PEACE NEGOTIATIONS: RUSSIA AND UKRAINE.

The world is negotiating. Communication is at a level higher than ever before. And yes! We are meeting ourselves. These days, reflection on who we are and how we should act is at its peak. Even with scarce resources due to the planet’s enormous population, we are, as I always say here on our blog, engaging in dialogue. Conversations are becoming increasingly concentrated, which does not truly represent the certainty and trust necessary for business, but it is a good path given all the possibilities we have at hand.

The art of dialogue is knowing when to accept another’s opinion—that sums up what dialogue truly is. Otherwise, the most that can happen is two people, at the very least, delivering monologues at the same time. We need to find a middle ground in our needs so that we can move forward together in negotiations, which are the foundations of the Society of Progress. Today I woke up optimistic! I always wake up optimistic when I drink a good amount of coffee at the start of my work. Caffeine is a holy remedy for those who enjoy it, and without a doubt, it activates the drive for work.

My work is this: to write here in this space, our Blog.

With advances in Peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia taking place in Paris today, there is much to be said about a hopeful scenario for a ceasefire that may occur if all goes well. The conflict has already lasted more than four years, and it is past time for us to reach a conclusion and resolution, as both sides are exhausted.

Donbass, a region occupied by Russia in more than 90% of its territory, needs to be consolidated, and the only solution I see is Kiev relinquishing the region in exchange for protection from Western and Asian countries, confirming a concrete state of border lines between those involved in the conflict so that the neighborhood system can function peacefully, and thus also the commercial flow among them. Without a doubt, this is the right path to establish progress toward Lasting Peace.

The consequences of a possible agreement in this sense would mark positive effects across the entire planet, in such a way that there are no negative consequences for Ukraine due to the cession of land, which must be done even without a referendum. Otherwise, the hostile climate tends to continue and drag on indefinitely—a tiring battle that, in fact, will not have the capacity to remove Russian troops occupying the region. Furthermore, I do not see any other Ukrainian territory to be ceded in Peace negotiations. It is clear that for Russia, only Donbass is rightful due to the occupation that has already been consolidated. I say this because all the news we can find regarding the conflict ties the belonging of the region to Russia, due to the occupation that occurred long ago, and border lines can already be drawn based on this perspective.

On the other side of the coin, it is crucial to understand that both the United States of America and China, for example, need to offer guarantees of protection to the Ukrainian people in exchange for the cession of Donbass. In this way, the conflict is resolved and the region can return to its glorious days of Peace, leaving a war zone for a truly peaceful state. If I were in Paris to propose a first ceasefire agreement for negotiations, it would be based on this perspective, because in this chess game that the relationship between the involved countries has become, there is no other path but the end of the game with guarantees that there has been relative respect for international principles of protection. In this way, the puzzle, which for a long time had no pieces in play, is automatically assembled. And the central figure that emerges is a Peace Treaty.

Beginning with a 30-day ceasefire, there is room for friendlier negotiations and greater resolution of this situation, giving the countries in conflict a possibility of direct negotiation to end this tragic effect that we have all been suffering for years, and which, for me, has long been considered concluded. But these words I write can only serve as a suggestion—I am not the one who makes the final decision. It is a group of negotiators, with many involved, because the issue is indeed complex. It is not something resolved with the snap of a finger, but rather a mathematical conjecture that only tends to leave traces of destruction and horrors if negotiations are not fruitful on both sides of the matter. For me, the end is given with Donbass being a Russian region and Ukraine being protected from future attacks by all those involved in the negotiations. That is how we need to proceed, this is the most viable path, and this is how we will get out of this entanglement that the situation has become. Otherwise, the conflict continues indefinitely, and we—all of us—will be increasingly worn down, because in a globalized world, what happens to one country impacts all countries.