Connect with us

Politics

A path to Ukrainian peace: Beyond exaggerated expectations

Published

on

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, greets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, following a joint press conference in Kyiv, September 2024 Christoph Soeder/AP
Spread the love

The protracted, attritional war that Russia has waged against Ukraine for nearly three years has led analysts and political leaders alike to ponder how to end this war as soon as possible and achieve a lasting peace.

Increasingly, proposals are emerging to apply a model similar to the one implemented in Germany after World War II. Adapting to Ukraine would mean that it would never relinquish the annexed territories, and the West would never recognise these territories as Russian.

However, Ukraine would accept the reality that it cannot reclaim the occupied territories through force and would commit to a non-violent approach.

In exchange, Ukraine would demand concrete, not merely symbolic, security guarantees that Russia would not repeat its aggression against Ukraine.

Just recently, both Czech President Petr Pavel and outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have expressed themselves along a similar vein. So, what is preventing the implementation of such a solution?

I would say that a problem lies in the exaggerated and unrealistic expectations held by Ukrainian citizens and a significant part of the democratic world.

This is a common phenomenon within the political sphere. Unrealistic expectations can be inadvertently cultivated not only by populists but also by well-intentioned politicians who make excessive promises to their constituents.

Such expectations pose a significant risk, not merely to the politicians who propagate them, but more importantly to the communities they represent, as these communities may find themselves on a perilous path with limited options for reversal.

Can we really make Putin kneel?

It appears that Ukraine has experienced precisely this phenomenon. The initial Ukrainian successes, including the defence of Kyiv against a blitzkrieg (a rapid invasion by Russian airborne troops at the outset of the war), the defence of Kharkiv, and the subsequent daring counteroffensive, led both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and parts of the West to experience euphoria and to foster expectations of a Ukrainian victory over Russia, with Western support.

These expectations included the notion of expelling Russian forces from all occupied territories, including Crimea.

Talk of the West’s vast economic and military superiority also contributed to the illusion that, eventually, Putin will kneel.

Russian soldiers guard a pier where two Ukrainian naval vessels are moored, in Sevastopol, March 2014 AP Photo

The West is also to blame for creating these exaggerated, unrealistic expectations. Some leaders hoped to persuade Putin to back down or at least suspend his operation. In the case of Ukraine, the granting of EU candidate status was considered by many to be something that was not even on the table.

Talk of the West’s vast economic and military superiority also contributed to the illusion that, eventually, Putin will kneel.

However, it seems to me that President Zelensky also made a key mistake by not involving the Ukrainian parliamentary opposition in solving the problem.

On the contrary, there have been reports here and there that Ukrainian border guards have not allowed the leader of the opposition, former President Petro Poroshenko, to leave Ukraine.

The mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, has repeatedly expressed his criticism of the president. There are no known joint negotiations by the wider Ukrainian political leadership to seek a common solution to the key issues of the war.

I believe Zelenskyy should do this

And that’s how misinformation spreads. For example, the idea that these are various nationalist, if not outright fascist, units of Ukrainian fighters who are preventing President Zelenskyy from making any compromises.

In reality, it is the Ukrainian president himself who has manoeuvred himself into a position where the opposition will not proactively help him, and his voters will have a hard time understanding a potential change of approach to ending the war and thus will also have a hard time accepting any compromise.

He should invite the parliamentary opposition to the negotiating table, lay his cards on it and try to find a broad political consensus among Ukrainian leaders in an open discussion on the future arrangement of relations with Russia.

Therefore, I believe that the president of Ukraine should change his approach, first and foremost towards the representatives of the Ukrainian political opposition.

Instead of the pompous global peace summits that are doomed to failure in advance, instead of the “victory plans” that President Zelenskyy is presenting to world leaders (which, it seems, are just a new version of older demands), he should organise a peace summit at home, in Kyiv.

He should invite the parliamentary opposition to the negotiating table, lay his cards on it and try to find a broad political consensus among Ukrainian leaders in an open discussion on the future arrangement of relations with Russia.

Agreeing on necessary compromises

Undoubtedly, the price for such a change in approach could be a demand from the opposition to participate in the governance of Ukraine. There may also be other political demands.

In any case, the upside of such demands would be substantial: a broad political consensus among the Ukrainian political elite, which would begin to address Ukrainian citizens in a common, unified language.

Only in this way is it possible to agree to the compromises that are necessary to end the war and establish a sustainable peace. At the same time, these compromises in no way mean capitulation or resignation to a part of Ukrainian territory.

Mikuláš Dzurinda is president of Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the EPP-affiliated think-tank, and former prime minister of Slovakia.

Politics

INEC announces date for Anambra Governorship Election

Published

on

Spread the love

 

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has announced the date for the Anambra governorship election.

