Opinion and analysis, by Patrice NSENGIYUMVA
FSDS Global Peace Network – “Say No to War, Yes to Peace”
As Washington releases its new peace proposal aimed at ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, the international peace community is watching closely. The plan has triggered a mix of cautious optimism and serious concern among diplomats, humanitarian organisations and conflict-resolution experts.
For FSDS’s Global Peace Network, the central question is clear: does this plan truly pave the way for peace — or does it risk entrenching instability?
By examining political, military and humanitarian implications, three plausible scenarios emerge, each offering lessons for how global peace advocates should respond.
- The Best Case: A Path Towards Gradual Stabilisation
In the most hopeful scenario, the plan succeeds in stopping the fighting and initiates a sustained ceasefire. Ukraine accepts difficult concessions — including limits on its military posture and the de facto recognition of Russian-controlled territories — while receiving significant reconstruction support funded partly through frozen Russian assets.
If American security guarantees prove consistent and credible, Ukraine could regain enough stability to rebuild essential services, restart its economy and allow displaced families to return. For Russia, accepting the plan would deliver political gains while reopening limited avenues of international cooperation.
Although imperfect, this scenario offers a foundation for rebuilding trust and advancing long-term peace — a priority for “Say No to War, Yes to Peace”.
- The Middle Ground: A Peace Under Strain
A more likely trajectory sees the agreement implemented, but without deep commitment from the parties. In this version, peace becomes procedural rather than transformative. Contested territories remain unresolved. Political tensions rise within Ukraine as it carries out reforms demanded by the plan.
Meanwhile, shifting priorities in Washington undermine the clarity of US commitments. Russia adopts a minimal-compliance approach, maintaining leverage and influence over border regions.
This “frozen peace” holds but remains fragile. Any miscalculation could reignite violence. For global peace advocates, this scenario underscores the urgent need for continued dialogue, inclusive diplomacy and consistent humanitarian engagement.
- The Worst Case: A Trigger for Renewed Instability
The most worrying scenario is one in which the plan fails to generate consensus, deepening divisions rather than bridging them. Ukraine rejects concessions deemed incompatible with sovereignty. Western allies split over whether to support Washington’s initiative.
The resulting vacuum allows Moscow to strengthen its grip on occupied territories or expand military operations. Without operational security guarantees, Ukraine becomes increasingly exposed, and civilian suffering intensifies.
This scenario reflects the devastating consequences of failed diplomacy — and reinforces the mission of the FSDS Global Peace Network: to champion negotiation, protect human dignity and prevent the escalation of violence worldwide.
Why the Peace Community Must Stay Engaged?
Washington’s proposal is more than a geopolitical instrument; it is a reminder of how fragile peace efforts can be — and how essential global advocacy is. Whether this plan leads to stabilisation or further conflict will depend not only on governments but also on sustained pressure from international civil society movements, including “Say No to War, Yes to Peace”.
FSDS’s Global Peace Network remains committed to promoting dialogue, supporting non-violent solutions and advocating tirelessly for a future where peace prevails over war.
