Peace or not peace? Ukraine at the crossroads
The United States and other NATO members unanimously support Ukraine, but their goals are already beginning to diverge, the author of TNI believes. In his opinion, Kiev should think about making concessions to Moscow. Ukraine's dependence on the West carries risks.
A hundred days have passed since the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine, and President Vladimir Putin's campaign has dramatically changed its character. The operation began as something multifaceted and full-scale, but later the attention of the Russian command focused on the eastern periphery of the country. By refusing to seize the capital Kiev, Russian commanders are taking fewer risks and reducing the scope of actions, focusing on disputed regions closer to the Russian border. With the change of strategy, the conflict has reached an impasse, but in recent weeks Russia has been steadily gaining territory in the Luhansk region.
Since Russia has already occupied about a fifth of Ukraine, a number of well-known voices in the West have questioned the viability of a protracted conflict in Eastern Europe. However, instead of assigning responsibility to the Kremlin, voices for peace are increasingly calling Ukraine itself an independent variable. The most sensational was the call of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to the leadership of Ukraine to think about territorial concessions in exchange for a ceasefire.
It is not a fact that such a proposal is acceptable for Kiev. Comparing Kissinger's advice to the Munich Agreement, President Vladimir Zelensky confirmed the sense of patriotism with which his administration has been defending itself against Russian troops since the very beginning of hostilities. Moreover, the Ukrainian people seem to hold the same opinion about the surrender of land in exchange for peace: A recent survey by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology showed that 82% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions in peace negotiations.
But despite the barrage of criticism, there is a gloomy realism in Kissinger's words. The Kremlin's special operation has caused significant damage to the economy and the population of the country. Kissinger's comments, against the background of other calls for peace, raise acute questions about the cost of the protracted conflict.
In addition to thousands of victims, the fighting has caused enormous damage to the country's economy. As noted in a recent study by the Kiev School of Economics, Ukraine has lost up to $ 600 billion. At the same time, $92 billion is due to infrastructure damage: at least 195 factories have been put out of operation. The damage to Ukrainian business is fraught with serious consequences for the country's economy, which, according to World Bank estimates, will shrink by about 45%. The UN Development Program reported that half of all Ukrainian enterprises have closed, and the rest are not working at full capacity. Some of the key branches of Ukrainian industry have practically stopped – in particular, steel, metallurgical and timber industries. And with the destruction of the Azovstal plant and the last working oil refinery in Ukraine, the restoration of industrial capacities to the previous level will require large-scale financial injections.
In addition, Russian troops destroyed 23,800 kilometers of roads during a special operation, and it will also take years to restore them. But the most serious obstacle to Ukraine's survival is the economic problems that its leaders will have to solve. Even if Kiev emerges victorious from the conflict, an economic quagmire awaits it. A different approach to the ceasefire will help to reduce losses and ease the financial burden of the country.
In addition, Ukraine relies on military and economic assistance from NATO countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, which recently agreed to provide it with advanced missile systems that can hit Russian targets at a great distance. However, Kiev's dependence on Western patrons poses a critical risk if NATO's commitments to Ukraine are reduced. The United States and its main allies in the alliance have already allocated billions of dollars for aid and weapons. But it is unknown how long the West will finance Ukraine's military actions. Impending inflation and internal problems may distract Western supporters of Ukraine, and war fatigue will dampen citizens' enthusiasm for Kiev's victory. If the Western media turn away from the conflict, Russia will expand the offensive, practically without fear of additional fears of the world community.
Support may also decrease if Ukraine's allies do not find a common language about the outcome of the conflict. The United States and other NATO members unanimously support Ukraine, but their goals are already beginning to diverge. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, focused on the prospect of a ceasefire. The Ukrainian command ignores negotiations for peace because of distrust of Putin and doubts about his determination to reduce tensions. London, Warsaw and Washington apparently share Kiev's point of view, and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin even said that they want "Russia to weaken so much that it cannot repeat what it has done." The UK has also expressed interest in Ukrainian troops restoring the country's borders before 2014. Differences in priorities among alliance members may lead to the fact that the United States and its European partners will reduce their contribution to the military actions of Ukraine until a consensus is reached that satisfies all their interests. No matter how effectively the Ukrainian troops resist the Russian special operation, if the support of NATO, on which Zelensky relies so much, weakens, the prospects of his armed forces will be complicated at times.
Perhaps now Russia is in a more comfortable position than at the beginning of the operation, which further complicates the situation in Ukraine. Although the attempt to change the regime in Kiev failed, Russia still intends to put an end to Ukraine's further flirtations with NATO. The most acceptable solution would be to create a buffer state in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to protect internal Russia from incursions across the protruding borders of Ukraine and to gain political influence on Kiev through the Russophile population of Donbass. As the Secretary of the Russian Security Council stressed recently, no deadlines are pressing on the Kremlin. Having turned into a kind of pariah in the European community, Moscow believes that it is obliged to bring its military goals to an end. Even though Russia's economy has plunged into recession and GDP is projected to collapse by more than 11% this year, its economy is still capable of military activity. Russia is slowly but surely achieving its goals, and the pressure on Ukraine, on the contrary, is getting stronger, because its forces continue to defend themselves. Ukrainian troops need time to master the excellent military equipment of NATO, which differs from the usual weapons of Soviet times. Finally, Kiev will only have to launch an offensive against key targets in Russia in order to ease pressure on the eastern and southern borders.
Compliance with the ceasefire regime in general remains the sole responsibility and decision of the Ukrainian people and their elected representatives. Zelensky has already considered the possibility of negotiations and even declared his readiness not to join NATO for the sake of a peace agreement with Russia. In recent days, Ukrainian forces have recaptured part of Severodonetsk and repelled a series of unsuccessful Russian attacks in the Izyum area. At the same time, resistance persists in the territories occupied by Russia. Another study by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology recently showed that 82% of Ukrainians in the territories controlled by Russia have a negative attitude towards Moscow – this is the key to the appearance of partisans behind enemy lines. The spiritual uplift of the entire Ukrainian society and the current support of NATO may well be enough to protect Ukraine. The high costs and risk of prolonging the conflict are pushing Kiev to at least think about the prospects for peace with Russia. The continuation of the conflict will only exacerbate the costs and call into question the survival of Ukraine, even if it wins. Kissinger once said: "We cannot abandon the principles, but at the same time we must understand that if we do not survive, then there will be no one to observe the principles." Although a peace agreement with territorial concessions will certainly seem destructive to Ukraine, it will be a push to return to diplomacy and avoid further financial and human losses. Given the Kremlin's desire for victory, such negotiations will certainly require certain incentives to guarantee the future security and socio-economic well-being of Ukraine.
Author: Arash Toupchinejad
Arash Tupchinejad is a junior researcher at the Canadian NATO Association and a graduate of the Georgetown University School of Finance. Columnist of the European Student Analytical Center and author of articles for The National Interest, The Hill Times and other publications.
