Foreign Affairs columnist Samuel Charap writes about the peace framework that Ukrainian diplomats introduced in March and the potential the framework has in establishing long-term peace in Ukraine. The core of the proposed deal is Ukrainian neutrality – meaning Kyiv would renounce its ambition to join NATO and embrace permanent neutrality. In exchange, it will receive security guarantees from Western partners and Russia. The guarantees would include assistance, including the use of armed force in the event of an attack on Ukraine. If this framework becomes the basis of an eventual settlement, the result would be a mechanism that would make Russia itself a stakeholder in Ukraine’s security, writes Charap. It is important to note that Russia has not declined this proposal. Moreover, in his meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in late April, Putin called the proposal “a real breakthrough”. The whole idea of the framework is to arrange commitment to the security and peace of a third country on the understanding that it will remain neutral. Similar deals were made to guarantee Belgiumʼs independence in 1831 and 1839, which gained 75 years of peace for the country. When in 1914, Germany violated its guarantee by invading Belgium, the UK honored its guarantee and entered the war with Germany. The author claims a similar deal could be a tangible way for peace in Ukraine – as if Russia agrees to it – attacking Ukraine will be a high risk of a war with the United States. Of course, such an agreement would be challenging to arrange, but if Kyiv and Moscow return to the table, the Istanbul communique could point the way to the long-term security in Ukraine.
Politico writes that Germany seems to lose its powers over central and eastern European countries due to its weak policy towards Russia. Following the retirement of a long-time chancellor Angela Merkel and the formation of a complex three-party governing coalition in Berlin, Germanу has been issuing inconsistent messages and provided a poor response to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, writes the outlet. This resulted in the weakening of Berlin’s influence on multiple EU countries. The recent Russian oil embargo decision (with the exemption of pipeline delivered oil) was made without Germany’s pivotal role, one EU diplomat told Politico that “Scholz is a real problem. He’s just being the mercantile German instead of the compromise-maker that Merkel was. There is no one stepping in for Merkel." The full-scale invasion of Ukraine itself already was a confirmation that Germany had made massive historical mistakes by putting economic interest over the isolation of a warmongering dictator. Both Germany and France were skeptical of the possibility of war until the very last moment. Still, some Eastern European diplomats hoped that Germany would re-establish its credibility in international affairs, maybe even with the help of their charismatic foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. The outlet also mentions that Mario Draghi, the Prime Minister of Italy, is a politician who could be stepping into Merkel’s powerbroker role; however Italian political baggage of unstable politics limits the scope of his influence.
The Telegraph writes about Putin’s plan to present the seizure of Severodonetsk as a big victory. In the changing narrative of the Kremlin, the seizure of the entire Donetsk and Luhansk oblast is shown as “ the plan all along”, therefore Russia needs to praise its territorial gains there. To be able to do so, it seems Putin throws everything he can at Severodonetsk, the last city in Luhansk oblast uncontrolled by Russia. There has been less tally of Russian casualties reported by Ukrainian authorities recently, writes the outlet. This might be the reduced number of tanks and armored carriers Russia has on the frontline. Of course, the impending seizure of Severodonetsk will be one of many setbacks for Ukraine, but it also is a sign that Putin’s plan is failing. If Russia had to call upon old T-62 tanks and throw much of what is left of their forces to capture a middle-sized city, its army wouldn’t be able to continue the march west to achieve the initial goals of this military campaign. In war, there are setbacks just as much as successes. The trick is to make sure the latter outnumbers the former.
The Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle writes that only Putin can stop the war in Ukraine in his recent op-ed. It is weird, writes Von Drehle, that various leaders and thinkers seem to think the US and its allies have the power to end the war, as they complain that Ukrainian resistance supported by allies is standing in the way of the cease-fire. This is absurd, as Ukraine has offered generous cease-fire terms to Russia since the first week of the full-scale invasion, but Russia never wanted to negotiate a cease-fire. Even if Kissinger and others are motivated by the need to end the atrocities as quickly as possible, they overestimate the power western allies have to impose terms on Ukraine. Von Drehle reminds readers of older ladies making Molotov cocktails in the early days of the war and writes that such people will decide themselves when to stop fighting. Moreover, Putin does not want peace, he prefers thousands of Russian soldiers killed and the Russian economy destroyed rather than negotiate a cease-fire. Putin will end the war only when he decides there is no other choice, therefore Ukraine must fight on, summarizes Von Drehle.