Perhaps we're almost there. Perhaps the US proposal (or Russian-American, if we follow up on leaked rumors) could have the desired effect this time. Perhaps. Since, despite every positive intention, uncertainty still seems to persist over the "if," the "when," and the "quo modo" of a peace plan structured, from the outset and for the moment, into twenty-eight key points that, even considering everything, would seem, in the medium and long term, to be intended to reshape an unprecedented era of interrelations with Vladimir Putin's Russia, aimed at redefining the continent's political-military balance, and also involving additional spheres of geopolitical interest.

The European Union, excluded, all things considered, from the "mother" negotiations (if one wanted to call them that) between the United States and Russia in Geneva, through its delegation, nevertheless wanted to propose the salient points of a potential counter-proposal, through which it would attempt to rebalance the interests at stake (those of Kiev and essentially those of the Old Continent) within the framework of the conflict resolution plan. Whether and how this counter-proposal will impact the outcome of this further attempt to resolve and contain the conflict will likely depend not only on Moscow's stance, which has already clearly expressed its conditions and on which it intends to show no compromise, but also, and above all, on the position that, among all the parties involved at this point, Donald Trump will choose to support, regardless of rights and wrongs.

The geography of this "Peace Plan," in fact, appears anything but linear, and includes, or rather seeks to include, both the methods for achieving a cessation of hostilities and the decision on control of the territories and areas of interest, along with any further and far from obvious and/or consequent decisions regarding the authority that, ultimately, will have to assume the burden of ensuring compliance with the agreements, preparing appropriate countermeasures ex ante should anyone renege on any agreements reached. This latter circumstance is far from readily defined, considering that perhaps the greatest critical issues could focus on identifying the "limit" (not to call it a border) that currently delimits the territories controlled by Kiev from those occupied by Moscow. A "limit" that would, in effect, crystallize the status quo, irreversibly influencing it for years to come. And the thorny issue of "territorial concessions" would seem to present no less critical issues. Put simply, this would involve recognizing, willingly or unwillingly, not only what Russia, in this specific case, has already conquered, but also formally accepting that certain territories pass definitively under its control or remain under its administration.

It will likely be necessary to work diligently to find a compromise, and the European counter-proposal, regardless of the proponents' best intentions, could clash with the harsh reality that has been stigmatized on the battlefield. Diplomatic pragmatism should prevail, especially when discussing the so-called "security guarantees" for Kiev and general governance issues immediately following the ceasefire, which, at present, appear to be under the direction of Donald Trump's United States. This, in turn, will have to be considered as a possible outcome of the European Union's lack of centrality in the decision-making process. The path to a ceasefire in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict therefore appears to still be quite complex.

And during this diplomatic process, it will be important for the European Union to adopt a unanimous position, a unanimity of purpose, in becoming an active and proactive participant in negotiations that will necessarily have repercussions on its ability to establish itself as a power between the East and West of the world.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata