Three years ago, Russian troops crossed into Ukraine from Belarus in the north, Crimea in the south, Donbas in the south-east, and Kharkiv and Sumy in the south-west. Moscow aimed to de-militarise Ukraine and assert Russia’s red lines on Ukraine’s intent to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Russian strategic planners anticipated a swift victory, expecting to subdue Ukraine within weeks. However, nearly 1,100 days after the conflict began, Ukraine, with the support of the West, has been able to prevent Moscow from completely attaining its battlefield objectives. The war has come at a tremendous cost to both nations, with staggering manpower losses and economies strained. With a likely endgame in sight following a phone call between US President Donald J Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12 and the potential reset in US-Russia relations, the discourse around ending the war has gained traction. However, bringing lasting peace is complex and lengthy as there is a fundamental contradiction in the perception each side has of their security.
The war has come at a tremendous cost to both nations, with staggering manpower losses and economies strained.
Positions on territory
In Moscow’s calculus, the objectives of war were not driven by the question of claiming sovereignty over Ukrainian territories alone. Ukraine’s political neutrality, autonomous status for the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Kyiv renouncing its aspirations of joining NATO was Moscow’s position in the spring of 2022, which Ukraine accepted in principle during negotiations in Istanbul, but the deal fell through as it did not have the backing of the West. However, Moscow’s position on territory has since evolved. Before the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland last year, Putin demanded Ukraine’s withdrawal from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, which Ukraine rejected.
With the change in US administration and the nature of Washington’s support to Ukraine becoming more pragmatic, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s position on territory has shifted.
According to various estimates, Russia has control over 19% of Ukraine, with control over 75% of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, and 99% control over Luhansk. With the change in US administration and the nature of Washington’s support to Ukraine becoming more pragmatic, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s position on territory has shifted. Whereas Ukraine earlier demanded that Russia withdraw even from Crimea, restoring the 1991 border, now Zelenskyy is willing to freeze the conflict along the current lines if the West provides security guarantees, including NATO peacekeepers remaining in Ukraine, and NATO membership given to the Western part of the country. Moscow opposes this, as Russia is not in a hurry to freeze the conflict, as doing so would benefit the Ukrainian forces to regroup and launch a counter-attack on Russia. Thus, Russia has made it clear that it wouldn’t accept a ceasefire without iron-clad agreements. Such an agreement looks complex in the short term.
De-escalation in economic war?
The issues surrounding sanctions relief are also complex. The US-Russia dialogue held on February 18 in Riyadh indicated that sanctions relief is conditional on Russia and Ukraine reaching an agreement. Since 2014, more than 21,000 sanctions have been imposed on Russia. It is clearly in Moscow’s interests to have sanctions revoked, as the war and the consequent sanctions have impacted the Russian economy. Russia’s export-import capacity has reduced significantly with markets abroad shrinking, and trade volumes plummeting. However, removing sanctions will not be easy, as the intensity of sanctions policies differs from country to country. For instance, lifting sanctions in the US would require congressional approval, whereas those in the European Union (EU) are revoked by the European Council and the General Court of the EU. Even though the US has toned down its sanction rhetoric, the EU has imposed further rounds of sanctions on Russian aluminium imports, disconnecting 13 banks from the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) payment mechanism, and on Russian oil tankers ferrying oil below the price cap of $60. Thus, even if an agreement is reached on Ukraine, the removal of sanctions will be a marginal process and will likely be used as carrots in gaining concessions from Moscow.
Washington has coerced Ukraine to sign the minerals agreement which would result in the latter handing over 50% of the country’s critical minerals as payment for the US military aid that Ukraine has received as a grant since the start of the war.
Challenges for Ukraine
The new US-Russia rapprochement has come at the cost of Ukrainian interests. Washington’s Ukraine policy has changed overnight, with no further aid announced for Ukraine. Washington has coerced Ukraine to sign the minerals agreement which would result in the latter handing over 50% of the country’s critical minerals as payment for the US military aid that Ukraine has received as a grant since the start of the war. Further, Trump has called for wartime elections in Ukraine. Thus, America’s lack of interest in defending Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity can have a direct impact on the capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces as the US has been the biggest source of military support to the country.
With fears of Russian forces extending their gains further into Ukraine, Kyiv will likely have to fend for itself with the support of other European and NATO countries. Options are limited for Kyiv, as any deal that Zelenskyy would accept from Moscow would inevitably hamper Ukraine’s core national security interests. In other words, Ukraine would have to rapidly de-militarise, recognise the new territorial realities, and forgo its aspirations of joining NATO. The only bargaining chip Zelenskyy has in negotiations is the territory Ukrainian forces have captured in the Kursk Oblast. However, in the event an agreement is reached with the US on its critical minerals, Ukraine will likely be able to receive security guarantees and military aid from the US. But how this scenario translates on the battlefield or shapes US-Russia relations remains unknown at this point. As negotiations take place in bringing lasting peace to the war in Ukraine, it will be interesting to ascertain what these changes mean for the European security architecture and the new role the US will play in the emerging European security matrix. Whichever way one looks, European security architecture is in for a significant overhaul.
This commentary originally appeared in Financial Express.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
