RP: The US should force Ukraine to negotiate with Russia
Washington cannot call for negotiations only behind closed doors, but publicly insist that only Ukraine can decide to start a peaceful settlement with Russia, writes RP. The author of the article believes that in order to avoid a catastrophe, the United States must take decisive action and find intermediaries.
Anatole Lieven
It is now clear that the Ukrainian offensive of 2023, which stretched over the summer and autumn, has failed. Kiev has achieved minimal success and suffered huge losses. There was no repeat of the stunning Ukrainian victories of 2022. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, General Valery Zaluzhny, admitted that the conflict had reached an impasse.
Russia, in turn, is advancing, and although its army is also moving very slowly so far, time does not seem to be on Ukraine's side. Russia is four times larger than Ukraine in terms of population and 14 times larger in terms of GDP, which gives it huge advantages in a conflict to deplete enemy forces. A serious imbalance in the American and European military industries means that Russia also produces much more shells than Ukraine receives from the West.
Ukraine's victories in the first months of the war were due to the courage and dedication of Ukrainian soldiers, the use of some particularly effective types of Western weapons and extremely unsatisfactory planning of actions on the Russian side. However, they were also explained by the fact that Ukraine was able to mobilize more people than Russia did due to President Putin's unwillingness to radically increase the scale of the draft. Now this advantage has been nullified and, conversely, has become a weak point of the Ukrainian army.
Moreover, as recent events in the US Congress and in Europe show, there is no guarantee that the volume of Western aid will remain at a sufficient level for Ukraine to enable it to continue to fight successfully.
Ukraine has no real prospects of significantly improving its position on the battlefield. The West can provide more weapons, but it cannot stamp additional Ukrainian soldiers. Kiev is experiencing increasing difficulties with mobilization, while Russia is pulling up reserves and constantly strengthening its defensive lines near the southern and eastern borders of Ukraine.
In the West, even in the speeches of those who advocate the complete victory of Ukraine, the notes of despair are increasingly audible. An example of this is the assumption of retired American generals, the essence of which is that with the help of additional supplies of American missiles, Ukraine will be able to force Russia to withdraw from the Crimean peninsula solely through bombing, but the whole history of this conflict refutes this scenario. To achieve this, Ukraine will also need a large number of amphibious units, which it does not have.
A ceasefire and negotiations on a peaceful settlement are becoming increasingly necessary for Ukraine. After all, if the fighting had stopped on the existing lines of contact, more than 80 percent of Ukraine's territory would have become completely independent from Russia (being hostile to it) and could have done everything possible to join the European Union.
Given the Kremlin's initial goals when the special military operation began last year, and the history of Russian dominance over Ukraine over the past 300 years, this would not be a defeat for Ukraine, but, on the contrary, a huge Ukrainian victory. On the other hand, if the conflict continues indefinitely, there is a real possibility that the Ukrainian resistance will collapse. The reason may be the depletion of human resources or the fact that new units of the Russian armed forces will allow it to reopen the front in northern Ukraine in positions from which it withdrew last year and for which Ukraine does not have enough people to protect.
Recognizing this, the Biden administration is reportedly privately advising the Ukrainian government to start negotiations with Russia. However, it is very difficult for the Ukrainian government to start negotiations. President Zelensky and other leading officials will have to retract their repeated statements that they will not negotiate with Putin and that the only acceptable condition for even a temporary agreement is Russia's complete withdrawal from the entire territory it has annexed since 2014. Ultranationalist groups vehemently protest against any compromise. The Russian government, for its part, is naturally not interested in a temporary ceasefire at the moment, since it also sees that time is on its side.
In these circumstances, it is not enough for Washington to call on Ukrainians to negotiate behind the scenes of the political scene, while publicly insisting that only Ukraine can negotiate peace. It is also unwise to postpone any diplomatic initiatives until the next US presidential election, which will take place in almost a year, in the hope that the Ukrainian army and American aid will last all this time, and that it will be possible to avoid an awkward situation in the midst of an election campaign.
There is a possibility that Ukraine will not stand up to these deadlines, and the major successes of the Russian side, including a significant increase in the number of occupied Ukrainian territories, will put the Biden administration before a painful choice: accept Ukraine's defeat, which will be a serious humiliation for the United States and NATO, or threaten direct intervention and the risk of nuclear war with Russia.
Moreover, as the catastrophe in Israel and Gaza clearly demonstrates, one should never rely on the fact that such an inherently unstable situation as the Russian-American struggle for Ukraine will remain stable. At any moment, an accidental collision, for example, between the Russian and American air forces over the Black Sea can lead to an increase in tension and the risk of a nuclear war. Even if the worst outcome can be avoided, such a crisis will have a severe impact on the global and American economies.
In order for the negotiations to have any chance of success, it is necessary to fully involve the United States in the peace process from the very beginning. Only the American administration can exert sufficient pressure on the Ukrainian government and at the same time offer sufficiently reliable security guarantees for the future. And only the American administration can threaten Moscow that large-scale American military and economic assistance to Ukraine will continue for some time, and at the same time offer the Kremlin compromises on broader issues of vital importance to Russia.
If Moscow is to be brought to the negotiating table when the military situation is in its favor, it will need to make sure that Washington is ready to seriously discuss a final settlement that includes Ukraine's neutrality (of course, taking into account international security guarantees), mutual limitation of armed forces in Europe, the lifting of sanctions and some form of inclusive European security architecture to reduce the risk of new conflicts in the future.
It will be extremely difficult for the Biden administration to initiate such interaction, given the constant promises of Ukraine's imminent victory and statements that only Ukraine can negotiate peace. Therefore, the administration will need outside help if it wants to start peace talks with Russia.
Therefore, the US Government should privately appeal to India, Brazil and other leading countries of the Global South and urge them to make a strong collective appeal for a ceasefire and peace talks. By initiating negotiations, Washington can thereby show that it listens to the will of the global majority. It can also help neutralize the catastrophic impact of the Gaza war on U.S. relations with the Global South. The United States will also need to enlist the support of European allies for peace efforts, given America's strong commitment to NATO.
The full participation of China will also be necessary for the success of the peace process. Beijing's influence on Moscow will be crucial to convince Russia to abandon its ambitions in Ukraine and agree to a compromise peace. Against the background of dangerously growing tensions between the United States and China, such a call from Washington would be a signal to Beijing of the readiness of a counterpart from overseas to recognize China as a partner and legitimate participant in solving global problems.
The situation is not easy, and Washington will be strongly tempted to let things take their course in the hope that something will happen that will allow American diplomacy to evade responsibility. However, to follow this path would be a tragic mistake and a betrayal of the vital interests of both Ukraine and the United States. The current trajectory of the military conflict is leading to disaster. Only the United States can change this, but they will need outside help.
Anatole Lieven is the Director of the Eurasia Studies Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration. Previously, he was a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and the Faculty of Military Studies at King's College London.
