World Peace

TRUMP

How is the Trump administration involved?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 29, 2025, the Trump administration is leading an intensive diplomatic campaign to mediate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump has positioned the United States as the primary broker between Kyiv and Moscow, recently hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for high-stakes negotiations.

The “20-Point” Peace Framework

The central focus of current involvement is a peace plan developed through coordination between the Trump administration, Ukrainian officials, and European partners. 

Negotiation Progress: After a meeting at Mar-a-Lago on December 28, 2025, both leaders stated that approximately 90% of the plan is agreed upon.

Security Guarantees: A key component is a proposed bilateral security agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine, which Zelenskyy claims is “100 percent” finalized in principle. This may include “NATO-style” guarantees to deter future Russian aggression.

Economic Strategy: The administration has emphasized a “prosperity plan” that includes reconstruction aid and a minerals agreement signed in April 2025, granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s critical natural resources as a way to “pay back” American support. 

Direct Mediation with Putin

President Trump is maintaining direct communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acting as an intermediary for Ukrainian proposals. 

Frequent Communication: Trump held a two-and-a-half-hour phone call with Putin immediately before his December 28 meeting with Zelenskyy and planned to follow up with another call afterward.

Ceasefire Challenges: Trump acknowledged that a major hurdle is Putin’s reluctance to accept a temporary ceasefire, as the Russian leader fears it would allow Ukraine to regroup. 

Administration Policy and Leverage

The administration’s approach combines diplomatic pressure with economic and military leverage:

The “Battle Line” Proposal: Trump has previously suggested that both sides should stop fighting at the current battle lines, which would imply Russia keeping territory it currently occupies.

U.S. Envoy Involvement: Key diplomatic efforts are being managed by Steve Witkoff (U.S. Special Envoy) and Jared Kushner, who have been working closely with Ukrainian officials to refine the peace framework.

Conditional Support: The administration has framed continued U.S. assistance as conditional on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate and agree to economic partnerships like the resource deal. 

Remaining Obstacles

While Trump has expressed optimism that a deal could be reached “in a few weeks,” he admits “thorny issues” remain unresolved, specifically regarding territorial control of the Donbas region and the future administration of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.”

What is the value of Ukraine’s natural resources?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of late 2025, Ukraine’s natural resource wealth is estimated between $10 trillion and $26 trillion, according to various government and geological surveys. This vast “treasure trove” includes 22 of the 34 minerals classified as critical by the EU and the United States, such as lithium, titanium, and graphite. 

The Value of Key Resources

Lithium: Ukraine holds approximately 500,000 metric tons of lithium, which is one of the largest reserves in Europe and represents about 3% of the global total. Lithium is essential for the electric vehicle (EV) battery industry and defense technologies.

Titanium: Ukraine is a top global producer of titanium sponge and holds 7% of world reserves, a critical metal for aerospace and military manufacturing.

Hydrocarbons: While less publicized than minerals, Ukraine’s coal and natural gas reserves are worth approximately $360 billion. Coal deposits in eastern Ukraine alone were valued at roughly $12 trillion before recent intense fighting.

Graphite: Ukraine possesses roughly 20% of global graphite resources, a key component for EV batteries and nuclear reactors. 

Strategic Control and Conflict

The distribution of these resources is a major driver of the ongoing conflict:

Russian Occupation: As of 2025, Russia controls an estimated $350 billion to $12.5 trillion worth of Ukraine’s mineral and energy assets. This includes about 63% of Ukraine’s coal mines and significant portions of its manganese and rare earth deposits.

Targeting Lithium: Russian forces are actively attacking regions with the largest lithium deposits, having already occupied two major sites in the Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. 

The U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Deal (April 2025)

The Trump administration signed a landmark 10-year minerals agreement with Ukraine on April 30, 2025. 

Framework: The deal establishes a joint reconstruction investment fund for future mineral, oil, and gas projects.

Repayment Terms: Contrary to initial demands for a $500 billion direct “payback” for military aid, the final deal uses future U.S. military assistance as Washington’s contribution to the joint fund, with no debt obligations for Ukraine.

Investment Potential: The Ukrainian government estimates that the mineral sector could attract $12 billion to $15 billion in investment by 2033, though high-upfront costs and security risks remain significant barriers.”

What are the implications of a private citizen being involved in negotiations between two countries at war?

GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, the involvement of a high-profile private citizen—most notably Donald Trump—in the Russia-Ukraine peace process presents significant legal, political, and strategic implications. While such “citizen diplomacy” can sometimes break deadlocks, it also risks undermining official government channels and violating established domestic laws.

1. Legal Implications: The Logan Act

The primary legal concern for a U.S. private citizen negotiating with foreign powers is the Logan Act (1799). 

Prohibition: The Act criminalizes unauthorized correspondence by U.S. citizens with foreign governments intended to influence disputes or “defeat the measures of the United States”.

Enforcement History: Although the law remains valid and is considered a felony, it has functioned more as “rhetorical ammunition” for political opponents rather than a basis for prosecution. Only two people have ever been indicted under the Act (in 1802 and 1852), and neither was convicted.

Presidential Authority: Because the Trump administration officially entered office in January 2025, his recent actions as President carry the “authority of the United States,” exempting his current negotiations from these private-citizen legal risks. 

2. Strategic Implications: “Asymmetric” Negotiating Structure

Direct involvement by a single powerful figure can create a non-traditional diplomatic environment:

Asymmetric Pressure: By acting as a central mediator, the U.S. can exert significant pressure on both parties simultaneously. In 2025, this has led to a structure where Russian demands are sometimes communicated to Kyiv via Washington, rather than through direct bilateral talks.

Credibility and Unpredictability: Private-citizen instincts or “dealmaking” styles—such as unpredictability—can serve as a form of “coercive diplomacy,” forcing adversaries to consider new compromises they might have rejected through standard bureaucratic channels.

Risk of Undermining Official Policy: When private citizens (or figures acting outside official state departments) lead negotiations, it can cause confusion among allies about who is ultimately in charge of foreign policy and whether agreements will be durable. 

3. Political and Diplomatic Consequences

Weakened Multilateralism: Unofficial or highly personalized diplomacy can bypass international institutions like the UN or NATO. Critics argue this weakens the U.S. role as a global advocate for democratic institutions.

Strategic Deniability: Sometimes, governments use private-sector or non-official representatives to conduct “secret talks” or “backchannel communication” to overcome deadlocks without the political risk of a public failure.

Bolstered Adversary Position: If a mediator is perceived as more sympathetic to one side, it can embolden the adversary (e.g., Russia) to maintain maximalist demands, hoping the mediator will push for concessions from the other side. 

4. Precedents of Citizen Diplomacy

Historically, private citizens have frequently engaged in unauthorized diplomacy, often to varied outcomes:

Jesse Jackson (1984): Traveled to Syria to secure the release of a captured U.S. flyer.

Jimmy Carter (1994): Negotiated with North Korea to defuse a nuclear crisis, which was later criticized by the Clinton administration.

Ross Perot: Attempted to find missing American servicemen in Southeast Asia, leading to allegations of Logan Act violations. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

JARED KUSHNER

What are the implications of a private citizen like Jared Kushner, a business man, being involved in negotiations between two countries at war?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, Jared Kushner is serving as an informal, unpaid advisor to President Donald Trump, playing a pivotal role in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite having no official government title or Senate confirmation in the second Trump administration, he has participated in high-level meetings with both President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

The implications of his involvement as a private citizen are multi-faceted: 

1. Strategic and Diplomatic Utility

A “Trusted Closer”: Trump views Kushner as a “talented advisor” and “trusted family member” whose experience brokering the Abraham Accords makes him a “world-class negotiator”. His role is often to “bridge seemingly intractable differences” where official channels have deadlocked.

Direct Access to Trump: For Ukraine and European allies, Kushner’s primary value is his direct, unmediated access to the President, which is seen as a crucial advantage in the final stages of a deal.

Business-Centric Approach: Kushner and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff (also a businessman) are noted for a “transactional outlook” that prioritizes economic incentives—such as mineral deals and reconstruction projects—to resolve existential political conflicts. 

2. Ethical and Conflict of Interest Concerns

Overlap with Private Interests: Critics and watchdog groups point to a significant overlap between Kushner’s diplomatic efforts and his private equity firm, Affinity Partners. The firm is backed by billions from the same Middle Eastern governments (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE) that are expected to fund Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction.

Saudi Priorities in Peace Plans: Analysts have noted that the “20-point” (and earlier “28-point”) peace plan includes points that directly benefit Saudi investment interests, such as securing Black Sea shipping lanes for agricultural conglomerates owned by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. 

3. Legal and Constitutional Challenges

The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Because Kushner is arguably performing “governmental functions” under presidential direction, some legal experts argue he should be considered a “Special Government Employee” (SGE). If classified as an SGE, he would be constitutionally prohibited from accepting payments (emoluments) from foreign states, complicating his ongoing business dealings with foreign sovereign wealth funds.

The Logan Act: While his status as a private citizen has revived discussions about the Logan Act (which bars private citizens from unauthorized foreign diplomacy), the administration argues he is acting in an authorized capacity at the President’s request, which typically provides legal protection. 

4. Impact on Diplomatic Norms

Erosion of Professional Diplomacy: Kushner’s “off-the-books” role is seen by some as part of a broader trend where personal and business connections take precedence over career diplomatic expertise.

Lack of Oversight: Unlike official envoys, Kushner is not subject to Senate oversight or standard transparency requirements, leading to concerns that major foreign policy shifts are being shaped in secret “shady backroom” sessions. 

For more on Kushner’s role, you can follow updates via Puck News or the Kyiv Independent.”

SGE JARED KUSHNER

While Jared Kushner is avoiding a Logan Act violation because he was authorized by Trump, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood that he is a “defacto” SGE?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, the likelihood that Jared Kushner is functioning as a “de facto” Special Government Employee (SGE) is estimated at 4 out of 5 (High). While he lacks an official title, his sustained role in high-level diplomacy meets many of the legal criteria established by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Criteria for “De Facto” SGE Status

Legal experts and watchdog groups argue that Kushner’s activities in December 2025 align with a seminal 1977 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion. This opinion states that an individual may be considered a government employee if they satisfy the following: 

Governmental Functions: Kushner is engaged in activities that only government officials typically conduct, such as direct negotiations with foreign leaders (Putin and Zelenskyy) to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Direction or Supervision: He is acting under the clear direction and authorization of the President, who has publicly referred to him as a “talented advisor” and “fixer”.

Substantial Responsibility: He has assumed significant responsibility for coordinating administration activities, specifically the “20-point” (and earlier “28-point”) peace frameworks.

Duration of Service: An SGE is defined as someone performing temporary duties for up to 130 days in a year. Kushner has been intermittently involved in major diplomatic efforts throughout 2025, including Gaza ceasefire talks in October and Ukraine negotiations in December.

Arguments for “De Facto” Status

Indispensable Role: The administration frequently brings Kushner in to “close the deal” when official envoys (like Steve Witkoff) are unable to bridge differences.

Diplomatic Weight: His presence is viewed by foreign governments (e.g., Ukraine and European allies) as having the legitimate weight of the U.S. presidency.

Systematic Involvement: Critics argue the administration omitted a formal appointment specifically to avoid conflict-of-interest and transparency laws, a situation the 1977 OLC opinion expressly addresses. 

Counter-Arguments

“Private Citizen” Designation: The White House and Kushner’s own representatives consistently maintain he is acting solely as a “private citizen” and “informal, unpaid advisor”.

No Formal Appointment: Without an “identifiable act of appointment,” the administration argues he remains outside the scope of federal employment law.

Temporary Nature: Kushner has claimed his involvement is temporary and that he intends to return to his private equity firm once specific deals are “set up”. 

Implications of Being an SGE

If a court or the DOJ formally classified Kushner as an SGE, he would be subject to federal conflict-of-interest laws, including:

Financial Disclosures: He would have to publicly disclose all business assets and income.

Emoluments Prohibitions: He would likely be barred from accepting management fees from foreign sovereign wealth funds (like Saudi Arabia’s PIF) while serving as a U.S. diplomat.”

KUSHNER’S FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT

Who else is Jared Kushner involved with?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, Jared Kushner’s role as a private citizen extends beyond the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a complex web of international diplomacy and multi-billion-dollar business interests. He is deeply involved with several key foreign officials, U.S. government representatives, and international investment entities.

1. Key Diplomatic Associates

Kushner works as part of an unconventional “off-the-books” team that frequently operates in parallel with, or even bypasses, official State Department channels. 

Steve Witkoff: The U.S. Special Envoy and a real estate mogul. Kushner and Witkoff have become an inseparable duo, conducting “shuttle diplomacy” across Moscow, Berlin, Geneva, and Miami.

Kirill Dmitriev: The CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (Russia’s sovereign wealth fund). Kushner has held multiple multi-hour sessions with Dmitriev in Miami and Moscow to iron out the details of the proposed “20-point” peace plan.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Kushner recently held a Christmas Day call with the Ukrainian President to discuss substantive details of the peace framework.

Marco Rubio: The U.S. Secretary of State. While Kushner has attended high-level meetings alongside Rubio, reports suggest Kushner sometimes acts independently, occasionally leaving official State Department staff uninformed of his specific discussions. 

2. Regional Conflicts & Mediation

Kushner has leveraged his experience from the “Abraham Accords” to act as a primary broker in other high-stakes crises:

Israel-Hamas War: Kushner was a central figure in negotiating the tenuous October 2025 ceasefire and hostage-release deal.

Middle Eastern Envoys: He remains in close contact with high-ranking officials in Qatar, Turkey, and the UAE to coordinate the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire’s second phase. 

3. Business and Financial Ties

Through his private equity firm, Affinity Partners, Kushner is financially entangled with the same governments he is now negotiating with as a diplomat. 

Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF): The Saudi government is his firm’s largest backer, having invested $2 billion. This relationship pays Kushner roughly $25 million in annual management fees.

Qatari and UAE Investment Authorities: Affinity Partners manages hundreds of millions from these nations. In late 2024, Kushner secured an additional $1.5 billion from Qatari and Abu Dhabi-based funds.

Silver Lake Partners: Kushner’s firm recently collaborated with Silver Lake and the Saudi PIF on a major acquisition of the video game giant Electronic Arts. 

4. Other Noteworthy Involvements

Gianni Infantino (FIFA President): Kushner has been involved in high-level sports diplomacy, facilitating interactions between FIFA and the Trump administration ahead of major upcoming events.

Abraham Accords Peace Institute: He continues to lead this non-profit, which serves as a networking hub for the officials and business leaders he engages with in the Middle East.”

Have any of those associated with Jared Kushner expressed interest in Ukraine’s highly valued natural resources?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, several individuals and entities associated with Jared Kushner’s diplomatic efforts have expressed significant interest in Ukraine’s natural resources. This interest is central to the Trump administration’s “business-first” approach to the conflict, framing resource access as both a security guarantee for Ukraine and a way for the U.S. to “pay back” for military aid. 

1. Key Individuals with Resource Interests

Steve Witkoff (U.S. Special Envoy): As Kushner’s primary partner in negotiations, Witkoff has publicly championed the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Resources Agreement signed in April 2025. He views access to Ukraine’s critical minerals—such as lithium, titanium, and graphite—as a core objective for the U.S. and has even discussed potential joint ventures with Russia to develop rare earth deposits.

Ronald S. Lauder: A billionaire and close associate of President Trump, Lauder is part of a consortium (including TechMet) that has expressed long-term interest in the Dobra lithium field in central Ukraine. He reportedly encouraged the Ukrainian government to open this site for bidding under the new minerals framework.

Kirill Dmitriev (CEO of RDIF): The head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund has attended negotiations with Kushner and Witkoff. Dmitriev has signaled that ending the war could lead to massive investment opportunities in Russia, including shared projects in resource-rich areas currently under Russian control.

2. Involved Foreign Entities

Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF): The PIF is the primary financial backer of Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners. The Saudi government has a direct interest in Ukraine’s resources:

Agriculture: Through its subsidiary (SALIC) and the Continental Farmers Group, PIF owns nearly 480,000 acres in Western Ukraine.

Critical Minerals: Manara Minerals (a PIF joint venture) is aggressively seeking lithium and copper assets globally to support its domestic EV industry. The security of Ukraine’s mineral deposits is a strategic priority for Saudi Arabia.

Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF): Russia’s government investment fund is interested in using the peace process to unfreeze Russian assets and reinvest them into “joint projects,” which reportedly include shared ownership of strategic infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. 

3. The Institutional Framework: U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Fund

The primary vehicle for these interests is the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, which is set to go live in early 2026. 

Joint Investment: The fund is a 50-50 partnership between the U.S. Development Finance Corporation and the Ukrainian government, with an initial $150 million in seed capital.

Sectors of Focus: The fund will prioritize projects in critical minerals (lithium, titanium, manganese), energy, and infrastructure.

Revenue Sharing: Profits from future extraction will be split, with a portion potentially used to reimburse the U.S. for military assistance.”

What are the implications of Jared Kushner’s associated partners wanting a part of Ukraine’s natural resources when he is participating in a peace deal?

GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, the involvement of Jared Kushner’s business partners in a Ukraine peace deal creates significant implications for international law, regional security, and the future of Ukraine’s economy.

1. Integration of Private Profit and Public Diplomacy

The peace plan drafted by Kushner and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is noted for a “transactional” approach that prioritizes economic incentives over traditional geopolitical concessions. 

Dividing the “Spoils”: Critics argue the negotiations resemble a business deal aimed at dividing Ukraine’s resources among the mediators and their backers.

Saudi Influence: A key beneficiary of the plan is the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is the primary backer of Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners. Point 23 of the current peace plan explicitly guarantees the free transport of grain through the Black Sea—a direct policy objective for the Saudi-owned agricultural companies that cultivate nearly 480,000 acres in Western Ukraine. 

2. Ethical and Constitutional Violations

Kushner’s dual role as an informal diplomat and a private fund manager for foreign capital raises severe ethical concerns:

Fiduciary Conflict: Kushner has a fiduciary duty to advance the financial interests of the Saudi, Qatari, and Emirati governments that invest billions in his firm.

Foreign Emoluments Clause: Because Kushner is conducting “governmental functions” at the President’s direction, legal experts argue he is a “de facto” official. The millions in management fees he collects from foreign states while negotiating on behalf of the U.S. could be seen as unconstitutional “emoluments”. 

3. Strategic “Pay-to-Play” Dynamics

The Trump administration has framed U.S. support as conditional on Ukraine’s willingness to share its wealth:

The Minerals Deal: On April 30, 2025, the U.S. and Ukraine signed the Reconstruction Investment Fund (UURIF). This agreement grants the U.S. 50% of revenue from future natural resource licenses in exchange for military and reconstruction aid.

Mutual Money-Making: The plan suggests that Russia might be incentivized to end the war through large-scale business projects with the U.S., effectively replacing an existential conflict with a shared commercial venture. 

4. Long-Term Impacts on Ukraine

“Neocolonialism” Concerns: Some scholars describe the resources-for-aid swap as a form of neocolonialism, where the U.S. extracts long-term access to a nation’s resources in exchange for short-term security.

Risk of Inequity: Precedents (like China’s resource deals in Africa) suggest such arrangements often benefit the investor more than the host nation in the long term.

Lack of Transparency: Significant portions of the minerals deal—including the Limited Partnership (LP) Agreement—have not been made public, raising concerns about who exactly will own and profit from Ukraine’s assets.”

