Roundups, Synopses, and Statements

No need to spend the next several days going non-stop to try to put together a PhD study on the pros and cons of the latest peace proposal that has gotten the eye of popular media.
Please look at this sentence carefully;

• the latest peace proposal- there have been others
• peace proposals, there have been others

For folks that have been following Russia news for decades, and have even a reasonably respectable repertoire of its history in regard to frontier land control, it's pretty plain to see that the referent 28 point proposal that hit the limelight, reminds of the Russia Afghanistan struggle from the 1970s; there's a general idea that Russia having additional lands moving westward is to their advantage.

So, so far it looks like the 28 point plan of mid 2025, would play out, the Russians went after an ambition of westward expansion, but maybe it did not take all of the lion's targeted goals, but if it fell short, it still gets a lion's share, and in short, still met the objective.

Let's say that's point one. Point 2 would then be, that whole area of chalked off territory, could easily be perceived as fodder for ongoing battles and debates of the Ukraine or people in Ukraine et al, that would want those lands back.

A third splash that is almost automatic, is that the present Ukraine leadership might not last forever, and when and if it changes, then what might be the calls of the next leader, or leader that wants to compete against the current ones? 
It is plausible, the first thing a policy group or leader is going to use as a platform is, we want those lands, or we want them back; which might of course be a lead into, more war.

The 4th big bell ring, is a condition that Ukraine needs to stay separate from NATO, which is about a crazy proposition on the medical context, in that it could, as a theory, a very strong theory, leave Ukraine stranded out there without any NATO support, if things got really bad. Other theories may abound in a vacuum that Russia will abide by exactly what the peace plan commands, but as recent history has shown us, vacuums on paper, written in ink, spoken in hotels by political leaders in business suits, is not always the realities of what gets adhered to.

Some may wish the simple ink is dried, and whatever is written with that ink dries into set place with it; unfortunately, often realities have vagaries at least a bit beyond that.

-

The bottom line, some aspects of the proposed peace plan, might be dangerous for Ukraine.
It might pose dangers for Russia, especially down the line, in that soldiers are going to have to constantly place themselves at risk for uprising in the region, plus natural disasters, plus trade for future developments of military equipment, leading to more ramifications and more danger.

Of high degree?, here's a sharp way of comprising and presenting peace plans in the chivalry of international politics forum- not sure, as the saying goes, the Grand Mufti (generally, there are many high ranking leaders from many places that can pretty much accomplish the same or different dimensions up around what's being talked about) could be present involved in presiding at the big meeting, and it doesn't appear he's there.

It is a big plus and good that a peace plan is being discussed, however, the fine points of the content of it, as it is right this moment, of what the public knows or believes is what it is, have aspects that the ordinary layman with any kind of familiarity with stirrings in the region or going, it need more refinement to avert other highly potential disasters.