Politics
A path to Ukrainian peace: Beyond exaggerated expectations
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.
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.
Politics
BREAKING: Rivers State Sole Administrator Vice Admiral Ibot-Eke Ibas Rtd Appoints Local Government Sole administrators And Reconstituted RISIEC Board.
Vice Admiral Ibot-Ete Ibas, the newly appointed Sole Administrator of Rivers State, has indeed made some key appointments.
As the administrator, he has appointed local government sole administrators and reconstituted the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RISIEC) board.
This move is part of his efforts to oversee the state’s affairs, following President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State due to persistent political crisis and instability.
Local Government Sole Administrators: Ibas has appointed administrators to manage the local governments, ensuring effective governance and stability at the local level.
RISIEC Board: The reconstituted board will oversee electoral processes in the state, ensuring fairness and transparency.
As a seasoned naval officer and diplomat, Vice Admiral Ibas brings his expertise to the role.
His background includes serving as the 22nd Chief of Naval Staff and Nigeria’s Ambassador to Ghana.
His experience will likely shape his approach to managing the state’s affairs and addressing the current challenges.
Trump moves to restore some terminated foreign aid programmes
Two women drown, die in Kano puddle
Congo Frees Jailed Americans After Failed Coup, Hands Them Over to U.S.
Trending6 months agoNYA demands release of ‘abducted’ Imo chairman, preaches good governance
- Business6 months ago
US court acquits Air Peace boss, slams Mayfield $4000 fine
Politics6 months agoMexico’s new president causes concern just weeks before the US elections
- Entertainment6 months ago
Bobrisky transferred from Immigration to FCID, spends night behind bars
- Entertainment6 months ago
Bobrisky falls ill in police custody, rushed to hospital
Politics6 months agoRussia bans imports of agro-products from Kazakhstan after refusal to join BRICS
Politics6 months agoPutin invites 20 world leaders
- Politics1 year ago
Nigerian Senate passes Bill seeking the establishment of the South East Development Commission.