With Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine grinding on, it appears negotiations may soon start to yield results.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine have indicated what they might be prepared to sacrifice to achieve a negotiated settlement, but a compromise between Russia’s original demands and Ukraine’s steadfast refusal is looking more likely.
Ukrainian negotiators began talks demanding an immediate ceasefire and then safe passage for civilians from conflict areas. Russia demanded Ukraine’s strategic neutrality, acceptance of Russian control of Crimea and formalisation of autonomy for the Donbass region.
So far, neither country has progressed those claims.
From a Russian perspective, a continued invasion is its central bargaining tool. From the Ukrainian perspective, it knows its determined and well-armed resistance is exacting a heavy toll on the Russian advance, and that Western economic sanctions are beginning to bite.
The Ukraine war is, then, starting to resemble what is known as a “hurting stalemate”, which is where both parties to a conflict cannot progress their battlefield claims without great cost but in which the price of continuing is becoming too high.
The Ukraine war is not yet at that point, but is moving closer to it — for both sides.
Russia knows it can continue to slowly advance its assault, in particular by employing the blunt, destructive tactics it used in Syria. But the Russian military has been shown to be vulnerable to a well-coordinated resistance armed with NATO-supplied handheld weapons — Stinger and Javelin missiles — that are effective against aircraft and tanks.
Not unreasonably, Ukraine initially argued that talks could not progress in good faith while the war continued. Yet ceasefires are categorically distinct from peace agreements and confusing the two or demanding a ceasefire in order to achieve an agreement was always likely to produce neither.
It is a cruel reality that negotiations often — indeed, usually — occur while war continues. Negotiators, particularly on the side suffering the heaviest casualties, are acutely aware that the time they take costs lives. The continuing loss of life is, in hard, brutal terms, a negotiating pressure point.
Negotiations have thus continued because Ukraine took an immediate ceasefire off the table. A ceasefire could, however, still be dangled by Russia as an incentive for talks to progress in a way that starts to satisfy some of its demands or ameliorate its underlying concerns.
In all of this, it is easy to say the negotiation process is not fair and that Russia, as the aggressor, should agree to a ceasefire or withdraw entirely. But “fairness” doesn’t come into negotiations, which are essentially about both parties maximising strengths and minimising weaknesses.
The outcome of negotiations is to find a position that both sides might not be entirely happy with but which satisfies their most basic political and security requirements.
The talks look to continue, an outcome to this ugly war is possible, and it is starting to look more likely. But an agreement will require cold calculation and considerable compromise.
In the meantime, people will continue to die.
Negotiations won’t go anywhere as long as the US is involved. it’s not in their interests to see a peaceful settlement.
Comparing with the American invasion of Iraq with less justification
Aren’t Russia’s ‘demands’ in this article very similar to the Minsk agreements agreed to by Ukraine and the European countries involved, but never implemented?
Only if you mean in words, intent & effect.
Otherwise no, just further bellicosity from the designated Enemy™ ®.
If the US had not have pushed the envelope with Nato up to the Russian border, using a young and inexperienced politician such as Zelinskyy in the process to push for inclusion, it appears unlikely that this war would have happened. There is history to support this view, if one looks at what occurred in Georgia. Putin notably pressed Biden on the issue and Biden, unwisely, refused to provide those assurances. Now we are here.
So true, Biden refused to give an inch to Putin’s concerns. Basically he flatly refused to negotiate in good will. Part of this was to push Putin to overreact as well as to look tough for domestic politics at home.
Stating the obvious but blaming the target while ignoring Trump’s pro-Putin treason and administration?
Trump, Carlson, Bannon et al. and others in US media would agree and why some media is desperate to link Xi with Putin to make Biden-Democrats look ‘weak’.
Locally Labour are supposedly too close to PRC, with elections coming up….. event the NYT platformed Morrison on ‘arc of autocracy’; seems to be a new anti-China theme at least once a week?
I’m not blaming the Ukraine per se. However, we can’t ignore realpolitik in terms of large military powers operating within their own ‘spheres of influence’ and an untrusting and antagonistic relationship that exists between the US and Russia, unfortunately.
The obvious and practical way to have avoided the conflict given these constraints would have been for the Ukraine to remain democratic, West facing ( like Georgia) with its own military but also remain a ‘neutral’ country (ie not become a Nato country).
The best situation to stop the war without further human losses would be for the US to ‘back off’ the idea of Nato inclusion for the Ukraine at this time and to make that clear. The US is better focussed on its strategic relationship with China anyway.
A possible solution to end the war is for the Ukraine to be left, as it should, a democratic and ‘neutral’ country with Zelinskyy to remain as its democratically elected leader. The Ukraine is rebuilt with Russian money. Western sanctions are lifted for this to occur. Russia should give back the Donbas to Ukraine with assurances that Zelinskyy stop sending skin head militia groups there, a complaint raised by ‘native’ Russians in that region.
The West might have to agree that Crimea is a lost cause – it was originally, Russian, then Ukrainian and now Russian again, via annexation. Again, Russia does not want the American naval fleet in the Black Sea on its border and neither does it want to lose access to the Black Sea. So, there would be little utility in pressing for this.
Finally, when the dust has settled, one can only hope Putin finally puts a succession plan in place. Or, he gets nudged or pushed. Russia needs a younger leader who is more liberal, who can tolerate internal dissension, and who can re-engage with the West to rebuild wealth and protect its best assets, which are its young, best and brightest people – its future.
‘Whataboutery’ that blankets out and precludes analysis of a whole raft of salient and relevant issues; has been from Soviet times.
Nor does it explain as to how comfortable Russian state and/or corporate elites are/were in travelling across NATO lines into NATO occupied EU for tourism, business, laundering money/investing, schooling children and their families living almost permanently outside of Russia?
Implicit contradiction of Russia and many other comparable nations’ elites e.g. Turkey i.e. their purported enemy ‘Europe’, ‘the west’, NATO, EU, liberals, empowered citizens etc., is their private aspiration i.e. attractive for its liberal democracy, open and functioning society vs. autocratic regimes or ‘illiberal democracies’?
Good article