Is a negotiated peace with reference to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict still possible? What could be the conditions? Who, due to his subjective qualities, his equidistance and neutrality between the parties in conflict (if such characteristics were to be considered relevant), could act as mediator in the negotiations? Without prejudice, first of all, to the fact that those who want a peace table should be the protagonists of the conflict itself and, perhaps, regardless of their respective rights and wrongs (if this is even possible).

In recent days, or practically the day after the election day that saw Donald Trump prevail in the electoral competition, Joe Biden would have decided in the sense of authorizing Ukraine to use so-called "long-range" missiles to strike Russian and North Korean forces in the Russian region of Kursk. It will perhaps not be superfluous to remember that, during the long electoral campaign, the president-elect Donald Trump, would have (the conditional seems necessary) taken care to argue that he could perhaps push Ukraine to cede certain lands conquered by Russia in order to try to favor the conclusion of the conflict. Saying it differently: in his then capacity as candidate, he would seem to have expressed himself for a long time by emphasizing his will to put an end to the war, but, nevertheless, he would never seem to have made explicit how, and/or in any case, that it should (once again the conditional seems to prevail) be Ukraine that prevails. Even more so when one reflects on the circumstance of the criticisms leveled at the Biden administration for having provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in aid. So far the state of the art. However, it would not be useful not to consider some general reflections: first of all, that the legitimacy of armed self-defense under the provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter does not seem to exempt anyone, and therefore not even the governments involved in the conflict, as well as the States that support its reasons, from the obligation to inspire their actions with common sense, referring, in particular, to the need not to indulge, so to speak, the temptation to exacerbate the conflict; then, that it would be necessary to make every useful attempt on the political level aimed at achieving a peace that can be considered truly lasting. In other words, and to better understand each other, even in the context of armed conflict, the search for and finding of a diplomatic solution should never cease.

In this regard, it will not be superfluous to recall that with a specific Resolution, the United Nations itself, during the year 2023, had invited Member States and International Organizations to implement "diplomatic efforts to achieve a global, just and lasting peace in Ukraine". The exhortation, or rather the reasons for it, would not seem difficult to appreciate, if only one wanted to lead the reasoning from a basic consideration: that is, the longer the conflict drags on, the greater the losses will be and the more complex it will be to pursue a negotiated peace useful for safeguarding collective security.

In this sense, perhaps, the authorization issued to Kiev by the White House of the outgoing Joe Biden, could distance the objective of pursuing a path of peace and the mitigation of the spirits of the protagonists of the conflict. And this regardless of any eventual and potential strategy.

War is always a defeat for everyone, and, in wanting to follow up on the exhortation of the United Nations, mentioned above, it seems extremely necessary to avoid any attitude that could favor an escalation of any consistency. The "ceasefire" would respond, as it seems to respond, to the best common interest, both of the parties in conflict and of their supporters.

The European Union, whose geopolitical role, on the international level, seems to have diminished over the years, should increase its diplomatic efforts aimed at pursuing a stable condition of peace. Who could be the political figures of reference in the context of the European Union suitable to spend their diplomatic strength to promote a path of peace through the intervention of the United States led by Donald Trump?

It would be necessary to identify the "who", the "how", and the "when" above and beyond, probably, the need of the parties in conflict to try to obtain any advantage on a territorial level aimed at strengthening their potential negotiating position when it is ripe for discussion.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata