President Zelensky’s latest suggestions for how to end the fighting in Ukraine are not yet the basis for a peace settlement, but they contain some hopeful pointers towards one. They should form the starting point of the incoming Trump administration’s negotiations with both Moscow and Kyiv.
Two points in particular are fundamental. The first is Zelensky’s acknowledgement that the areas of Ukraine now held by Russia will remain under Russia’s de facto control. There will be no Ukrainian or Western legal recognition of Russian annexations, but the issue will be left for future negotiation.
According to members of the Russian establishment with whom I have spoken, the Russian government itself does not expect this, as they know that Russia’s essential partners in the Brics will also never formally recognise Russian sovereignty. Rather, Moscow hopes for a situation like that of Cyprus, where talks on reunification have dragged on for half a century until the issue has been forgotten.
Equally important is Zelensky’s recognition that while his government strongly wishes for Nato membership or a “Nato umbrella” for the 80% of Ukraine not occupied by Russia, “nobody has offered this”. Given Trump’s America First ideology, it is exceptionally unlikely that he will ever do so. The acceptance of a new Nato member also requires the unanimous consent of existing members. Hungary will certainly veto; Turkey probably; and due to internal political crises, the future policies of France and Germany are highly unclear.
This leaves the question of guarantees for Ukraine short of Nato membership. Zelensky has suggested bilateral security guarantees by individual Nato members (some of which, like the UK, have already signed bilateral security agreements with Kyiv). The presence of Western troops, as desired by Kyiv, is a non-starter as far as Russia is concerned. It is seen as just as bad as Nato membership, in part because it would give the Ukrainians the chance to provoke a new war to recover their lost territories, in which Western forces would be immediately embroiled.
The question of guarantees to Ukraine is therefore probably the most difficult of all those that will have to be resolved in peace negotiations. Adding to the difficulty is that it is mixed up with the Russian demand for Ukrainian “demilitarisation”. The US and Ukrainian point of departure must be that almost every Western government, and huge majorities of Western populations, have categorically ruled out going to war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine. This means that absolute Western guarantees of Ukrainian security are ipso facto impossible.
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.
SubscribeInformative and timely. The world could really do with this coming to a conclusion, just as troubles in Syria are flaring up again, and with Russia heavily involved in that arena, Moscow has no incentive to continue further into Ukraine territory now that it’s objective of securing the Russo-ethnic population has been largely achieved.
The whole tenor of international relations needs to be dampened down, so we can get back to doing what we do best – trading (the start of civilisation) and moving towards the future with just a bit more confidence than many can muster right now.
“it’s objective of securing the Russo-ethnic population has been largely achieved” – Lad, you picked the most idiotic reason for the Russian invasion. In the Central Asian republics, the Russian population has decreased several times due to basic fear for their lives, but for some reason this never bothered Moscow. Have you ever heard before 2014 about Russians fleeing to Russia from the terrible Ukrainians? And in Central Asia, millions fled from the riots and massacres.
No, i’ve never heard of any of that, i’ve had my head stuck in the sand for the past decade…
The reality is that Russia will settle for what’s been achieved, providing they have guarantees along the lines the article outlines. And that, EU, confirms my point, whether you regard it as idiotic or not.
No, I’ve never heard of any of that … And that, EU, confirms my point, whether you regard it as idiotic or not.
.
Just so you know, I was among those who left Central Asia. You can continue to trust the opinions of EU officials as much as you like, but believe me, it does not make you more informed. More precisely, your awareness of events in the post-Soviet space will be at their level
You don’t realise that Lancashire Lad is using EU as short-hand for your moniker El Uro?
He’s not talking about the European Union…
Are you a “bot”? Actually it’s fairly clear that you are. Ho hum…
He can’t be a bot! He would have had to have clicked that “I am not a bot” thing! Bots don’t lie, you know!
Maybe the Russo ethnic population felt insecure because their legally elected President wa# forced to resign in a bloody coup, and flee, to avoid the prison sentences awarded to Timoshenko and later Poroshenko, followed by a brief civil war, followed by a shelling of the civilian population in the east that killed some 14000. Zelensky, elected on a promise to solve this conflict, boasted that Ukraine had gained immense experience in shelling over eight years. Kazakhstan, the only stan with a substantial ethnic Russian population (40% in 1991) , tried to keep what Nazerbayev regarded as the best of Soviet Inheritance, education, and urban health. There was no mis treatment of ethnic Russians, and Russians returning from poverty and chaos in Russia were welcome. Only the rules on using Kazakh in government and as the president’s language , reminded the population of its new found independence dependence. Incidentally, in the 1990s Kazakhstan asked to join the EU, arguing that at least half of the country lay west of the Urals and thus should be counted as European.
Trading with future enemies is killing your own.
Your point about securing ethnic Russians seems to have created a bit of debate which could go either way. IMO the win for Putin seems to be more about securing geography than culture. Specifically the land bridge between Crimea and Russia. At the moment it looks like Job Done for Putin.
Otherwise the article echoes some of what Mearsheimer has been suggesting: that Ukraine will have to give up territory and there’ll be a ‘cold peace’ with intermittent violations or accusations thereof by both sides. A vast DMZ with third party observers seems likely.
One wonders why such a ‘best of a bad situation’ solution couldn’t have been hammered out three years ago avoiding all of the devastation and cost.
Maybe it could have, but a lot of Russians have died in the interim, so that at least is good.
You, like many others, either promote Russian propaganda on purpose, or you are really ignorant of basic historical facts.
In 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum both Luhansk and Donbass voted over 83% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for the same.
So there was never any pro Russia majority in these areas, quite the opposite.
Problem with arguments advanced in this article is that Ukraine already had guarantees proposed by the author in Budapest memorandum.
It didn’t work, did it?
If Russia can be trusted to adhere to any agreement and be peaceful neighbour then why Finland and Sweden joined NATO?
All this talk of peace on Russian terms is no different from Munich 1938.
It did end end well, did it?
You can not wish away reality of centuries old Russian genocidal imperialism.
If Russia can be trusted to adhere to any agreement and be peaceful neighbour then why Finland and Sweden joined NATO? Russia can never be trusted to do that. I for my part an surprised it took Finland and Sweden so long to realize it.
Yes, I saw the Syria business. Should we be arming the anti-Assad forces?
I agree with your suggestion that whatever deal is reached should be endorsed by the UN Security Council, especially since there is zero chance of obtaining US Senate approval for anything that is acceptable to Russia. However, bear in mind that both the Minsk Accords and the JCPOA were endorsed by the Security Council and hence became binding in international law, but both were simply ignored and flatly violated by the US and Europe, while Russia and Iran respectively stuck to their side of the bargain.
As for sanction “relief” – it’s never going to happen, and I doubt Russia is counting on it or will give it any value in reaching a deal. The US has never been able to follow through on promised sanction relief.
Russia has a good case to argue that the best guarantee for Western compliance with the terms of whatever treaty is made will be facts on the ground.
You are reminding us that the international rule-of-law has no teeth.
It may not have teeth, but you can get nibbled to death by ducks … which is what is happening to “the West”. The Rest of the World – representing 7/8ths of the world’s population, more than half its GDP, and comprising the world’s largest democracy, the world’s manufacturing workshop, and the world’s most resource-rich country – are no longer paying attention to us.
Our antics no longer matter. The rest of the world can observe us like an adult watches someone else’s tantrum-throwing toddler (which describes us well), but they go on and continue adulting, leaving us to stew about the toys we threw out of our pram.
Yeah, or you could get it endorsed by Thomas the Tank Engine, who has approximately the same amount of power as the UN Security Council.
Did Trump’s election generate pre-peace talks proposals or events on the battlefield?
No
I’ve got a better plan – give Ukraine some nukes. Not a lot of them, just enough to enable them to utterly level Moscow and St Petersburg should the need arise. Put them back in the position they were in before they foolishly gave up their legacy Soviet nukes. Anything else would involving trusting the Russians to some extent, which would be foolish, given that they are the world’s least trustworthy people.
dumb, disinformed, deluded…
You are the classic blowhard in the pub corner… and there you should be confined, for your own safety, rotting in your ethylic-alcohol induced, obsoleted bullish fantasies
Is that you, Mr Lavrov? Don’t beat about the bush! Tell us what you really think!
So… the proposal is that Russia gets to keep its spoils and Ukraine gets security guarantees not worth the paper on which they are written. Defensive weapons alone are a waste of space, as many countries have discovered over the course of history. Basically, in other words, the article is saying the bully should be allowed to win with complete disregard for law, morality or decency.
Morality and decency (not to mention common sense…) would have been NATO complying with its promise not to expand one inch Eastwards. It didn’t.
Also the “bilateral security guarantee” given to Ukraine by the UK is as worthless as that given to Poland in 1939. It is ridiculous to imagine that the UK would ever directly attack Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. It most certainly wouldn’t have the support of the UK people, and has presumably been given by the UK government to suck up to the USA Neocons. One wonders what future benefits were promised.
Point me towards the written agreements that said NATO wouldn’t expand eastward, or prevent those former Soviet colonies from joining. I’ll wager you can’t.
However there were signed agreements from Russia to respect Ukraines borders in exchange for giving up the nuclear weapons
You obviously consider verbal agreements to be non binding.
No doubt those with whom you do business are very wary…or few.
Verbal agreements between powerful nation states! Maybe they should have written it down on a beermat after a few pints in the pub so it would have had meaning.
Best not to preach faith and morality then as the West does and act surprised when others object to your bad faith and actually do something.
No one is preaching faith and morality. I am saying it is ridiculous to suggest ‘verbal agreements’ have any relevance in international relations.
Not actually the case. As I recall one of the Treaties limiting nuclear missiles wasn’t ratified by Congress but Nixon, as President, abided by it anyway to everyone’s benefit.
Despite “Watergate” Nixon was actually a good President for the West in foreign affairs, (his China policy was a brilliant coup…), but not so much economically because the “Nixon Shock” rendered the US$ a mere fiat currency causing endless inflation.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
There was never any such agreement. It’s complete fake news. And you can’t point to it can you either. You’ve drunk the propaganda.
When the Baltic States joined NATO hardly a murmur emanated from Russia. It’s a subsequent Putinesque construct because he wanted to crush Ukraine and stop it becoming another Poland – a successful westernised Country on Russia’s doorstep thus throwing perpetually into close contrast the failures of his mafia regime.
That’s a wonderful new meme emerging from the meme factory, that Putin feared Ukraine’s future success, when, after over 30 years, Ukraine was so poor and oligarch riddled that it’s average income was a third of Russia’s, it has been teetering under hyper inflation and bankruptcy for years, and each year a couple of million Ukrainians went to work in Poland in menial jobs. But I liked the Putin seeks land one, Putin seeks Ukraine’s grain, or coal, with these commodities far more available in Russia. I don’t see any reason to doubt Putin’s statement that he was motivated by pan Slavism and Greater Russian nationalism.
The assurance was given by James Baker “the Velvet Hammer”, a man of consequence and integrity. It was covered by the msm at the time. Possibly you weren’t around at the time.
So not fake news at all…
It also seems to have been “forgotten” that Russia allowed use of its territory to the USA in the “War on Terror” after 9/11. It is therefore unsurprising that Russia will never again trust the West but prefer China which abides by its agreements and expects the same of others.
The Russia/China axis the West has created is extremely dangerous for the declining West and could easily have been avoided but Russia Derangement Syndrome took over. We will regret it.
“prefer China which abides by its agreements“
Hong Kong?
Which agreement has China broken? Possibly you are referring to China abolishing the elected council which was established by Patton as Governor in the last years of British rule. In that case, the act was a deliberate piece of virtue signalling by Patton which provoked China unnecessarily. Hong Kong under British rule had NEVER been a democracy. It was however the perfect example of free market capitalism…leave people alone and prosperity can be created.
Not just James Baker – also Helmut Kohl (German Chancellor), Dietrich Genscher (perennial German foreign minister), Manfred Wörner (NATO Secretary-General), etc. etc.
In actual diplomacy, being predictable matters. You can lie to your own people all you want – but you don’t lie to other side.
Reality is however, that former Soviet slaves wanted to joined NATO.
Events in Ukraine, clearly demonstrated why.
None of the pro Russian clowns on here and elsewhere can answer simple question:
Why Sweden and Finland joined NATO?
You can not wish away centuries of genocidal Russian imperialism.
Several of the former Soviet satellites saw the collapse of the USSR as an opportunity to leverage the US into furthering their own megalomaniac dreams of historical grandeur.
… as events in Ukraine are demonstrating.
And several EU members without any armed forces to speak of but who experienced a brief burst of glory centuries ago are most loudly beating the war drums.
And rejected by Baker’s Boss, the POTUS, George H Bush who made it clear Gorbachev could not assume this.
If so, it merely reinforces that it is foolish to rely on anything said by the USA’s representatives including the President.
The reality is that the USA is ruled by an unelected powerful class who use it to further their own interests, not those of the US people. To deal with the USA one must work out what that class wants, usually material wealth from others whether by force or otherwise.
Unelected? Wasn’t there just an election in the US?
….which were never going to be kept because Russia is an entirely untrustworthy nation.
The purpose of NATO is to defend against Russia. Who knows the value of that better than Ukraine. Still, Finland and Sweden have had a recent wake up call.