Main Edition
US
FR
September 28, 2024 - 8:00am
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting with former President Trump, though it led to nothing concrete, was a sensible move by both sides. In Zelensky’s case, it was an acknowledgement of the obvious fact that Trump may win in November, and it will then be desperately important for Zelensky to have some kind of working relationship with him. For Trump, the meeting was meant to protect him against allegations of being an ally of Putin, and also acknowledged the simple truth that if he is elected and wishes to promote an end to the war in Ukraine, he will have to deal with Zelensky.
As to Zelensky’s “Victory Plan”, there is no chance whatsoever of this succeeding. Ukraine cannot possibly drive Russia out of all — or most likely any — of the territory Russia has taken since 2014. On the contrary, it is now the Ukrainian army that is slowly retreating in the Donbas. The real question is whether Zelensky and the Ukrainian government now themselves believe in this plan, and if not, why they are still pushing it.
In off-the-record remarks, officials of the Biden administration have expressed deep scepticism about the Ukrainian plan. President Biden has somewhat increased existing US military aid to Ukraine, but he has refused to allow (British-provided but US-guided) Storm Shadow missiles to be fired deep into Russia, for fear of drastic Russian retaliation, especially in the Middle East. And even if the Storm Shadows had been given the green light, this would not have led to Ukrainian “victory”, though it would probably have helped slow down the Russian advance. Nor is there any chance that Ukraine will receive a definite and guaranteed timetable for Nato membership (which Hungary, Turkey, Slovakia — and perhaps in future Germany and France) will in any case veto.
It is in fact now becoming increasingly accepted in private by Western officials that the war (or perhaps only the fighting) will end roughly on the basis established in the Istanbul negotiations in the first weeks of the war, and recently sketched by Trump’s vice presidential candidate, Senator J.D. Vance: there will be a ceasefire along wherever the front line eventually runs; the issue of sovereignty over the four provinces Russia claims to have annexed will be deferred for (endless) future negotiation, as in the case of Cyprus; in the meantime, both sides will promise not to change the ceasefire line by force; and Ukraine will sign a treaty of neutrality, accompanied by some form of international guarantees for its security and territorial integrity.
There are increasing signs of a recognition in Kyiv that this is the best that Ukraine is likely to get, and that if the war continues, it may end up with a great deal less. A Ukrainian businessman told me that “in private, everyone now knows that we will not get the lost territories back.” The feeling is growing that Ukraine should let the occupied territories go (though without ever legally conceding this) so that Ukraine can rebuild its economy and move towards membership of the European Union. The Ukrainian government could then declare a peace along existing lines to be not a defeat but a qualified victory, that saves 80% of Ukraine and secures its European future. According to opinion polls, the Ukrainian public is also shifting in this direction, though slowly.
This shift in opinion is due largely to grim news from the front line, the failure of the incursion into Kursk to divert Russian forces from the Donbas, and the prospect of a winter of power cuts due to Russian destruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs part of her campaign strategy against Trump, she is digging herself deeper and deeper into support for Ukrainian “victory” in her public statements, and will therefore find it correspondingly harder to change course.
No, she won’t find it hard at all. And all sides will talk about “victory”, except the dead who will be spoken of as heroes.
Was 6 months after Eisenhower took over the White House that the Korean Armistice was signed. Alot points to an uncanny similarity in timing and outcome in Ukraine. The big question is the degree of security guarantee offered. Putin cannot be trusted so it’ll be about what the West is prepared to guarantee and show it means it. The subsequent South Korean example shows what we can do.
Autocrats can never allow countries on their border to become successful democracies. It’s existential for them. So the idea an Armistice stops Putin seeking to undermine and threaten neighbours naive in the extreme. Xi, Kim Wrong-Un and the Ayatollah’s watching to see the West’s resolve too.
Not much chance of that. I was just reading Wiki on Ukraine’s governments snce 1992. A bit censored, no mention of the journalist cut unto four, but interesting nonetheless. People also forget that Glenny’s McMafia hardly mentions Russia. Ukraine is prominent tho, as are Bosnia and Kosovo..
What level of security guarantee do you think would be appropriate/ effective?
I don’t think as a universal rule autocrats are inevitably going to invade their democratic neighbours. Some will of course, but I don’t think pro/anti democracy would be the central aim.
I also don’t think anyone is suggesting if a peace deal is achieved Putin will stop being a threat.
Bi-lateral guarantees if NATO can’t coalesce. US obviously key, but can’t be alone.
