Peace prevention in Ukraine and beyond: What is to be done?
As the world’s attention, particularly among those interested in global affairs and the prospects for peace in Ukraine and Gaza, focused on the U.S. election results, few anticipated that the interregnum period would bring such reckless and unexpected escalations—escalations that could dangerously edge humanity closer to nuclear disaster.
In its Briefing No. 15, the No Cold War collective concluded that Trump’s victory symbolized a morbid symptom of the United States’ imperial decline. However, consequent developments suggest that even this assessment may have been overly optimistic.
The U.S. imperial decline appears to be accelerating at an alarming pace in the final days of Joe Biden’s administration, raising urgent questions about whether humanity now faces its most perilous period in decades—until Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. The unfolding events not only reflect a self-destructive trajectory for the United States but also demonstrate a troubling disregard for reason and restraint, risking a catastrophic spiral that could pull the entire world into the abyss alongside its fall.
On 17 November, just a day after the president-elect and the sitting president shook hands during a courteous meeting at the White House, Western media reported an alleged decision by President Biden to allow Ukrainian forces to use long-range missiles—Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS)—capable of striking deep into Russian territory. UK Prime Minister quickly followed suit, approving the use of Britain’s Storm Shadow missiles. Some media outlets revealed that these weapons had been supplied to Ukraine even before the U.S. announcement. Both missile systems have already been deployed, prompting Russia to retaliate with hypersonic ballistic missile strikes and a public lowering of its nuclear threshold to counter such attacks.
If this escalation aimed to highlight Moscow’s nuclear deterrence doctrine, the responses from NATO and EU officials suggest either indifference or even a willingness to escalate the conflict to catastrophic proportions. On 26 November, during an emergency meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council, it was concluded that Russia’s actions would not be allowed to “change the course of the conflict,” even as the situation on the ground indicates an imminent collapse of Ukraine’s exhausted forces. A day earlier, European defense ministers convened in Berlin to reaffirm their commitment to military support for Ukraine, irrespective of any potential shifts under the incoming Trump administration. The message is clear: peace negotiations, even those floated during Trump’s campaign (regardless of their feasibility), must be thwarted.
The bluntest statement came from Admiral Rob Bauer, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, who advocated for developing “deep precision strike” capabilities—essentially preemptive strikes—against Russia. The rhetoric is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive defense, which ended in disastrous consequences. However, this time the target is not a regional power but a leading nuclear-armed state. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov aptly noted, “All decency has simply been thrown aside, and true intentions are now being announced publicly.”
The option of military victory, long championed by Josep Borrell and Ursula von der Leyen—leaders of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning European Union—remains the only course being pursued. It is striking that, since the onset of the Ukraine war in February 2022, not a single peace initiative has been proposed or even debated within EU institutions. On the contrary, any voices advocating for a political or negotiated solution have been swiftly dismissed and discredited as "Putinists," branded as enemies of peace and justice for Ukraine.
While the nominees in Trump’s "kitchen cabinet" show little indication of moderate or peace-oriented policies toward Russia, the world’s hopes rest on two precarious factors. First is Putin’s continued politics of self-restraint, maintained as long as possible. Second is Trump’s desire to begin his presidency with a landmark success—such as brokering peace in Ukraine but not at the cost of showing the US “weakness” or pro-peace positioning. Pro-Trump analysts have already credited the ceasefire in Lebanon to his projected influence and imminent return to power, implying that his presidency could similarly attempt a bold move in negotiations with Putin. However, a triumphalist posture toward Russia is unlikely to be well-received by the leader of a military power currently dominating the battlefield. Now with Syria de facto dismembered, with the US support, the entire situation gets much worse than anyone could predict just a month ago.
Peacebuilding is an art that demands mutual respect, win-win solutions, and the preservation of dignity for all parties involved. Any sustainable agreement will require careful diplomacy, ensuring no side feels humiliated or defeated. Without such an approach, the prospects for ending the war—and preventing a catastrophic escalation—will remain grim.
If the First World War began by sleepwalking, the Third World War may well commence with eyes wide shut—unless the global majority takes urgent action. The war in Ukraine, now dragging into its third year, has become a dangerous flashpoint for potential nuclear escalation. The West Asia implosion is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle. Recent developments have raised the stakes so that the once "unthinkable" is fast becoming the "new normal," driven by Western pundits and generals who treat this crisis as little more than a high-stakes chess match—or worse, a reckless game of chicken.
The causes for concern are numerous, but one question stands out: is there a pilot in the U.S. kamikaze plane? Just months ago, President Biden was effectively sidelined from seeking reelection, his cognitive decline and mental instability making headlines across political and public discourse. It seems increasingly implausible that he remains the one making critical decisions, raising the specter of a U.S. leadership vacuum guided by the shadowy mechanisms of the Deep State.
While Donald Trump is hardly an obvious candidate for peacemaker, his ambitions to assert leadership—both domestically and globally—suggest a level of control absent from the current administration. However, his approach may be less about fostering peace and more about reshaping the conflict to suit his vision of American dominance. And more profit for the US military-industrial-complex…
Without immediate international action, this perilous situation risks spiraling further out of control, bringing the specter of global catastrophe ever closer.
Peace and the survival of humanity are far too serious to be left solely in the hands of the top political and military leaders of a few powerful states. The critical question we must all ask ourselves is this: will we passively wait, hoping for a semblance of common sense to prevail in the halls of power and the military-industrial complex? Will we avert our gaze and resign ourselves to the impending apocalypse? Or will we take proactive, collective action on multiple levels to prevent it?