RESOURCES-FOR-AID

Under the Trump administration, has the United States engaged in other resources-for-aid deals?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the Trump administration has been actively pursuing a foreign policy centered on “resources-for-aid” or “minerals-for-aid” agreements with several other countries besides Ukraine. This transactional approach aims to secure critical mineral supply chains, reduce U.S. reliance on China, and potentially fund foreign aid through access to natural resources. 

Key Countries and Initiatives

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The U.S. is expected to sign a minerals agreement with the DRC, a major source of cobalt and copper, in early 2026. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) has committed to supporting an American firm drilling for copper by funding the construction of a railway to facilitate exports.

Zambia: The administration has offered the Zambian government inducements to fast-track mining projects, tying potential aid and investment to mineral exploitation.

Japan: In October 2025, the U.S. and Japan signed a framework to coordinate on securing and refining important minerals. This agreement also included a Japanese commitment to boost annual purchases of U.S. energy resources like liquified natural gas (LNG).

Malaysia, Thailand, and Others: President Trump has announced several other bilateral minerals agreements to strengthen cooperation and promote industry partnerships as part of a broader strategy to secure supply chains across Asia. 

The “America First” Framework

These deals are part of a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy initiated in January 2025:

Conditionality of Aid: The administration has signaled that traditional aid will be heavily reduced or terminated if countries do not align with Washington’s priorities, particularly on critical minerals and hi-tech supply chains.

Leveraging DFC and Military Aid: The DFC is being leveraged to support American firms’ access to foreign exploration sites (e.g., in Greenland) while military aid is explicitly tied to mineral access, as demonstrated in the Ukraine deal.

Focus on U.S. Domestic Production: The U.S. is also heavily investing in domestic production and processing facilities for copper, lithium, and rare earths to build an independent supply chain. 

This transactional template is viewed by critics as a potential “pay-to-play” system that risks turning critical minerals into explicit bargaining chips in U.S. foreign policy, raising concerns about ethical and geopolitical implications.”

IHL & HRL

If the world were upholding IHL & HRL, how would the war between Russia and Ukraine be resolved?

GoogleAI Mode: “If the world consistently and universally upheld International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law (HRL), the war between Russia and Ukraine would resolve through established, legally binding international processes, drastically different from the current conflict.

The resolution would focus on accountability, justice, and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty, as dictated by international law: 

1. Cessation of Hostilities and Withdrawal 

Immediate Ceasefire: All parties would be legally bound to an immediate and permanent ceasefire.

Russian Withdrawal: Russia would be legally compelled to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its armed forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, as required by the UN Charter and multiple UN General Assembly resolutions. The principle of territorial integrity is a cornerstone of international law. 

2. Accountability and Justice Mechanisms

A world that upholds international law mandates robust accountability for violations: 

War Crimes Trials: The International Criminal Court (ICC) and hybrid tribunals would prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Arrest warrants for figures like Vladimir Putin (already issued by the ICC for the war crime of child deportation) would be enforced.

Reparations and Compensation: Russia would be legally required to provide full reparations to Ukraine for all war damage and loss of life. An international compensation mechanism, potentially funded by frozen Russian state assets (estimated at over $300 billion), would be used to rebuild the country. 

3. Restoration of Sovereignty and Human Rights

The focus would be on restoring the rights of all affected individuals: 

Return of Displaced Persons: All deported or forcibly transferred civilians, including children, would be safely and voluntarily returned to their homes under international supervision.

Human Rights Monitoring: Robust UN and OSCE missions would be established to monitor the human rights situation in all formerly occupied territories, ensuring due process for all residents and the protection of minority rights.

Disarmament and Security Guarantees: A permanent security architecture would be implemented to guarantee Ukraine’s future safety, backed by credible, multi-lateral international guarantees to deter future aggression. 

In a scenario where IHL and HRL were universally upheld, the resolution would be swift, legal, and centered on justice rather than a negotiated compromise that allows an aggressor to retain territory seized by force. The principle that “might makes right” would be replaced by the rule of law.”