For a peace proposal to succeed it has to based on reality, and weigh the outlook for the parties involved. The 'Blinken proposal' which was floated some time ago, which envisioned a neutral Ukraine, which could, and would be rearmed to the hilt as a 'security guarantee', while the Crimea-peninsula would be de-militarised, was a non-starter. What this 'Blinken-proposal' revealed, was that Blinken and those around him apparently came to believe their own propaganda. It assumed that Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine in February last year, and failed, and that it is struggling now.
The reason I feel even more confident to say this is clearly wrong, is because the Chinese proposal doesn't reflect any of this, and lacks any sense of urgency. Though the Chinese are not involved, yet, it has to be clear to everybody watching developments in the world that their neutrality is in fact a luxury they can afford themselves, and not a principled choice, since they are on the side of the Russians. They feel threatened by NATO as well, in similar ways, over the status of Taiwan. Formally the United States, and their European partners, observe a 'One China'-policy to this day. But it is a lie, similar to this 'Minsk Accord', and every other agreement ever signed with NATO, or its member states individually. The US is openly preparing for war with China for some time. If Russia was in a tight spot, any Chinese proposal would have reflected a sense of urgency. It didn't.
The possibility of China offering assistance to Russia in its war with NATO on Ukrainian soil has spooked several NATO-countries from way back when, but today it is an even bigger threat. The formidable productive capacity, and state-of-the-art knowledge base in China, with Russian know-how, cheap energy and vast amounts of raw materials, cannot be matched by NATO, which is also challenged in a logistical sense with long, vulnerable supply-lines crossing open international waters. But so far Russia doesn't require Chinese help, and it much prefers a 'neutral' China, which is an asset on the diplomatic front under the circumstances. Therefore Russia is not struggling, but winning on its own terms. It is 'grinding' Ukrainian/NATO forces and their equipment down, and not the other way around.
Russia didn't even respond to this informal 'Blinken proposal' in an accommodating way, and rejected it out of hand through 'spokespersons' in response to questions from journalists, while they welcomed the Chinese effort. In fact, the 'Blinken proposal' is an invitation to stay the course, as Alexander Mercouris explained on his channel. Demilitarising Ukraine was their stated goal one year ago, and allowing NATO to rearm Ukraine and train its military after the 'conflict' is not going to happen. There will not be a demilitarised Crimea either, and it will stay Russian for now and evermore. Even NATO understands that these dreams of conquering Crimea are not realistic, and that Ukraine cannot go on to lose this many men for long.
As stated before, I do not have the correct 'numbers' on how many soldiers and how much equipment each side lost up till now. But articles in western media which do not get much traction outside the publication itself, and therefore do not become part of the consensus, suggest that the 'life expectancy' of Ukrainian/NATO soldiers serving in Bakhmut and elsewhere is around four hours, on average. Even Ukraine admitted that they lost up to one thousand soldiers a day in some fiercely contested battles earlier in the war. The Russian losses are nowhere near that high, or it would have been widely known inside Russia. My newspaper, strongly pro-Ukrainian, had an article last week about Russian 'Rappers' critical of the war, who are still performing without being hindered by the authorities. No such luxury in Kiev, I assure you!
With economic growth returning to Russia this year, according to the IMF, which failed to provide an accurate prediction of the impact of the sanctions on Russia last year, offering a far more pessimistic outlook than the two percent drop it eventually amounted to, without massive central bank interventions to subsidise consumption and companies like their former partners in the west, 'buying' fake growth, will not kill support for Putin in Russia, but enhance it. What is ill understood in the west, is that the average Russian doesn't blame the Ukrainians for this armed conflict, and they most certainly do not blame Putin. They blame NATO, and more in particular the AngloSaxons within NATO. No peace proposal coming from NATO will be acceptable under the circumstances, and after the failed negotiations in Istanbul last year, the Russians decided to solve this militarily. But understand that a victory for them doesn't entail the occupation of all of Ukraine. That would be punishment. Apart from a select number of ultra-nationalistic parties and organisations, the bulk of the Russians want to save their 'brothers' and 'sisters' in Ukraine from the terror of being slaughtered by the 'Nazi' groups they know to exist. Not just in Ukraine, but in the Baltics and other Eastern- and Western European countries as well. They do not want to be left with the necessity to rule over those 'Nazi's'. In Afghanistan in the eighties they found out that such a proposition leads to ruin.
It is not entirely clear what a military victory for Russia would entail. In January last year I wrote on my Dutch language blog that, if they were made to go to war, they would most likely 'take' the region from Kharkiv to Odessa, and leave Ukraine landlocked. Because that is where the people live they consider their 'brothers' and 'sisters'. They may quarrel, and after the devastation of this war they will have plenty of disagreements, but in the end they will find a way to heal the wounds. But never with the 'Nazi's'. Never with Muslim terrorists. Never with people who lie and cheat and steal. Never with the 'Devil incarnate'. Obviously, as I wrote in January last year, there is a geostrategic argument that goes hand in hand with this practical argument, because the 'BRI', the Russian/Chinese project initially envisioned by Xi as the new 'Silk Route', would be served well by a land-bridge connecting China and Iran to Southern Europe.
It would be a mistake though to state that this geostrategical goal was the 'true' argument. That would be 'NATO-thinking', and the main reason why NATO sucks at winning the peace in countries they conquer militarily. This 'NATO-thinking' is also reflected in Ukraine's focus on terrain, no matter how many people die. In other words, Russia was happy to accept the revival of the 'Minsk Accords' at the start of their 'Special Military Operation', which would have left the Donbas as part of a federalised Ukraine. But no longer. They welcome this Chinese call for a cease-fire and 'talks' as envisioned by the Chinese, resulting in an all encompassing deal between NATO and the 'Rest of the World' to stop the bullying, which might leave Russia short of occupying the areas around Kharkiv, and along the coast of the Black Sea from Kherson to Odessa if that were to happen soon. They assume, correctly if you ask me, that this 'mercy' of leaving Ukraine some of the territory on their list will pay dividends when the 'BRICS'-powerhouse will become the envy of the world, compared to 'Rainbow-country', struggling to make 'wind' and 'solar' work for them, while feeding the population bugs and bullshit to 'Save the Planet'.
It was cruel to use Ukraine in a plan to 'Regime Change' Russia, as was the original intention. It serves no purpose whatsoever to continu till the last Ukrainian. NATO is 'improvising', hoping for a lucky break, while those within this organisation closest to the original plan are scared shitless that they themselves will be left holding the shorter stick, and ruin their careers. They much prefer to end the world today. They do not even understand the concept of peace, or prosperity as something of value, only personal safety and individual wealth. No proposal they will bring to the table is serious, and therefore they should not be allowed near the table. Let the adults do the negotiating.