With Russian President Vladimir Putin already putting up unnecessary obstacles to starting talks aimed at ending the Ukraine war, Kyiv is now showing that it too is in no hurry to head to the negotiating table. Ukrainian officials are currently making the case that peace discussions should be postponed until after their country has regained the tactical upper hand in the conflict. However, there is a problem in delaying negotiations until Kyiv enjoys superiority — namely, that it may simply never happen.
While Ukraine’s optimism and courage are both admirable, its battlefield prospects are somewhat less propitious. Moscow is steadily seizing territory and Kyiv’s issues with manpower are well-documented. Delaying risks galvanising Putin by offering him more Ukrainian towns and headline-grabbing victories, ensuring he is less likely to negotiate and in a stronger position once talks eventually do commence.
Kyiv is in danger of trading land at the front for less vital successes far behind, its proposed strategy being to use long-range missiles and a record number of domestically-produced drones to continue striking oil facilities, industrial plants and military production sites deep within Russia. According to Ukrainian officials, this will in time place so much pressure on the Russian economy that the Kremlin will have no choice but to negotiate in good faith.
But is that true? While such strikes undeniably hinder Russia’s economy and ability to wage war, it is doubtful as to whether they could inflict so much pain on Moscow as to make it limp desperately into the negotiating room for some much-needed respite. A Ukrainian intelligence source admits that Russia has been able to repair damaged oil facilities within a week and, with data on the scale of the damage classified, the Kremlin may well view such attacks as a manageable irritation rather than an existential crisis. Kyiv’s intelligence sources have also acknowledged that strikes are only one aspect of the strategy, the rest depending upon the West dishing out more missiles to Ukraine and more energy sanctions to Russia.
The US is unlikely to be sold on the idea. While the Russian economy is under stress and therefore vulnerable to tougher measures, Donald Trump may be reluctant to implement those for fear of pushing Moscow closer to Beijing, his overall goal being to provoke a split between the two powers. Ukrainian predictions of regaining battlefield momentum will also probably fall on deaf ears: in April, Trump’s Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg was already arguing that Kyiv’s lost territory is likely to remain so, along with Ukraine’s chances of a military victory over Russia. With an Israel-Hamas ceasefire in place and the US President-elect boasting of his contribution, Trump can now turn his attention to resolving other world conflicts, all fodder for his Nobel Peace Prize nomination form.
This war has been marked by tremendous reversals of fortune for Ukraine. Kyiv stood strong, after the rest of the world predicted it would fall. Putin was left stunned after Ukrainian forces rolled into occupied territory. It is easy to believe in miracles when you have already pulled off a few. However, postponing negotiations until Ukraine has the upper hand will only ensure that Putin maintains it.
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.
SubscribeThe inaction of the West in 2014 is directly responsible for Ukraine’s current situation. We promised protection; we did sweet FA.
Well, we helped overthrow the duly elected government that had a favorable relationship with Moscow. There is that.
Presumably you led by example and signed up with the Ukrainian military…
The west has given the Ukraine billions, and all kinds of hardware and supplies
A part from Nuclear weapons what else could the US/Europe give the Ukraine ?
Who is the “we” who promised Ukraine protection? Maybe people like then US Senator John McCain promised protection, but he and others had no ability to promise anything on behalf of the US.
It’s all here – there’s no promise of protection, just promises not to attack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
If Ukraine collapsed militarily what would the European ‘elites’ do? Panic?
Will Starmer’s 100-year pact with Ukraine ‘fix the foundations’?
Why does Ukraine “want” Crimea, Donbass, Kherson etc.? These are areas where mostly Russian-speaking separatists live, and that is why they have been the subject of bombardments and violence by Kiev since 2014. I guess they want the minerals and the rich soils? But how are they going to take that without eliminating the local populations?
The Donbas was not entirely taken over by separatists, with Russian some military assistance, in 2014. Nor was Ukraine bombarding the area afterwards, rather they were policing a fragile border. The geographical bounds of Ukraine have been in existence for centuries, but Russian sees it as part of old Imperial/Soviet Union empire, and its revanchism is unlikely to end at the Donbas. Even if there were to be a ceasefire, it would be treated as simply a pause. These notions have been aired extensively before.