Where has an Autocrat sat peacefully next to an emerging democratic emerging market economy and not sought to destabilise, create a puppet state and/or invade if necessary? Only where the deterrence is strong.
The South Korean regime in 53 had much wrong with it, but it wasn’t an autocracy. Look what happened once it’s security was stabilised.
What about a UN backed de militarised zone between Ukraine and Russia, is that conceivable?
Yeah I agree, I’m not saying they are benevolent. I think autocracies do all of those things. I’m just saying I don’t think a neighbouring democracy in and of itself is necessarily an existential threat. There are usually a lot more factors in play.
Couldn’t some NATO members also be seen as being less than democratic – Turkey, Hungry. Are these countries also enemies of democracy and such be treated as such?
Furthermore, don’t democratic countries also try to effect outcomes in other countries? I’m not trying to make a ‘whataboutist’ argument here. Only to make the point that I think the foreign policies of countries are more motivated by other factors. It seems to me most countries are willing to work with (or against) whatever political system in order to serve their own strategic interests. But maybe that’s to sinical.
A neighboring democracy is felt to be a threat by an autocracy if it feels its people will take said democracy as a role model for demands of its own. The very cultural closeness between Ukraine and Russia made Ukrainian moves towards democracy intolerable for Putins Russia. What his regime really fear is not NATO, nut a maidan in Moscow.
Yeah I agree Putin would find uncomfortable but enough to go to war over that issue alone? Yes they are close, but Ukraine is still very different from Russia. The Ukrainians have had decades of gradual integration into the EU. The situation in Russia is different, I imagine Putin could probably put down a revolt before it got close to happening, let’s remember most uprisings fail. Therefore I don’t think it would be an immediate exertential crisis for him. More likely his motivations were as he said- he believes that the breakup of the soviet union was a mistake, and it ceded parts of what he believed to be Russian land to other countries. I don’t support this statement, I just think this is more likely his motivations, not that he can’t stand other countries being democratic.
P.S. my personal beliefs are – I’m pro democracy, we were right to support Ukraine, but we have gone far enough up the escalatory ladder and we should have been pushing for a resolution some time ago. The longer it goes on now the worse for Ukraine it will be.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be an issue, I just don’t think it’s the only reason Putin invaded.
We have the internet, people in Russia can find out about democracies weather they are next door or not (even with the censorship and propaganda that no doubt takes place in Russia). Also Ukraine has been a democracy (even if superficially at times) for decades, it’s country has been gradually integrating into the EU all this time, which layed the foundations for maidan. Does this cultural context exist to the same extent in Russia?
I find it more likely Putin was motivated by his desire to reclaim control of lands he felt were of key importance to Russian security, which he was less concerned about when they were in the hands of a pro-russian Ukrainian government. When he felt Ukraine was slipping irrevocably out of Russian influence, he chose to invade. I’m not supporting this decision, I’m just suggesting the motive was territorial control, not simply that he hates democracy.
P.s. for what it’s worth I’m pro democracy. I believe we were right to back Ukraine at the start of the war, but we should have been working towards a negotiation for some time now. I think the longer it goes on the worse for Ukraine it will be.
There is a chance that Ukraine could end up as the second biggest country in Europe.
Russian will never agree to the front lines being frozen if Ukrainian soldiers are in Kursk.
Agreed – that does not seem likely.
To some extent also, the Russians have laid an egg for themselves with their move in September 2022 to accept the entirety of the four oblasts into the Russian Federation, in their old administrative boundaries. A freeze of the front lines would leave significant parts of what is in Russian legal eyes Russia under Ukrainian control. I wonder how politically acceptable that would be.
Fortunately for Russia, Zelensky is persisting in his radical “no negotiations” stance, so Russia is under no diplomatic pressure to engage in negotiations.
Any of you in the West been told yet that yesterday 4 number Donated Swedish F 16 aircraft were destroyed on the ground by a Russian Hypersonic Missile ( plenty more of those in Russian stockpiles) a weapon that The USA
Patriot system is useless against
Also I ain’t gonna tell you
But go yourself and find out the numbers of still functional Challenger , Leopard , M1 Abraham
Tanks and Bradley APC ,s donated by the West that are fit for Purpose
Now for the bit that none of you are gonna like
A Golden rule of Warfare
No matter how many battles you lose , The last battle is always won
By the side who has the ability to not only replenish their losses but actually increase them both in Personal and Equipment
Apply to Ukraine then Apply to Russia
Who shall the winner be ?
