for Russia. The Western liberal media’s (at least the Guardian’s) starting point is to reject this, and present it as a total climbdown for Ukraine. But, this is not an honest assessment.

How will European elites react?

A key point now will be how the ridiculous European elites react. Parts of the plan depend on their agreement; for example, it is Europe who will have to release the frozen Russian funds. European sanctions are not specifically mentioned, but one assumes that they are intended by “global sanctions” and I would assume that this is how Russia will understand sanctions relief. Europe will have to agree to readmit Russia to the G8. And, of course, they will have to stop funding the war. The one point which might sway their minds considerably is that the current funding for Ukraine is due to run out in Q2 2026, and the US will provide no new funding. This means that if they want to continue the war, the entire burden of funding Ukraine, militarily and fiscally, will fall on their shoulders. If they cannot agree to steal the Russian funds, which both Euroclear [2] and Belgium are seriously resisting, for legal reasons, then Europe would have to undertake to borrow large amounts of money and, given the existing levels of debt, this is problematic for them. So, with this in mind European leaders might realise that this presents them with an off-ramp at a convenient moment. They would also appear in a rather bad light, if, faced with a credible peace plan, they chose to continue the war. (This is why the liberal media will initially present this peace plan as a ‘surrender’ to Russia; but we can expect that if Europe does accept it, the liberal media will fall into line).

Will Zelensky be able to bring his nationalist fringe with him?

The other concern must be that even if Zelensky can accept this and bring with him enough of the decision makers in Kiev to make it stick, there are likely to be extreme nationalists in Ukraine who still reject it. Recall that when Zelensky tried to solve the Donbas conflict in 2019 he was thwarted by the Azov battalion who threatened to march on Kiev if he went ahead with a planned referendum. I don’t know anything about internal Ukrainian politics, (and there is surprisingly little information on this topic, even on the dissident media shows which I watch), but I would guess that some nationalists will reject this. The question is what will they do? The document wisely anticipates this problem and has several provisions which aim to block sabotage attempts. For example: “If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.”. [10] and “After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.” [22]. One would hope then, that the nationalists in Kiev would focus their efforts on internal matters. The worst case would be the birth of some kind of Ukrainian nationalist terrorist group.

Summary – will sanity prevail in the EU?

in summary; this is a very good document, surprisingly so. It embodies real conflict-resolution skill; with proposals that try to meet the demands of each side, while avoiding humiliating either side, for example, by making provisions applicable to both sides, and by balancing one concession against another. There is no better deal available for anyone than this. If the EU sabotages it, either by outright rejection, or by trying to carp about various parts of it, and drag out a negotiating process, in order to make themselves appear important and relevant, (expect renewed calls for a ceasefire before negotiations), then Russia will lose interest and will finally and irrevocably commit to a total military solution. I would give this period no more than a few weeks. It is either this peace plan, or, to borrow John Mearsheimer’s phrase, “an ugly military victory for Russia”, and a very long period of hostile relations between Russia and Europe. Who in their right mind would choose the latter rather than this plan which represents a long-term solution for all sides? We will see. (The obvious danger is that Europe will try to renegotiate it. But; at some point Russia will just get fed up and will just decide that negotiation is impossible and will irrevocably commit to the full military solution).

Update – reaction in Europe

“From my point of view, it is not a real plan, but simply a list of topics,” Johann Wadephul [German Foreign Minister] told journalists in Brussels, in comments reported by AFP. [3]

As we show above, far from being “not a real plan”, this is a very thoughtful and serious document which embodies well-known and core principles of conflict resolution. Given the unfortunately low intellectual level in Europe we can expect these kinds of reason-free reactions. Europe, of course, does provide themselves with a face-saving off-ramp, (“It will be Ukraine that decides what compromises it makes”, as the Foreign Minister is at pains to add). Let’s hope they take it and we can worry about their sanity another day.

And this is von der Leyen’s reported reaction:

Ooof. The EU leaders now get asked by a reporter about how the bloc finds itself so “appallingly sidelined” in the talks on Ukraine, with some further criticism of its slow decision-making on key issues.

Von der Leyen responds by saying that Putin’s plans to take Kyiv in three days or three weeks failed “first and foremost because of the courage of the Ukrainian people, without any question,” but she stresses that the EU “supported, from day one, the Ukrainian people as much as possible.”

She then talks up “biting sanctions” on Ukraine and insists “we will continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.” [4]

Notice the Guardian’s error: “biting sanctions” on Ukraine! They are in panic mode. But, again, looked at positively, these remarks do look a bit like a face-saving path is being established; “well; we stopped Putin from taking Ukraine in 3 days”. The line “supported, from day one, the Ukrainian people as much as possible.” I find very positive, because, with the ‘as much as possible’, it could contain an implicit admission that they admit that the money has run out, and none of the 3 available options [5] to continue funding Ukraine are viable.

The next three weeks will tell.

Notes

Related Posts

Liberal media management of the Trump prosecutionLiberal media management of the Trump prosecution

Political spin – empty words in the UKPolitical spin – empty words in the UK

John Mearsheimer on UkraineJohn Mearsheimer on Ukraine