Since January 1st 2023 (and covering the Ukrainian “Counter-offensive” from 4th June) Ukraine has gained 143 sq miles of territory while Russia has gained 331 sq miles. This week Russia continues to make advances on the North and Central front line. Ukrainian losses continue at a high level while Russian losses appear to be decreasing. All this is from western sources.
The American think tank the RAND CORPORATION has produced a paper on the risk of provoking a direct Russia-Nato war. They have three scenarios:
1: a Russian strike could kill NATO officials inside of Ukraine causing NATO members to trigger a “collective response.”
This has probably already happened but is not admitted by NATO
2: Aggressive Russian manoeuvres against NATO reconnaissance planes in the Black Sea.
Around the time of recent strikes on Crimea, NATO has greatly increased such flights to aid Ukraine and French reconnaissance planes have now also begun operating in the Black Sea.
3: Russia misperceives a NATO move as the start of an intervention.
The arrival of British Storm Shadow missiles and the threat of F16s, German Taurus missiles, the suggestion, since denied, of British Naval engagement in the Black Sea and US long range missiles – all are unlikely to be “misperceived” !
THE PEACE ALTERNATIVE: A GERMAN PROPOSAL
Peace proposals and an appeal to the waring factions in Ukraine have been published in Germany by Professor Dr. Peter Brandt, (the son of the late German Chancellor Willy Brandt, famous for his “Ostpolitik” moves to reduce tension between East and West – he signed the Treaty of Moscow 1970 renouncing the use of force) Professor Dr. Hajo Funke, General (ret.) Harald Kujat and Professor Dr. Horst Teltschik. I think it is the best basis for negotiations I have seen as this needless and ruinous war provokes nuclear rhetoric and threatens to develop into a world wide conflict.
The peace process is not helped by the purblind rejection of all negotiations with Russia by President Zelensky, artificially boosted as he is, armed and protected by the forces of NATO into a false sense of his power as hundreds of thousands of his countrymen are hurled to their deaths, his country is being de-populated (12 million have left) and much of its physical infrastructure has been destroyed.
Although on 2 March 2022, a few days after the start of the Russian attack, a resolution tabled by Ukraine and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, called for a “peaceful settlement of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine through political dialogue, negotiations, mediation and other peaceful means” Zelensky subsequently reneged on this stance by passing a law which forbids negotiations with Russia.
Western peace moves, especially in the USA (where the massive costs, the depletion of arms and the desire to confront China have led to a desire to settle the Ukraine war first!), and an attempt to make Zelensky more realistic about his country’s prospects in war, have not yet changed this dangerous situation. But there are many voices similar to the former Pentagon adviser and military strategist Colonel Douglas MacGregor who has said:
We have reached the point where we have to either say that’s it, we can’t do anything else because too much else risks direct war with Russian or we get more deeply involved and we talk about the use of our own ground forces. We are not prepared. Make peace you fools!
I believe this German proposal could be a basis for peace:
Although the proposal starts with the false statement that Russia’s intervention on 24th February 2022 was a “war of aggression” (when it was in fact a defensive intervention on the side of Ukrainian Russians who had been under murderous attack for 8 years for demanding no more than political devolution) the authors do settle down to a more balanced analysis.
They point out that Ukraine tabled the above UN resolution, that there have been hundreds of thousands of casualties, massive costs to the European economy and a dangerous extension of the war is threatened as Ukraine demands direct NATO attacks on Russia and that therefore:
far-reaching decisions on the expenditures necessary to continue the war, contrary to all reason and despite the unachievable nature of the political goals, must not be left to the Ukrainian government alone.
The authors claim that “neither side can win the war” but that:
So far there is no evidence that the political goal of the “special military operation” is to conquer and occupy the whole of Ukraine and that subsequently Russia is planning to attack NATO states. Nor is there any evidence that Russia and the USA are making preparations for this eventuality.
They recall that on 30th September 2022 on the annexation of the four regions Putin said:
“We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, as we have said more than once.”
The authors point out that on 23rd June 2023:
The state news agency, RIA, published a commentary deploring the failure of the previous peace initiatives. Editor-in-chief Margarita Simonjan, who had previously called for tougher action by the Russian army, advocated a ceasefire and a demilitarised zone secured by UN peacekeepers. It was right to stop the bloodshed now, she said. Ukrainians should then vote in referendums to which country they want to belong. “Do we need territories that do not want to live with us? I am not sure about that. For some reason it seems to me that the president doesn’t need them either,” Simonjan said
These Kremlin approved words show how much basic common ground there is for any but the most aggressive neocon on the Western side. The opportunity for peace cannot be squandered.
The authors propose a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire and negotiations, appointing a High Commissioner for Peace and Security in Ukraine, decide on the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, both the West and Russia shall cease providing weapons to the war, and All irregular foreign forces, military advisors and intelligence personnel of both warring parties shall be withdrawn from Ukrainian territory.
Specifically:
– RUSSIA
- would withdraw its armed forces from the territory of Ukraine to the borders of 23 February 2022,
- would withdraw its armed forces on its own territory to no less than 50 km from the Ukrainian border, if they have been deployed to this zone since 24 February 2022.
- UKRAINE
- would withdraw its armed forces from a zone no less than 50 km from the Russian border, including (from) the regions of Luhansk Donetsk, Zaporozhia and Kherson,
- would declare as permanent its status as a neutral state and would not join any military alliance, including the North Atlantic Alliance. Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and state independence would be guaranteed by corresponding pledges of guarantor powers. The guarantees would not apply to Crimea, and the regions of Luhansk Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson within their former administrative borders,
- would renounce the development, possession, and deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory,
- would not allow the permanent or temporary deployment of the armed forces of a foreign power or its military infrastructure on its territory,
- would not permit exercises and manoeuvres by foreign armed forces on its territory,
- would implement the agreed ceilings on Ukrainian armed forces within two years.
GENERAL:
- The problems related to Crimea and Sevastopol would be negotiated bilaterally through diplomatic channels within 15 years and resolved by renouncing military force.
- The future status of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions would be mutually agreed in the negotiations. Russia would allow refugees to return (this would allow the referenda Simonjan, above, mentioned – RA)
- Guarantor states, which are members of the European Union, would promote Ukraine’s membership by supporting rule of law and democratic reforms.
- The reconstruction of the Ukrainian economy and infrastructure would be promoted through an international donor conference.
- Both Parties would participate in and constructively support a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in the CSCE format with the aim of establishing a European security and peace order. The conference would take place within one year of the entry into force of the Peace Treaty.
- The Treaty would enter into force as soon as both Parties and five guarantor states had signed the Treaty and, to the extent necessary, the parliaments of these states had approved it, and Ukraine had enshrined its status as a neutral, independent and non-aligned state (without the goal of NATO membership) by amending its constitution.19
- Any delays would not justify either breaking the ceasefire or withdrawing from the agreements reached so far.
Negotiations will have to start somewhere. As the international situation becomes dangerously more unstable, this German proposal is invaluable.
