Comment: Excluding any stakeholders will, as has been proven in the past, result in a fragile peace at best

It is hard to watch this latest apparent push for peace talks over Ukraine and not see where lessons can be learned from what happened in Northern Ireland, particularly with regards to the importance of inclusive dialogue, honoured mediation, and a long-term commitment between all stakeholders towards reconciliation.

However, specific geopolitical dynamics, including the role of external powers, has seemingly made it an unnecessarily more complex and challenging process.

The arrival this week of US secretary of State Marco Rubio in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for behind closed doors talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin's foreign policy advisor, Yuri Ushakov, to the exclusion of Ukrainian representatives and others, is about as ballsy a move as sacrificing a rook for a knight or bishop in chess.

The shock and awe approach is one the US and its returned president, Donald Trump, is well familiar with. There's not a day now since his inauguration last month that a headline somewhere doesn't attribute some outlandish comment to the business magnate - true or not.

But if we take a step back, and observe the optics for what they truly are, the gambit - if we can call it that - has achieved exactly what was probably needed.

Approaching three years of needless bloodshed, billions of euro wasted and millions of people displaced, depending on who's opinion you value most, the issue of Ukraine is at least being spoken about again and, at a time, when it risked being pushed to the back pages.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has already said that Putin would be ready to talk to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy “if necessary”, adding that Ukraine’s accession to the EU is its own decision, though it draws a line when it comes to seeing military alliances formed.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen says the EU is ready to “work alongside the US to end the bloodshed", though Zelenskyy rejects any notion of a quick-win ceasefire sought by the Americans.

Ultimately, and regardless of any deal the US might attempt to broker, achieving lasting peace in Ukraine will likely require both Ukraine and Russia to make significant concessions.

At a base level Ukraine, under its wartime president, must protect its sovereign territorial integrity, and Putin will have to return to his own people with some face-saving token to show for a special military operation that was only supposed to last weeks.

The involvement of the international community is essential to ensuring that any agreement is sustainable and the interests of all parties are respected.

Both Ukraine and Russia are likely to be sceptical of the other's commitment. Trust-building is needed, as are post-war guarantees on security.

European countries have to play a part in that but, ultimately, will look west to the US as they require a backstop.

Because, in the end, it is only President Trump and his administration that can provide a deterrent to prevent Putin from attacking again.

Which brings us to the conflict in Northern Ireland and the key framework of reference for lasting peace - the Good Friday Agreement.

Today it stands as a model after decades of violence, only achieved in 1998 through brave actions, not just words, and parking of significant egos in favour of careful negotiations. Late nights, smokey rooms when that was still allowed in doors, fevered conversations in hallways and ultimately a shake of hands. Crucially, the agreements in Northern Ireland involved direct and inclusive talks, instead of pitting one side against the other. It is noteworthy for the US government too, having played an integral role in bringing opposing sides to back table after several false dawns, not separating them.

Just as the Good Friday Agreement involved external actors as mediator, the situation in Ukraine could benefit from international facilitators to ensure neutrality. Excluding any stakeholders will, as has been proven in the past, result in a fragile peace or worryingly a complete breakdown of talks and even more war.

Though the historical legacies of both conflicts are different, neither can be solved through short-term measures. The singular message of a lasting peace remains the same.