The fearmongering and public panic being deliberately cultivated are no accident; they are political tools designed to suppress dissent and neutralize citizens' movements. Some European governments have started issuing public guidance on surviving nuclear attacks—measures that exacerbate fear and foster resignation rather than resistance to the escalating war. This tactic, already common in the U.S., aims to pacify the public, diverting attention from the urgent need for anti-war mobilization and peace initiatives.
The path to peace in Ukraine and the prevention of further escalation toward nuclear confrontation demand a nuanced, multipronged approach. While the current geopolitical realities—leadership uncertainty, economic instability, and the rise of populism—make peace seem elusive, they do not render it impossible. If anything, these challenges underscore the need for collective global action, civil society mobilization, and a recommitment to diplomatic solutions grounded in mutual respect and shared humanity.
The time to act is now. Waiting passively for leaders entrenched in military and geopolitical rivalries to prioritize peace is a risk humanity cannot afford to take.
Below are the steps and conditions necessary for initiating and sustaining peace negotiations concerning Ukraine.
Immediate Ceasefire and Dialogue
An unconditional ceasefire is essential to halt the ongoing loss of life and prevent further escalation. This initial step requires addressing critical concerns for both sides:
For Russia: Guarantees of Ukrainian neutrality (including assurances of no NATO membership) and recognition of certain territorial realities.
For Ukraine and the West: Commitments to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity—at least in principle—to maintain political legitimacy.
To navigate these highly contentious issues, a phased approach is necessary, including:
De-escalation measures, such as the withdrawal of heavy weaponry and repositioning of troops.
Confidence-building steps, such as prisoner exchanges and humanitarian aid corridors.
International monitoring, overseen by neutral parties, to ensure compliance.
Multilateral actors like the United Nations, as well as non-aligned nations, must spearhead and facilitate this process, ensuring neutrality and legitimacy.
Inclusion of All Key Stakeholders
The peace process must involve direct talks between the U.S. and Russia, as their rivalry underpins much of the conflict. Given China’s growing geopolitical influence, its involvement is also critical for shaping a balanced, sustainable settlement. However, top-down negotiations alone will not suffice. Grassroots movements, peace activists, and antiwar organizations must maintain constant pressure on political leaders, ensuring that peace remains a priority over militaristic ambitions.
Support for Peacebuilding Efforts
Civil society organizations and peace movements play a vital role in shifting the narrative from war to peace. These groups must be empowered to:
Advocate for de-escalation and a negotiated settlement through public discourse.
Raise awareness about the catastrophic risks of nuclear escalation, fostering a sense of urgency among global populations.
Mobilize public opinion to push governments toward diplomacy and away from militarization.
Public awareness campaigns, grassroots advocacy, and international solidarity are indispensable in creating a groundswell of demand for peace. By building pressure from below, civil society can counterbalance entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex and geopolitical rivalries, fostering conditions for sustained peace efforts.
Despite the media-induced hawkish narrative—and even alternative media's preoccupation with military developments, daily maneuvering, and predictions about who is "winning"—there is one hopeful sign: public opinion polls increasingly favor a negotiated peace, including within Ukraine itself. Reports of rising desertions from the Ukrainian military further underscore the growing disillusionment with a war that shows no signs of abating. Meanwhile, Kyiv remains ensconced in a bubble of luxury and false security, detached from the suffering of civilians in the war-torn periphery.
In the background, Ukraine has effectively become a colony of the West. Western corporations are securing investments in key sectors, positioning themselves to dominate what may remain a fragmented state. At the same time, Russia has achieved many of its strategic objectives, with the notable exception of Ukraine’s formal commitment to non-NATO status. As the war drags on, a frozen conflict—similar to other unresolved disputes—appears increasingly likely. In such a scenario, the United Nations could emerge as the most viable platform for initiating peace talks.
However, peace talks cannot succeed while warmongering rhetoric dominates the political and media discourse. Media narratives play a critical role in shaping public perceptions. A decisive shift away from fear-mongering and militarization toward fostering a culture of peace is essential for creating an environment conducive to meaningful negotiations. Ultimately, it is imperative to stress a fundamental truth: peace is not utopian; it is not only realistic but the sole remaining option for survival.
The Ukraine conflict has reached a dangerous inflection point. Without immediate action to de-escalate tensions and prioritize peace talks, the risk of nuclear confrontation grows exponentially. The international community must rise to the occasion, placing diplomacy above militarization, and working collectively to avert a disaster with global repercussions. Time is running out, and the cost of inaction is unthinkable.
Moreover, any discussion about peace in Ukraine must grapple with broader global realities. Key questions remain: What does "victory" look like for the parties involved, and what kind of peace can realistically emerge from this conflict? More importantly, can peace in Ukraine be achieved while ignoring other pressing global crises, such as the ongoing genocide in Gaza and destroying Syria, which is likely to gain further support from the incoming Trump administration?
Peace talks must also address the broader geopolitical context. The war in Ukraine is not an isolated conflict but is deeply intertwined with the U.S.-China rivalry and Western efforts to maintain global hegemony. A successful peace process must acknowledge these dynamics and seek to establish a framework for multipolar cooperation rather than continued confrontation.
These interconnected crises highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive, multipolar approach to conflict resolution and global stability. The world can no longer afford fragmented responses to crises that are, by nature, interdependent. The time to act is now—before the cost of inaction becomes irreversible.