By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy met with President-elect Trump in Paris, emphasizing the need for a “just” peace settlement in Ukraine that prevents future Russian aggression. This meeting, facilitated by President Macron, followed a $988 million US military aid package for Ukraine. Despite Trump’s past skepticism towards aid and calls for quick settlements, Zelenskyy expressed gratitude for Trump’s “unwavering resolve,” highlighting the importance of the talks. The discussions also allowed Macron to gauge the direction of a second Trump presidency, given concerns about Trump’s potential shift in US foreign policy.
Read the original article here
Any settlement reached with Russia regarding the conflict in Ukraine must be undeniably just, President Zelenskyy firmly believes. This conviction carries immense weight, particularly when conveyed to individuals like former President Trump, whose past pronouncements have shown a degree of admiration for Vladimir Putin. The inherent complexities and potential for miscommunication are immense, making this kind of diplomacy a high-stakes balancing act. It’s a situation requiring remarkable levels of patience and skillful navigation of deeply conflicting perspectives.
The idea of a “just” settlement, however, becomes increasingly nuanced considering the power dynamics at play. For a resolution to truly embody justice, it would necessitate significant repercussions for Russia’s actions, including holding those responsible accountable and securing substantial reparations for the damage inflicted upon Ukraine.
Negotiating with Trump, however, presents a unique challenge. His history suggests a lack of familiarity with the concept of justice as it applies to international conflict. This creates a significant communication hurdle, necessitating a potentially arduous process of explaining the fundamental principles of international justice to someone who might not be receptive to them.
The very notion of what constitutes a “just” peace is subjective, particularly when no universally agreed-upon arbiter exists to define its parameters. Historical precedents demonstrate that interpretations of justice can vary greatly depending on the perspectives and interests involved. Simply ceding territory, such as the Donbass and Crimea, might be considered “just” from a purely pragmatic perspective for one party but is absolutely unacceptable to the other. The absence of a widely accepted neutral entity to determine fairness further complicates the process.
The involvement of other international actors also significantly influences the definition of a just settlement. The European Union and NATO membership for Ukraine represent key elements of a lasting peace, providing both security guarantees and integration into the wider European framework. However, these aspirations might encounter obstacles due to the complexities of political processes and internal divisions within the EU and NATO.
Considering the potential for external interference, one can’t rule out the possibility that any agreement reached could be unduly influenced by private financial interests, undermining the principles of justice. Without transparency and accountability mechanisms in place, the risk of the outcome favouring specific parties rather than upholding broader principles of justice is elevated.
Any peace agreement must satisfy the fundamental needs of Ukraine, particularly their security and self-determination. Allowing Russia to retain territorial gains achieved through aggression would not only violate these principles but also send a dangerous message to potential aggressors worldwide, inviting further conflict. A settlement that does not guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity is simply not just.
The idea of a ‘just’ settlement should not be confused with appeasement. A peace achieved at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be a pyrrhic victory, likely leading to further conflict in the future. A true resolution requires not only addressing the immediate crisis but also addressing the root causes that facilitated the aggression in the first place.
Ultimately, the prospect of a just settlement with Russia hinges on several factors, not the least of which is the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith negotiations, based on internationally recognized principles of justice and respect for the sovereignty of nations. Without such a commitment, achieving a lasting and meaningful peace remains an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task.