Sweden doesn’t have F16, but it’s own JAS 39 Gripen, so it would be very weird if Sweden had donated any F16. Fake news on that account.
” though it is unwise to make any firm predictions about Trump, given what we know of his character.”
Trump can never be mentioned without the inclusion of a negative slight.
A well deserved one.
How so? What do “we know about Trump’s character”? And why does character matter for the leader of a country? Do you judge such people by their character or their accomplishments?
Any negative slight is indeed deserved. We know of his propensity to lie, to resort to fraudulent acts, his boorishness, etc.. Whether that disqualifies him from seeking public office is something that is not well connected with a discussion of his likeability as a person. Maybe a person like Al Capone would indeed make a ‘good’ leader of a country, but I, for myself, would not wish to be led to Valhalla by an unreconstructed gangster. The rule of law trumps democracy.
Who is “we”? You must be talking about the voices in your head that you believed when they said Biden was sharp and brilliant, and not a corrupt multigenerational criminal.
Some good points made here. But I always have qualms with tidying complex problems up into simple solutions. Life is messier than that.
It’s best not to limit one’s imagination to a particular outcome. Instead, take trial steps, and see what happens.
In other words, do like Donald Trump, not like JD Vance. Leave things vague. Get negotiating, and stop planning.
Zelensky, who has a current gig as a foreign leader, not merely the WEF/ West puppet he actually is, has chosen to meddle in America’s election. He is welcome to GF himself. And lazy ass writers who pretend Trump is the unstable leader after what America and the West is being out through by this war and the Biden fiasco is welcome to take the same invitation.
If Putin does not lose this war, he wins. And if he wins he will carry on his acts of aggression against his neighbours and we will soon have World War III. So western leaders had better grow a backbone pretty quickly, and give Ukraine what it needs to drive Russia out of its country. Russia only has the resources for 12 months or so more of combat.
Or, in other words, don’t wait for WW3, usher it in as quickly as possible.
‘Russia only has the resources for 12 months or so more of combat.’
Based on your information from where?
Ukraine declaring neutrality, with the proviso that in the event the country is attacked the guarantor powers would come to her aid, at any time would have saved many lives and averted much misery. This would have had the effect of Ukraine joining NATO in all but name.
Good point, but getting security guarantees would not be the same as joining NATO. There’s an important difference. Security guarantees don’t allow for NATO bases on Russia’s border. NATO membership does.
That’s why Russia set its red line at NATO membership, and why Ukraine and the West were foolish to cross it. Ukraine is paying for that now.
Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan” gives us a good example of the worth of plans in situations like this. Aside from giving him talking points, his plan is worth little, even worthless. A plan won’t solve his problem.
That’s because a war occurs in a complex adaptive system. When one side makes a move, the other side adapts to it. You can’t always predict what will happen. You have to make a move carefully, see what your opponent does, and then plan your next move accordingly.
This concept of an evolutionary process is the only way to gain knowledge. We learn things through trial and error, through experiments, through an iterative series of small steps and feedback, not by giant leaps.
You might as well try to plan out a victory in a chess game as plan out a victory in this war. But still people like Volodymyr Zelensky plan, and they continue to blindly follow their plan even though things are not going according to plan.
I harp on this too much but Donald Trump is a master at dealing with a complex adaptive system. So is Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos. So was Steve Jobs.
These people learn in the harsh laboratory of the business world that planning and talking and ideas don’t matter, but action and reaction do. They learn that they must take risks, act without knowing what will work, and that they must be able to survive failure.
JD Vance is not in their league. He put out his plan for a solution in Ukraine as though it will work. Much better not to do that. Not to take sides. That is too limiting.
Donald Trump has a much better approach. He keeps his idea of a solution to himself for now, and focuses on process. That doesn’t limit him, and he can listen to both sides as an honest broker.
The Ukraine war is like all wars — both sides have some right on their side and some wrong. There is room to fashion a deal that both sides would accept as a win. And if anyone can practice the art of the deal in this case, it’s Donald Trump.
Good points, as long as the Democrats don’t practise (English spelling) the ‘art of the steal’ (and get away with it – again)
The endgame approaches. It will be the end for Zelenskyy, who could have had a much better deal in 2022 but threw it away along with tens of thousands of lives. The consequences for NATO will also be severe.
He didn’t have part of the Kursk region in 2022.
Fat lot of good it’s doing him …
There is an argument to be made in favour of UN Peacekeepers being deployed, as they have successfully in other war zones.
Would this be accepted?