View from Sri Lanka | Cost of Peace

Dhanuka Dickwella

‘Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict—alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence’

―Dorothy Thompson

When the means of European peace funds become purchasing weapons, when providing weapons is interpreted as the way for an end to a conflict, when those who sue for peace are branded as disruptors, when the conflicting parties are adamant about having a pound of flesh, when external players have a bigger skin in the game than those who are actually fighting, it is only a nightmare to even suggest a solution for a conflict in the magnitude of Ukraine. The fundamental reality is that no resolution could be perfect, or a fit-for-all sizes type of solution to this exists. The compromises, sacrifices, and injury to pride are unavoidable costs that will have to be borne by the warring parties. Against that backdrop, a nouvelle effort to find a solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is sought in this article.

The objectives of Moscow and Kyiv in the current war are polar opposites. The idea of ceding land for peace has now been floated by all stakeholders involved to silence the guns. From Washington to Brussels, Moscow to Kyiv this idea has been gaining traction. Russia has even mentioned which of those lands are up for grabs. But is there any justification to have peace for the land of a sovereign country however you twist its history? Russia’s demand of forcing Kyiv to cede its sovereign territories will set a terrible precedent for every future conflict. The world is full of such conflicts as well as flashpoints from East to the West which will demand pursuing the same modality of conflict resolution. Is there a way out of this quagmire of a solution? Can Ukraine retain its territories while considering Russian core demands of