The Financial Times has published an open letter from prominent figures in British and American public discourse calling for peace in Ukraine. The authors were inspired by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s recent peace mission launched last week, as indicated by a post from one of the letter’s authors, British journalist Thomas Fazi. ‘I hope it will contribute to increasing the momentum created by @PM_ViktorOrban’s peace efforts,’ he wrote on X.
Our letter in support of peace negotiations in Ukraine was published in the Financial Times today. I hope it will contribute to increase the momentum created by @PM_ViktorOrban’s peace efforts. Here’s the full text — please share!
— Thomas Fazi (@battleforeurope) July 10, 2024
Russia’s latest military gains in the Donetsk… pic.twitter.com/kjuLdrShDg
The letter is signed by Jack Matlock, former US Ambassador to the USSR; Lord Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus in Political Economy at the University of Warwick; Sir Anthony Brenton, former British Ambassador to Russia; Richard Sakwa, Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent; Anatol Lieven, Senior Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; and Ian Proud and Christopher Granville, both diplomats who worked at the British Embassy in Moscow.
In the letter, the authors note that ‘Russia’s latest military gains in the Donetsk region reinforce the case for a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine.’ They write that despite the United States supporting Ukraine’s primary war objective—a return to the 2014 frontiers, which includes Russia’s expulsion from Crimea and Donbas—, the most optimistic outcome currently appears to be the maintenance of the current stalemate. In the worst-case scenario, a final Russian victory is not inconceivable.
‘This conclusion points to the desirability, even urgency, of a negotiated peace, not least for the sake of Ukraine itself,’ the authors opine. They argue that the most important achievement of the war so far is that Ukraine has fought for and defended its independence, much like Finland did in 1939–40. ‘If a peace based on roughly the present division of forces in Ukraine is inevitable, it is immoral not to try for it now.’
The authors then argue that
Washington should immediately begin negotiations with Moscow
on a new security pact that addresses and protects the legitimate security interests of both Ukraine and Russia. ‘The announcement of these talks should be immediately followed by a time-limited ceasefire in Ukraine. The ceasefire would enable Russian and Ukrainian leaders to negotiate in a realistic, constructive manner.’
Finally, the authors call on world leaders to support the above initiative. They argue that the longer the war continues, the more likely Ukraine is to lose territory, and the risk of nuclear escalation will increase proportionately.
‘The sooner peace is negotiated, the more lives will be saved, the sooner the reconstruction of Ukraine will start, and the more quickly the world can be pulled back from the very dangerous brink at which it currently stands,’ the authors conclude.
Related articles:
