The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1], from Ljubljana, Slovenia, is renowned for its insightful and comprehensive analyses of global developments, with a particular focus on the Middle East, the Balkans, and other strategically significant regions worldwide. Among its distinguished contributors is Dr. J. Scott Younger, President Commissioner at Glendale Partners and a member of the IFIMES Advisory Board. In his article titled “Between Ceasefires and Power Plays: The Global Struggle for Lasting Peace,” Dr. Younger highlights stalled peace efforts in Gaza and Ukraine, with U.S. proposals leaning toward Russian interests and leaving allies uneasy. Ongoing violence, unclear governance plans, and shifting global alliances create uncertainty about any lasting peace.
The last period since the cessation of the war in Gaza has seen a modicum of peace, but not where the still ongoing annoying skirmishes at the drawn back boundary of the IDF, and continuing settler intrusion in the West Bank. The IDF accuses Hamas of breaching the revised boundary in Gaza and responds as before in bombing and killing Palestinians, whether Hamas or, more likely, not. There is little signs of peace, expect there has been lately some attempts at curbing the settlers’ excesses. However, there can be little progress towards a lasting peace until positive steps are taken in implementing the/a next stage of the Trump designated Peace Plan. Not surprisingly, that is much more difficult to implement than envisaged, made more difficult bearing in mind Trump’s short attention span.
The Trump administration is expected to unveil its plans for the next stage of the Peace Plan, which will first have to define how the Gaza strip is to be governed for the next decade. The main hurdle concerns what is to be done with Hamas since it is agreed that they have not to be involved in any future for the Gaza strip. Hamas, however, is not giving any sign of acquiescence to what all other parties demand; they do not trust the IDF. Will other regional players be sympathetic to Hamas and offer them refuge or will Hamas be willing to disband? These are currently still unanswered questions. Probably they are waiting to see what is coming forward from the US administration. There is little doubt that what is tabled will not please all parties, even if a considered solution is enacted.
While there will be much emphasis on the Gaza strip, attention must be. applied to the fate of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Perhaps adjoining or nearby countries can be persuaded to assist for a few years in a governance that must be prominently Palestinian, for instance the neighbouring government of Jordan. The sooner that this is put in place the better to stop the excesses of the settlers, for instance the recent destruction of the olive harvest, on which the Palestinians rely. If a Palestinian is killed resisting settler violence or simply defending his property the settlers in question simply get ‘a rap over the knuckles’. On the rare occasion that an Israeli is killed in retaliation, the Palestinian if not ‘accidentally’ shot is taken into custody by the IDF/police and at least faces unpleasant jail time without trial. That must be put right; it has been happening for far too long, even before the strife in Gaza. Whatever, some re-attention must be given to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. An up-to-date statement by Netanyahu indicates that he acknowledges that as the remaining hostages have been returned, less one body, they are ready to push ahead with the next phase and he expected to meet the US President shortly on this issue.
The Trump administration in the last period has turned its attention towards Ukraine, which is suffering almost daily drone attacks from Russia. A Trump Peace plan was tabled with 28 points, somewhat like the previous Gaza plan in principle, but heavily favouring Russian demands. It caused a great deal of dismay by the Ukrainians and Europeans and led to a hastily convened meeting among the Germans, French and British attending the G20 meeting recently held in S. Africa. The follow on from this was another hastily convened meeting a few days later in Geneva attended by involved members of the European Union, Canada, Japan and Britain and the US led by Marco Rubio, the secretary of state.
Marco Rubio is a trained diplomat, unlike envoy Steve Witkoff, a land developer like Trump who was architect of President Trump’s first Peace Plan. This was written after Witkoff’s return from Moscow in which he effectively reiterated President Putin’s demands for him to agree to the terms for peace. The revised Peace Plan that was drawn up after the Geneva meeting, with all parties, as above, was then taken to Moscow. The Russian position was as expected. No change!
This is quite unacceptable to Ukraine. It has been kept out of key meetings and the substance of the plan would mean that all the territory that Russia has taken, about one fifth of the land area, henceforward would be Russian along with other restrictions on Ukraine. It would justify Putin’s action. He could try further such ventures in the future!
The Trump administration is now faced with two widely held positions, but bearing in mind the events over the past few months in which Trump has had several private calls with Putin and a private meeting with him in Alaska, there is a not misunderstood view that Trump has an affinity towards balancing the Peace Plan towards the Russian position. This must cause some anxiety among the Europeans and Ukraine. What will the next version of a Peace Plan lay out and what will be the US position going forward? Will they just tire of involvement and withdraw entirely from the war, which is the fear of the Europeans and Ukrainians?
In the meantime, Putin must be feeling content with the current state of apparent disunity among the western allies, is continuing the war, nightly missile and drone attacks on Kyiv and other main cities as is the land battle in the east, wearing down continued Ukraine resistance. He feels, with some justification, that he can win and then dictate terms to his satisfaction, and if he is right, the US will tire and just withdraw, leaving Ukraine with Europe to sort out the problem.
The next revised version of the Peace Plan is now to hand, and still favours the Moscow position. It would appear that Marco Rubio has not managed to persuade Trump to make the plan more palatable to European and Ukrainian thinking.
Meanwhile Putin was on a state visit to India, a fellow BRICS member, one of the originals, expecting to expand trade between the two countries. In an interview with the Indian press, he exuded a confidence over the outcome of the war, and the peace process, in that he would get much of what he has sought. In the meantime, there is a steady stream of aerial attacks on Ukraine at night damaging property and killing civilians caught unawares. The war continues. The Putin era is now over two decades in being, beginning in 2004, and ending 15 years of rapprochement with the west. He felt that Russia had been badly let down and he intended to restore its position in the world, even though times had greatly changed as recognised by Putin’s predecessors.
His aim was to restore to Russian hegemony many of the border countries that obtained self-governance at the time when the Berlin wall was demolished in 1989, the end of the USSR, but countries not yet part of the EU. This was tried with Georgia unsuccessfully. Belarus is quite content with a working arrangement and it would be useful to have adjoining Ukraine, together with Belarus a large land mass seemingly protecting the western Russian flank from NATO countries. When Putin made his failed incursion into Ukraine in February 2022, it was through Belarus into northeast Ukraine and the shortest route to the capital, Kyiv, in conjunction with missile attacks applied from Crimea and Russia itself. What has ensued has been nearly 4 years of war with Russia taking a fifth of Ukrainian territory. With no progress towards peace, it is likely that Russia would take more territory, assuming that the US would no longer give support to Ukraine and that provided by the Europeans was inadequate.
Trump has announced that Russia likes the Peace Plan but he awaits the Ukrainian response. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany met with President Zelensky and this is being followed up in Brussels with the EU, from which their revision of the Peace Plan will be drawn up.
The Nobel Prize is still on the Trump wish list. He travelled to Malaysia to sign the peace agreement, engineered by the Malaysians, which ended the bitter border dispute between the Thais and Cambodians. His brief presence at the tail end he considers as the vital part of ending this disagreement! More recently the heads of the governments of Rwanda and the D R Congo, which had been in a border fight for a few years, signed a peace agreement at the behest of the President of the US. It was counted as one of his successes!
However, the fighting there has already resumed, and similarly the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia as of now has restarted. Trump had included these as wars that he had solved. He fails to realise that the eminent people awarded the Nobel prize have given years of their time and been outstanding in making a difference in their chosen fields, not just a few hours and adding a signature to a document to signify peace.
Finally, Europe was shocked by a recent televised interview in which it was intimated that he considered that it was decaying and lacked strong leadership, making poor decisions, e g on immigration. He frankly showed his ignorance of why the EU was formed nearly 80 years ago, to put a stop to centuries of wars, despite being a fairly recent product of German immigrants. In addition, the UN also came into being after WWII, in which the US was pleased to play a significant part and to offer a base for its headquarters in the States in NY. He is not very complimentary about it also.
The media, with some justification, has been less than complimentary about the misogynistic and racist views expressed in the televised interview. What will he do after he receives the EU/Ukrainian revised plan for peace? Watch this space!
About the author:
Dr. J. Scott Younger, OBE, is a professional civil engineer; he spent 42 years in the Far East undertaking assignments in 10 countries for WB, ADB, UNDP. He published many papers; he was a columnist for Forbes Indonesia and Globe Asia. He served on British & European Chamber boards and was a Vice Chair of Int’l Business Chamber for 17 years. His expertise is infrastructure and sustainable development and he takes an interest in international affairs. He is an International Chancellor of the President University, Indonesia and Honorary Senior Research Fellow of the Glasgow University. He is a member of IFIMES Advisory Board. Lived and worked in Thailand from 1978 to 1983 and visited Burma, Bangladesh and Nepal for projects.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IFIMES official position.
Ljubljana/Glasgow, 18 December 2025
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal "European Perspectives."
