Donald Trump made no secret of the undeniable fact that one in every of his top priorities upon resuming office can be bringing the conflict in Ukraine to a right away end, and his administration has now implicitly signalled that a negotiated settlement is the aim of the United States.
This goes against three years of Western policy, which principally took the Ukrainian line that the war would end either with the entire destruction of the Ukrainian state, or by Ukraine re-taking all of the territory it has lost to Russia, including the Crimea, annexed in 2014.
The Trump administration has finally conceded that Ukraine taking back the Crimea by force of arms is and at all times has been a fantasy.
Although it continues to be early days, the signs are that any deal will involve Russia holding on to the territorial gains it has made at Ukrainian expense because the “Special Military Operation” began in early 2022.
If peace is made on such terms, can we actually call Vladimir Putin a “peacemaker”. No doubt it is going to be galling for individuals who understandably blame Putin for the conflict, to see him lauded as a peacemaker.
It’s price remembering though, that from Putin’s perspective, he didn’t start this conflict. According to Putin, the conflict began in 2014 when Western powers backed a coup against the pro-Russian, but democratically elected government of Ukraine. It’s easy to forget, but since that point conflict has been ongoing within the Donbas region.
In this sense the 2022 “full scale invasion” was not a declaration of war, but a serious escalation of a pre-existing conflict.
Add into this mix Putin’s claims that the West has consistently broken guarantees to not expand NATO to the east and, in his mind, threaten Russia. Whether we feel the identical or not, Putin has grievances that he feels are legitimate and have been consistently ignored.
This is just not to say that Russia’s actions in Ukraine since 2022 are justified, nevertheless it is to say that the present situation could have been avoided if either side of the conflict were in a position to make an try to understand one another’s concerns and interests, reasonably than attempting to gobble up as much of the world into their “sphere of interest” as possible.
In this sense, bringing about international peace is probably not so different from bringing about peace between individuals. Both parties should be willing to take heed to the opposite, and sometimes make compromises, reasonably than insisting that they need to and can get every thing they need.
There is little question that this becomes harder if 1000’s of individuals have been killed or maimed for a selected cause. Compromise can seem to be a betrayal of those that died for the cause. Ultimately there comes a degree though when every body and each nation must ask itself if the sacrifices they’re making are definitely worth the potential outcomes.
