Peace initiatives are always accompanied by a lot of political and geopolitical calculations, but the news about the possible peace plan of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz became significant not only because of the hope of ending hostilities in Ukraine, it may have consequences for the entire global agenda. Is this plan a real tool for ending the war, or is it another political strategy that serves primarily to create the image of Scholz as a “peacemaker” on the eve of possible elections? Will Scholz’s peace plan become a unique chance for Ukraine to get out of the funnel of death, destruction and degradation?
Is Scholz’s peace plan a real chance for peace
On September 9, European media reported that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is preparing a “peace plan”, one of the conditions of which is the preservation of Russian control over previously captured Ukrainian territories. This plan, according to Scholz’s plan, should cement him in history as the “chancellor of peace”, using the war in Ukraine to regain lost political positions in the international arena. After the disappointing results of the elections in Thuringia and Saxony, and in view of possible losses in the Brandenburg elections on September 22, Scholz probably decided to take the initiative and act through the “Ukrainian question” to avoid a political crisis.
His plan, supported by some members of his party, aims to create a new version of the “Minsk Agreements” under which part of Ukrainian territory can be transferred to Moscow’s control. However, some sources claim that the chancellor’s main goal is to try to get concessions from Ukraine at any cost.
In this context, the day before, on September 8, in an interview with the ZDF channel, Scholz emphasized that the time has come for serious negotiations on peace in Ukraine. He noted that he discussed this issue with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, stressing that their relations remain at a good level. He also expressed confidence that the future peace conference, which will consider the issue of conflict settlement, must necessarily include Russia as a participant.
Scholz’s peace plan, if it is indeed being prepared, is of enormous importance. It should be taken into account that Germany is not just the second largest economy in the European Union, but also a key political and diplomatic player on the global stage. The importance of this plan lies not only in the fact that it concerns the military conflict, which is already in its third year, but also in the fact that its impact can cover all areas – from the economy to politics, from energy to international relations.
The emergence of this initiative takes place at an extremely critical moment: Europe is suffering from an energy crisis, the USA is preparing for another election, and the global South is looking for new alliances and influential positions in world politics. In this context, if Scholz’s peace plan does exist, it could be a turning point in the conflict, giving both sides of the conflict an opportunity to break out of the military trap in which they find themselves.
However, it should be remembered that any attempt to reach a peaceful settlement faces a huge number of obstacles. First, there are differences in the political goals of both Kyiv and Moscow. Second, it is the interests of global players, including the US, the EU, China and the countries of the Global South, who are trying to use the situation for their own strategic interests. And finally, there is the strong influence of the so-called “war party” – forces that benefit from the continuation of the conflict.
Assuming Olaf Scholz’s peace plan does exist, its impact cannot be underestimated. Scholz is the leader of Germany, a country that is effectively the main engine of the EU, both economically and politically. Germany is the main US ally in Europe and often sets the tone for international relations on the continent. If such a powerful player proposes an initiative, it automatically gains an important status not only in the European arena, but also globally.
This initiative can have a special resonance if the countries of the Global South, in particular China and India, join it. The joint position of such countries in combination with the leading states of the West will create an almost insurmountable diplomatic wall against which Ukraine and Russia will be forced to react. This will open up opportunities for negotiations and a potential peaceful settlement, as in such a situation both Moscow and Kyiv will be faced with the challenge of either making compromises or risking losing the support of important global players.
At the same time, it should be understood that even in the USA, which actively supports Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia, such an initiative can be perceived positively. The Biden administration, which is approaching another presidential election, may be interested in ending the conflict in both a political and an electoral sense. It is important for Biden to present this as his victory, because one of the key arguments of his political opponents, including Donald Trump, is the accusation that the current administration is leading the country to World War III.
In such a situation, even if the Ukrainian leadership feels certain doubts about the peace plan, it will not work to ignore it. Especially in conditions where the pressure from the international community is becoming stronger. Moreover, if key economic players such as China or India join this plan, the chances of successfully ending the war will increase significantly. This creates a unique chance for both sides to exit the conflict, which is becoming increasingly destructive for both Ukraine and Russia.
Territorial issues and diplomatic pitfalls
However, one of the biggest obstacles to any peace plan is the issue of territorial compromises. In conditions where both Ukraine and Russia take tough positions regarding their territorial claims, a peaceful settlement may become too difficult. On the one hand, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi has repeatedly stated that in order to end the war, Russia must withdraw its troops to the 1991 borders. On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that the four annexed regions should remain under Russian control.
In addition, after the successful Kursk offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the situation with a potential end to the war became even more complicated. Now not only does Russia control a part of the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, but Ukraine also has a part of the territory that is recognized as Russian. The question arises: how can the parties agree on these territories? Territorial concessions and exchange of territories between Ukraine and Russia is an extremely complex and problematic issue. At the moment, Ukraine controls part of the Kursk region of Russia, which is approximately 1,300 square kilometers (over 100 settlements). At the same time, Russia maintains under its control much larger areas of Ukrainian territories, including parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, as well as all of Crimea. This imbalance in territories makes any negotiations for a possible exchange extremely difficult, as Russia would gain a significant advantage by retaining strategically important territories, while Ukraine would lose control over its occupied territories. The exchange of territories looks too complicated from an economic point of view as well. Zaporizhzhia NPP, which is under Russian control, is a strategically and economically important facility, and any concessions on this issue could require significant political and economic bonuses for Russia, including partial lifting of sanctions. For the Kremlin, such an exchange may also be unacceptable due to the risks of losing political face.
