The war in Ukraine concerns the entire world, not only due to its effects on supply chains and food production but also because of the nuclear threat it poses. On the one side, Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station was seriously threatened following the breakdown of the Kakhovka dam. On the other, Russia has confirmed moving its tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus in the event that the Russian state or territory is threatened. While it is stressed that Russia does not actually intend to use the nuclear option, the entrance of the nuclear option in the conflict indicates a grave possibility for the future.  Meanwhile, the war is only getting protracted instead of taking any decisive turn. Ukraine’s counteroffensive, which began on 5 June 2023, also hangs in the balance with no clear answers about the direction of the future. Undoubtedly, the bilateral and international diplomatic response also remains crucial for the outcome.

Since the outbreak of war, several rounds of talks have been held between Ukraine and Russia to arrive at a compromise and halt hostilities. The first round of talks was held near the Ukraine-Belarus border on 28 February 2022. Although the two sides held common views on some points, no conclusive agreements were reached during these talks.  The second round of talks followed near the Brest region of Belarus in attempts to reach a ceasefire and negotiate a corridor for humanitarian relief. This round began on 3 March 2022. Amongst the contested demands were the demilitarisation of Ukraine and the adoption of a neutral status from the Russian side, and the insistence on an immediate ceasefire from the Ukrainian side. The only agreement that could be reached in this round was regarding opening humanitarian corridors. The same location was used for a third round of talks between the Ukrainian and Russian authorities beginning on 7 March 2022. However, these talks also remained inconclusive with regard to key terms of negotiation, especially a cease-fire.

The possibility for peace in the Ukraine-Russia conflict only exists if humanitarian concerns are kept at the centre of the process. Yet politics will dictate the direction this conflict will take, where tension arises again between peace and justice.

Presently, the war has raged on for more than a year without a peaceful end in sight. Attempts at mediation or peaceful resolution come under a deadlock in the face of starkly opposed Russian and Ukrainian ambitions. Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from its lands and the return of the occupied territories. At the same time, Russia insists on the complete demilitarisation of Ukraine to terminate any possible threat, especially the leveraging of Ukraine to challenge Russian security.  Unless these demands are met, neither side is willing to compromise. Several parties have tried to mediate between the two states during this time. These parties, including Brazil, China, Indonesia, South Africa, and the Vatican, have proposed several peace processes, nearly all of which have been rejected by one side or the other.

Brazil has proposed bringing together a peace club of rising powers positioned well enough to mediate between the two belligerent parties. While this general idea has not been opposed, one statement from Brazil has come under severe criticism, especially from Ukraine. It suggests that Ukraine should give up the region of Crimea annexed in 2014, while Russia should withdraw from the areas captured in 2022. Contrastingly, the Indonesian plan proposes creating a demilitarised zone on the current front lines. It further proposes the United Nations’ involvement in the disputed territories. This proposal has also drawn sharp criticisms from the West. The United States and several European countries have disparaged the plan for touting Russia’s demands. On the other hand, countries like China view this as an apt plan for managing the conflict, whose solution seems to have eluded the European partners.

Placed along different lines is the South African 10-point peace plan. In addition to stressing the peaceful settlement of the conflict, this peace plan stresses the primacy of respect for the sovereignty of states, security guarantees, and the facilitation of the export of grain and fertilisers. Meanwhile, the Vatican has also indicated its intention to send a mission for peace to end the war. However, any actual implementation has remained ambiguous. And despite the prestige of the Vatican and the ambitious proposal, the Ukrainian authorities do not believe there is a place for mediation in this war anymore. Amongst all of the different peace plans presented so far, Ukraine seems only to entertain the one offered by China. This stems in part from China’s recognition of the respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity and, in part, from the leverage it can exercise as a global player and a close partner to Russia. While this plan has also been criticised for its vagueness, the Chinese proposal pertinently accounts for the issue of territorial integrity. This clause remains a central point of tension in the conflict where there has been no recognition, let alone admittance, of a breach of Ukraine’s territorial integrity on Russia’s part.

Until recently, Russia refrained from calling this a war, and the rhetoric was that of special military action. Acknowledging the conflict as a war on Russia’s part would also mean taking responsibility through the application of international humanitarian law. Where Russia interprets this conflict in terms of defending its zone of influence against Western incursion, Ukraine inevitably sees this as a question of national sovereignty. Consequently, Ukraine is also concerned about the underwhelming response of the Global South, where countries like India have not yet actively opposed Russian action.  This bodes ill not only in terms of diplomatic support – and thus leverage – that Ukraine can enjoy but also in terms of economic and other kinds of support that can keep Russia afloat in the face of Western sanctions.

Needless to say, any outside efforts at peace are bound to fall flat as long as the two parties stay locked on what they deem to be existential issues. Ukraine’s 10-point peace plan considers no compromise on territorial integrity while pushing for the environment, energy, food and nuclear security. In this line, Ukraine firmly disagrees with freezing the conflict in its current state.  And none of the peace proposals presented so far has made any considerable gains, their only common feature being a failure to end hostilities. As it is, compartmentalising issues, including cooperation on preventing nuclear consequences and operationalising humanitarian corridors, provide the few possible routes for a breakthrough. In one sense, these are also the most critical issues to be solved during this conflict.  At the moment, both parties to the conflict continue to hedge for possible gains, with the backing of like-minded international actors. Historically, the Western allies have shied away from acknowledging their expeditions to evade international law and responsibilities while quickly branding opponents as international criminals. Thus, this conflict again underscores the intricate relationship between war and politics. But while the parties are engaged in calculations, people continue to suffer.  The possibility for peace in the Ukraine-Russia conflict only exists if humanitarian concerns are kept at the centre of the process. Yet politics will dictate the direction this conflict will take, where tension arises again between peace and justice.