Addressing representatives of political parties at the INEC headquarters in Abuja on Thursday, October 17, INEC national chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu said the election will be held on Saturday 8th November 2025.

His words: “As you are aware, the last governorship election in Anambra State was held on 6th November 2021. By the effluxion of time, the governorship election is due next year.

“Consequently, the Commission has approved that the 2025 Anambra State Governorship election will hold on Saturday 8th November 2025.

“In compliance with the mandatory requirement of 360 days, the formal notice for the election will be published on 13th November 2024. Party primaries will be held from 20th March 2025 to 10th April 2025.

“The candidate nomination portal will open at 9.00 am on 18th April 2025 and close at 6.00 pm on 12th May 2025. The final list of candidates will be published on 9th June 2025.

“Campaign in public by political parties will commence on 11th June 2025 and end at midnight of Thursday 6th November 2025. Voting will take place in all the 5,720 Polling Units across the State on Saturday 8th November 2025.

“In the coming weeks, the Commission will provide details of other electoral activities, including the registration of new voters, transfer of voters and the replacement of lost or damaged PVCs.

“The detailed Timetable and Schedule of Activities for the 2025 Anambra State Governorship election will be uploaded to our website and social media platforms before the end of this meeting.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Bill to create new state passes second reading in House of Reps

Published

on

Spread the love

 

A bill to create Ogoja State from Cross River has successfully passed its second reading in the House of Representatives.

Co-sponsored by Godwin Offiono and three other lawmakers, the proposal seeks to amend the 1999 constitution to carve out a new state in the South-South region.

Moving the motion, Mr Offiono said the “essence of this bill is rested on equity.”

The bill progressed after a voice vote led by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas during Thursday’s plenary session.

It has now been forwarded to the committee on constitutional review for further action.

The national assembly is actively working on constitutional amendments, including the creation of new states.

Since Nigeria’s return to democratic governance in 1999, no new state has been created.

Continue Reading

Politics

Harris seeks to lure winnable Republicans in Fox interview

Published

on

For Harris, the appearance was a chance to win over any Fox viewers who might be disillusioned with Trump © Brian Snyder/REUTERS
Spread the love

 

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris was embroiled in heated exchanges in her first interview with US broadcaster Fox News. Harris said, if elected, her presidency would not be “a continuation of Joe Biden’s.”

US Vice President Kamala Harris faced a combative interview on Fox News on Wednesday, verbally sparring with anchor Bret Baier on immigration and her credibility as a change candidate.

 

The interview was her first foray onto the network — popular with conservative viewers — as she seeks to bolster her outreach to Republican-leaning voters less than three weeks before the November 5 election.

What happened in the interview?

Harris’ nearly 30-minute sit-down with Baier was a lively one, with the two repeatedly talking over on another.

At one point, Baier kept talking when Harris tried to answer to his challenges on immigration, Harris said: “May I please finish? … You have to let me finish, please.”

In another heated moment when pushing back against Baier’s line of questioning, the Democratic White House candidate said: “I would like if we could have a conversation that is grounded in a full assessment of the facts.”

While Harris tried multiple times to switch the conversation to attacking former US President Donald Trump, She also spoke about what a future presidency of her own might look like.

Just a week after saying she couldn’t name any move made by US President Joe Biden that she would have done differently, Harris asserted, “My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.”

“Like every new president that comes into office, I will bring my life experiences, and my professional experiences and fresh and new ideas.”

What did Harris say about her opponent?

Asked to clarify her assertion that she wants to “turn the page,” Harris said her campaign was about “turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump.”

“People are exhausted with someone who professes to be a leader and who spends full time demeaning and engaging in personal grievances,” she said, adding: “He’s not stable.”

On immigration — a policy area on which Harris is seen as vulnerable, she expressed regret over the deaths of women killed by people detained and then released after crossing into the US illegally during the Biden administration.

However, she criticized Trump for his role in holding up a bipartisan immigration bill earlier this year that would have increased border funding.

She said Trump had swayed lawmakers to reject the law because “he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

What DW’s United States correspondent thought

DW Washington correspondent Janelle Dumalaon said nearly the first third of the interview was taken up by a “crosstalk-heavy back-and-forth on immigration,” with Fox host Brett Baier attempting to unsettle Kamala Harris on what is seen as her weakest issue.

“Harris repeatedly tried, with limited success, to point out that it was former President Donald Trump who got in the way of a bipartisan border bill that would have helped address high levels of irregular immigration.

“At times the interview played like an assertiveness contest, with Baier repeatedly talking over the vice-president while she fought to make herself heard.

Dumalaon said the purpose for Harris was “to present the mainstays of her stump speech to those who might not have heard them yet.”

She said Harris appeared to have calculated that any share viewers still undecided, “however few,” were worth appealing to, and that she might even gain “bonus points if she can show them toughness in an adversarial situation.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending