IS THERE HOPE FOR ANY SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM SOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE?

The enmity & willingness to escalate on both sides provides little hope for negotiations seeking peace taking place any time soon. But what hope might there still be however?

In my view the answer to the situation in Ukraine would resolve itself, in anything approaching the short to medium term, with one single major change. That change would provide everything the winning side has sought from the beginning. Russia of course, is the winning side and has said multiple times what its primary concerns and goals were.

In my view the answer to the situation in Ukraine would resolve itself, in anything approaching the short to medium term, with one single major change. That change (hard to swallow as it may be for the Kiev regime) would be to provide what the winning side has sought from the outset. Russia of course, is the winning side and has said multiple times what its primary concerns and goals were and are.

The two primary goals Russia has had from the beginning are that Ukraine stays independent of NATO, and two, that the Russian-speaking majority in the Donbass be left alone to organise themselves as they see fit without being militarily attacked.

What is that route to that solution?

First and foremost we must look at what must be established before it can be effected.

The most important factor without which nothing at all can be achieved in either short or medium term: Russia has to trust that both the Kiev regime and its western sponsors will abide by any agreements they make.

The second most important factor for this solution to move forward is that the Kiev regime must fully realise that they cannot win (and, as we have heard from Zelensky yesterday) that it is also willing therefore to agree to Russia retaining the territory it has taken to date.

Both are sticking points but if they can be successfully resolved then the solution comes into play. Without them there is zero hope of ANY progress and all will be resolved on the battlefield.

Naturally, if Russia has no trust that the Ukrainians will abide by any agreed ceasefire stipulations regarding not re-arming then the ceasefire will simply not happen. If Russia manages to trust sufficiently that Ukraine will not re-arm then finds exactly this is taking place, then the ceasefire will collapse immediately. As I say, the key, indispensable factor n the Russian side is trust. The Russians have trusted before (Minsk/Istanbul) and have seen that trust cynically abused. So, any pledges the Ukrainians make will most probably have to be supervised on the ground by personnel of third party forces from NEUTRAL nations.

If the resulting ceasefire, in general, is successful, then we move to the second stage, presidential and general elections and the subsequent agreement on a permanent solution.

The only solution which can bring peace (keeping in mind that Russia is the winner of this war) is firstly, for the regime to change the Ukrainian constitution from the goal of joining NATO to a pledge NEVER to do so. Secondly, the Kiev regime must be willing to give up all territory Russia has gained over the last almost three years of war. If the Ukrainian president and the authorities under his command cannot do these two things (leaving aside the question of demilitarisation and denazification for much later) then there is no point starting negotiations, even for a ceasefire, for all will come to naught.

Russia cannot achieve its goals merely through the acquisition of more territory. Russia would have to progress all the way into the heart of Ukraine, far, far beyond the banks of the Dnieper, to attain the level of security for the new, expanded Russian Federation it seeks. (In order to so weaken the Ukrainian economy that no matter how many weapons it receives from the West it has no chance then of defeating the Russians.)

Given the size of the land mass of Ukraine Russia would be required to take this, nigh on impossible task of fighting all the way across at least 50% of Ukraine. I see this as an insurmountable barrier for the Russian military, a task that, in my view, is clearly beyond them.

This leaves Russia with having to make do with some set borders on the other side of which the Ukrainians would certainly still pose a grave danger. In my view Russia cannot go all the way into central Ukraine, therefore the fighting for ever more territory now will avail it little to nothing. The limited amount taken (not enough to wreck Ukraine to the level of being impotent) now or in 6 months, will avail Russia little regarding security guarantees if Russia insists on fighting. I see no security for Russia in battling on and on simply to get more territory when that is not going to materially help in achieving the necessary goal of security for all lands taken once this is all over. It can’t possibly take enough of Ukraine to render it as weak as would be required. So, I would recommend Russia seeks a solution based on the land it currently holds under its control and no more and through agreeing this work out an agreement of understanding that at lest brings about the first step, a stable and lasting ceasefire.

The problem of course will be the extremely thorny one mentioned at the beginning, Russia trusting that Ukraine will not re-arm and that the regime has truly resigned itself to ceasing its fight against Russia seeking to regain lost territory (even if it continues to fight for this through diplomatic means).

If the level of trust can be achieved (a very big if), with Ukraine and its sponsors able somehow to demonstrate to Russia that it can indeed fully trust what it has agreed to, then an extended ceasefire could very well be agreed, one long enough for presidential and general elections to take place. I have no doubt that the massively war-weary Ukrainians would elect representatives who would promise an end to the fighting and instead seek to find ways to bring about a renewed, stable peace.

With a new president and government in place, the ceasefire agreements can be built upon with time (and crucially, trust) to ultimately agree and fix a permanent border between the Russian federation and Ukraine. This in conjunction with a comprehensive peace treaty between the two nations that ultimately allows the free flow of civilians across the agreed borders, primarily agreed on for the uniting of families separated by the war.

Ultimately I believe that, over time (admittedly perhaps much time) a normalisation of relations, at least by the everyday folk on both sides, can be achieved.

All hangs on the election of a new Ukrainian president and government that want peace, not war. This of course hangs on enough trust and agreement being built between both sides for a ceasefire to be feasible, reliable and kept stably in place. If these vital elements are realised and held in place for a protracted, hopefully permanent basis, I would foresee a gradual forward movement to resolving ALL other issues (such as demilitarisation and denazification) over the several years following, given good faith on both sides.

This outlines the basis of my solution to this tragic, brutal and bloody war. Due to the extreme nature of the diverse fierce negativity of all that has transpired during this conflict none of this will be at all easy. After any war down the ages reconciliation in the aftermath can never be said to be an easy task. But with the required political will with the force of majority public opinion behind it, it can be done, as we have seen many times before in history. In fact it MUST be done for there to be any prospect of normal life returning at all.