The shape of things to come: a further dialogue

Abstract

ABSTRACT Here we continue our debate about how the war in Ukraine might come to an end. Our differences indicate how background assumptions, anticipations of possible and likely futures, and normative assessments of the present actions are intertwined. Apart from warning about the escalatory potential, HP stresses the immense human and socio-economic costs of the war. He proposes that negotiations for a peace deal could revolve around concepts such as a ‘demilitarised zone' and an ‘UN-managed territory'. TF expects a protracted war going on for several years because the conditions for a just peace are absent. At this point, our dialogue turns towards uncovering and criticising some of each other's background assumptions and discussing the available evidence about who can be trusted. Here we see a possible role for third-party facilitators and mediators. Brazil, China, India, or Turkey may be decisive in terms of mediating the conflict and facilitating an agreement.