Negotiating Peace Without the Inconvenience of Those Involved

Diplomacy is a fascinating game. You’d think that when deciding the fate of a country at war, you’d invite that country to the negotiating table. But that’s where you’d be mistaken! True diplomacy, as history teaches us, is best conducted far away from the people it affects most—preferably in an air-conditioned conference hall, somewhere neutral, like the Middle East. After all, why complicate things with Ukraine’s opinions or—heaven forbid—Europe’s concerns?

Instead, let the real power players—Washington and Moscow—handle it like the old pals they are. It’s not about Ukraine’s sovereignty; it’s about global stability! (And by “global stability,” we of course mean the ability of major powers to make backroom deals with as little fuss as possible.)

The "Advantages" of This Brilliant Diplomatic Setup

1. Fewer Chefs in the Kitchen, Faster Cooking

Diplomacy is slow when too many voices are involved. Do we really need Ukraine in the room, slowing things down with complaints about occupied cities and missile strikes? Better to streamline the process—two superpowers, one luxurious meeting spot, and a few carefully selected “neutral” moderators. Efficiency at its finest!

Sure, some might call it a little undemocratic, but since when did democracy and high-level negotiations mix? It’s much easier when the people affected don’t get a say—just look at how well that worked for history’s colonial powers!

2. A "Neutral" Venue—Where Nobody Has an Agenda (Promise!)

Holding peace talks in the UAE or Saudi Arabia is a stroke of genius. These countries have decades of experience in… well, hosting discreet conversations between world powers. They’ve got a foot in every camp: friends with the U.S., buddies with Russia, business partners with Europe, and occasional partners-in-crime with anyone who has enough oil money.

But don’t worry—neutrality is the name of the game! Surely, no backroom deals will be struck over arms sales, energy markets, or future political favors. No hidden conditions. No strings attached. Just honest brokers facilitating peace—scout’s honor.

3. De-escalation for the Greater Good (of the Right People)

Of course, if all goes well, Europe might even benefit! Maybe the war winds down, energy prices stabilize, and leaders in Brussels can finally get back to the real issues—like passing resolutions that nobody enforces.

If Russia gets a little prize here and there, well, it’s a small price to pay for “peace,” right? Ukraine might disagree, but let’s be real: geopolitics is about compromise, and by “compromise,” we mean other people making sacrifices.

The Slightly Inconvenient Downsides

1. Ukraine’s Sovereignty: A Minor Detail?

There’s a small, insignificant problem with this arrangement: Ukraine still exists. And, believe it or not, they have opinions about the future of their own country.

Sure, history tells us that borders have been redrawn by powers far away without the consent of the people living there—just ask Africa, the Balkans, or, well, Ukraine itself (see: 2014). But in today’s world, shouldn’t we at least pretend to care about self-determination?

Unfortunately, including Ukraine would complicate things. They might demand conditions that interfere with the “bigger picture.” So, best to let the grown-ups talk and inform Kyiv later. Maybe they’ll even get a copy of the agreement before it’s signed!

2. Europe: The Perpetual Bystander?

Ah, Europe. Always eager to play a role in global affairs, yet somehow always relegated to the role of an enthusiastic audience member. While the U.S. and Russia discuss their future, European leaders get to… well, observe. Perhaps they’ll be allowed to issue a strongly worded statement afterward!

Brussels likes to believe it’s a major player, but when it comes to actual diplomacy, it often finds itself holding the purse rather than the pen. If this agreement goes sideways, guess who will be funding reconstruction efforts? If you guessed "European taxpayers," congratulations!

3. A Gift to Putin?

Let’s be honest—this setup looks suspiciously like a win for Moscow. If the deal includes any sort of recognition of Russian influence over occupied territories, Putin will take a victory lap. And who could blame him? He’s playing the long game, and if history is any guide, the West has a talent for making deals today that they regret tomorrow.

Marx famously said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. If that’s true, then we’re well into the farcical stage. The West keeps hoping for a rational, rules-based order while Russia keeps playing by 19th-century imperial playbooks. Guess who’s winning?

Conclusion: Diplomatic Genius or Just Old-School Power Politics?

What’s happening here isn’t new—it’s just an updated version of the great-power politics of yesteryear. The real question is: Will Ukraine and Europe continue to be spectators, or will they finally demand a seat at the table?

Of course, even if a deal is reached in the Middle East, that won’t be the end of the story. Because the only thing more fragile than peace is a peace deal negotiated without the people who actually have to live with it.

So stay tuned—because if history teaches us anything, it’s that today’s peace conference is just the prelude to tomorrow’s crisis.