With the war in Ukraine well into its third year, the conflict remains intense, with developments on multiple fronts. Fighting in the Donetsk region brings reminders of world war-era trenches, while Ukrainian forces have advanced up to 30 km into Russia’s Kursk region. Ukraine has also renewed its call to be allowed to use Western weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory. However, despite these efforts, Russian forces continue to gain ground in eastern Ukraine. Missile strikes and heavy fighting persist in various regions, making the situation fluid and unpredictable. One also has to include developments on the international diplomatic and geopolitical front, as they are important in understanding how fluid the situation is. Western support for Ukraine has been vital, helping the country sustain its defense. The EU has already offered tremendous support. In a statement to the European Parliament on Tuesday, European Commission Executive Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said the EU’s financial commitments to Ukraine total about €118 billion ($131 billion), including military, economic and humanitarian aid. Additionally, the EU is working on a $50 billion G7-backed loan package to meet Ukraine’s immediate financial needs. However, this support, specifically the military aspect, also risks escalating the conflict into a broader European war. Some believe that EU leaders are allowing the conflict to drift without a clear strategy. While there is consensus that support for Ukraine must continue, questions remain. Should the EU initiate negotiations to end the war? Is this conflict purely a Russia-Ukraine issue or does it require an agreement between Russia and the West? The latter seems key, yet negotiations must start somewhere, with the immediate priority being to stop the war. Is this still possible? Drawing a historical parallel, one could compare Ukraine’s struggles to the Algerian War of Independence from France. Algeria became a French colony after the 1830 invasion and, in 1848, it was annexed into France. Under French rule, violence and exploitation were common, with the French settler population dominating the locals. The war for independence began in 1954, fueled by decades of grievances over colonial oppression. At that time, decolonization movements were growing worldwide, as European empires weakened after the Second World War. The Cold War also played a role, with both the US and the Soviet Union supporting decolonization to expand their spheres of influence. In Algeria, the National Liberation Front launched guerrilla warfare against French forces, sparking a brutal conflict. Many attempts at negotiations failed but, starting in 1961, secret talks with Swiss mediation paved the way for formal negotiations in Evian-les-Bains, France. Even as fighting raged, the Evian Accords were signed in March 1962. The accords included provisions for a ceasefire, a referendum on Algeria’s future and protections for French settlers. Despite the agreement, sporadic violence continued until Algeria finally gained its independence on July 5, 1962. Relations with France have remained tense ever since. Drawing a historical parallel, one could compare Ukraine’s struggles to the Algerian War of Independence from France Ukraine’s history with Russia is much more deeply rooted and goes back more than 1,000 years, to the medieval times of the Kyivan Rus’. Following centuries of Mongol invasions and regional conflicts, most of Ukraine eventually came under Russian control in the late 18th century. After the First World War and the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine briefly declared independence, but it was soon incorporated into the Soviet Union. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991. Tensions with Russia have never stopped. They reflect deep historical disputes over territory, identity, political alignment and, more recently, between West and East. The events leading up to the current war echoed past crises. In 2013, then-President Viktor Yanukovych abandoned a proposed association agreement with the EU, opting instead for closer ties with Russia. This decision triggered the Euromaidan protests, a ricochet of the Orange Revolution that had taken place a decade earlier. As Yanukovych fled Kyiv, leaving a political vacuum, Russia annexed Crimea. In eastern Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists seized control of government buildings, leading to a violent conflict that, despite ceasefire agreements in 2014 and 2015, has persisted ever since. This is clearly a fight that goes deeper into where Ukraine belongs and if it can build closer ties with Europe and the West without antagonizing Russia. This is the key issue. We cannot avoid thinking that, just as the Algerian War of Independence was part of a larger shift in global power dynamics, the war in Ukraine reflects Russia’s declining influence. Europe, too, is grappling with its changing role on the world stage, as the US is weakened but remains dominant and China rises. This has led some Western analysts to call for Russia’s removal from international bodies like the UN Security Council, but such a move could have unintended consequences, especially as Russia retains a powerful nuclear arsenal, giving it significant leverage. Negotiations involving all relevant parties, including representatives from disputed regions, should reset all previous agreements and start now The path to peace in Ukraine may involve some of the lessons learned from Algeria. Negotiations involving all relevant parties, including representatives from disputed regions, should reset all previous agreements and start now. The terms of a ceasefire should be agreed upon and a new referendum, similar to the one in Algeria, could be held in contested regions to determine their status, provided it is carefully monitored and recognized by all parties. Protecting the rights of both ethnic Russians in Ukraine and Ukrainian nationals in contested regions would be essential. Any agreement would also have to bring about acceptable conditions that preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty without meddling in its domestic politics. Moreover, for stability and long-term peacebuilding, the country should not be an outpost that becomes a consistent security threat to Russia. Today, I dare to say that, despite Russia starting the war with its invasion, the ball is in fact in Europe’s court. The EU needs to decide on its future relations with Russia. It is now clear that Moscow will not integrate into the Western operating system unless it is given an impactful voice. And this will not happen, simply because its operating system is incompatible with the Western one. The EU needs Ukraine to be the interoperability switch between the two systems, not the firewall. I for one would say that a country’s sovereignty should allow it to choose whoever it wants to ally with. Whether it is to join NATO or the EU, Russia should not have a say. Yet, Ukraine should understand at what cost it will come. Some European leaders are going as far as declaring the goal of erasing Russia from the international order and adding that, in a conflict with NATO, it would be defeated in three days. Even if NATO does indeed have military superiority, these declarations are dangerous and unrealistic. In the same way, if the goal is to severely weaken Russia in the event of a future broader conflict, such a strategy will probably lead to the broader war it is looking to prevent. And in the meantime, Ukraine will continue to pay the price of a forever war for which Russia has geared up on all fronts, while the West is still in consumerism mode. Negotiations do not need a pause in the conflict to start, as we witnessed in the Algerian War of Independence. Yet, if they succeed, they will ultimately reflect the situation on the ground. I am not sure what the front in Ukraine is telling us, but the international geopolitical situation is pretty clear: it is a weakened Western front. • Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, CEO of EurabiaMedia, and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.