In addition, any exchange of territories will be perceived by Ukrainian society as a betrayal of national interests, as it will mean an official recognition of the loss of a part of the territory. Such concessions may also have a negative impact on the internal political situation in Ukraine, deepening public discontent and creating additional challenges for the country’s leadership.
Another key aspect that complicates the negotiation process is the question of Ukraine’s neutral status. The Kremlin continues to insist that Ukraine should stay out of any military alliances, including NATO. This was one of Russia’s main demands even before the start of a full-scale invasion in 2022, and likely remains an unacceptable compromise for Ukrainian authorities seeking closer integration with the West.
For Kyiv, such a scenario means a betrayal of national interests and will potentially endanger the country’s security in the future. After all the casualties and destruction that Ukraine has suffered, the demand for neutral status seems extremely unacceptable to most Ukrainians, especially in the context of their expectations for NATO membership. This problem has become one of the main obstacles for any peace talks between the parties, and reaching a compromise here will be extremely difficult.
Meanwhile, Moscow views Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO as a key point in any peace agreement. For the Russian leadership, this would be a significant victory in the context of their global strategic plan to keep Ukraine out of the influence of Western military blocs. For Putin, any compromise on this issue could be seen as a loss of face, which is dangerous for his position domestically, where Russian propaganda continues to present the war as a defense against an aggressive West.
In addition to internal challenges for the parties to the conflict, Olaf Scholz’s initiative will have global consequences. The peace plan, if supported by powerful players like China and India, could change the entire geopolitical map of the world. It is important that China and India are not just large economies, but also countries that increasingly influence global processes. Their involvement in the peace process could mean a significant shift in the balance of power in the international arena.
For the West, such an alliance can be a challenge, because China’s influence in world politics continues to grow, and its participation in the settlement of the conflict can strengthen Beijing’s position as a global mediator. This, in turn, can reduce the influence of the USA and the EU on the post-conflict situation in Ukraine and Russia. In addition, for China, participating in the peace process would mean the possibility of expanding its economic influence in both countries, which could be beneficial for Beijing in the long run.
It should also be taken into account that Scholz’s peace plan may receive support from other countries of the Global South, which seek to play a more active role in world politics. This applies not only to economic issues, but also to energy resources, because the war in Ukraine had a significant impact on global energy markets. The participation of such countries in the settlement of the conflict can lead to a new stage in the formation of global alliances, where the West and the Global South will cooperate to solve the biggest challenges of our time.
Will Scholz’s peace plan become a unique chance for Ukraine to get out of the funnel of death, destruction and degradation?
Olaf Scholz’s peace plan may become a unique chance for Ukraine and Russia to get out of the long war, which has become a real trap for both countries. The war, now in its third year, has turned into an unrelenting stream of death, destruction and economic degradation with catastrophic consequences for both sides. Ukraine continues to suffer from constant hostilities, and Russia, despite propaganda about successes, is suffering serious economic and political losses, which may lead to even deeper isolation on the international stage.
Scholz’s potential peace initiative could open the way for both countries to break out of this trap, stemming the flow of destruction and giving a chance for economic recovery and social stability. For Ukraine, which is constantly struggling with large-scale infrastructure destruction and civilian casualties, the cessation of hostilities will mean the beginning of the country’s reconstruction. At the same time, for Russia, the end of the war may become an opportunity to avoid even greater sanctions and the degradation of the domestic political and economic situation.
However, this “window of opportunity” carries significant challenges. Any territorial compromises that may be part of a peace agreement run the risk of being perceived as a betrayal of national interests on both sides. However, the main question remains: are Ukraine and Russia ready to admit that further escalation only deepens them into an abyss from which the exit becomes increasingly difficult?
If Scholz’s peace plan really gets the support of the international community, it will be an important signal for Ukraine and Russia: peace is possible, but only if they are ready for difficult compromises. For both countries, this is a chance to stop the destructive cycle of violence that consumes resources, lives and futures. However, whether they will take advantage of this opportunity depends on the political will of the leaders of both countries and their desire to overcome internal and external obstacles on the way to peace.
Therefore, Olaf Scholz’s peace plan is not just another initiative to achieve a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. If it is real and will be supported by the international community, it can become a historic chance for Ukraine and Russia to get out of the military trap that threatens not only the two countries, but also the entire world order. However, this process will be accompanied by significant political and diplomatic challenges.
It is important for Ukraine to understand that any compromises in the context of territorial concessions or changes in geopolitical status may be perceived as a betrayal of national interests, especially in conditions where society expects victory. On the other hand, Russia will also be forced to make certain compromises if it wants to achieve real peace, because the continuation of the war threatens internal destabilization.
However, the main obstacle to the success of this initiative may be the so-called “war party”, which includes both political and economic players interested in continuing the conflict. These forces can sabotage any peace efforts in the early stages, as they have done in the past.
Thus, Scholz’s peace plan is not just a chance for Ukraine, but also a test for the international community. If implemented, it will set an important precedent for peaceful conflict resolution in the future, as well as change the balance of power on the global stage. However, whether this plan can actually stop the war depends on the willingness of both sides to take difficult and unpopular steps.
Oksana Ishchenko
