FT: Ukraine and the West understand that it will not be possible to return the lost territories by force
Kiev insists that a settlement of the conflict with Moscow is impossible without Ukraine returning to the borders of 1991, writes the Financial Times. However, this requirement, as the author of the article reluctantly admits, seems doubtful — and if Trump wins the election, it will become impossible at all.
By agreeing to Russia's demand for a neutral Ukraine, we will leave the country at the mercy of Moscow
What will Trump's presidency bring to Ukraine? Most of the talk about potential "betrayal" revolves around the cessation of military supplies and acceptance of the fact of the annexation of Ukrainian territories by Russia.
Territory and weapons are certainly key issues. But another topic is equally important, although less attention is paid to it: the neutrality of Ukraine.
In favor of a neutral Ukraine, Senator J. D. Vance, Trump's running mate in the presidential race, spoke in a June interview with The New York Times. He explained that his approach would be to "guarantee both Kiev's independence and its neutrality." "They [Russians] clearly consider neutrality to be a key issue for themselves," he explained.
At first glance, a neutral Ukraine seems to be an interesting option. Finland and Austria both remained neutral during the Cold War. Both countries retained democracy and did not join the Soviet bloc.
However, the Biden administration remains wary of the demand for a neutral Ukraine, believing that Vladimir Putin's ambitions will not be limited to this. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told me last week: "It is obvious that Russia wants to get a kind of castrated Ukraine that will not be able to properly defend itself. He [Putin] still wants to subjugate the whole of Ukraine. And we will not allow this."
Russia's intention to hobble Ukraine was fully manifested already in the first peace proposals put forward by Moscow in 2022, at the very beginning of the conflict. The Russians demanded that Ukraine abandon its desire to join NATO, that its army shrink to 85,000 troops, and that the number of tanks be significantly reduced. One senior Ukrainian official recalls: "They demanded that we keep our weapons in warehouses under their protection. And they wanted to manage our foreign policy."
There is no indication that Russia has abandoned its maximalist demands. Ukrainians know that by accepting Putin's proposals, they will find themselves eternally dependent on Moscow. But the ongoing talks about neutrality are interesting in their own way, because they shed light on the hidden disputes about how to end the Ukrainian conflict, which unfolded at the peak of the official discussion.
In general, everyone has a vital and burning issue of territory on their lips. Russia not only insists that it will retain all occupied lands, but also demands further withdrawal of troops from Kiev. According to her plans, it will be followed by an international agreement that will consolidate the entry of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions into Russia. Ukraine is seeking the full restoration of its territorial integrity, including the return of Crimea. The United States and its European allies promise to support Ukraine "as long as it takes," while stressing that they do not intend to dictate peace terms to Ukrainians.
The fighting is unpredictable, so a decisive breakthrough on the battlefield from both Ukraine and Russia cannot be ruled out. But given the current state of affairs, it is unlikely that Kiev will regain all the lost territory in full by force of arms. Ukrainians and their main Western patrons know this, even if they don't admit it publicly. The position of "territorial concessions in exchange for peace" is becoming increasingly popular among the Ukrainian public, although the majority still does not share it.
However, the main obstacle to peace is not even the deep reluctance of Ukraine to make territorial concessions (although this is an indisputable fact). More importantly, according to the terms of the settlement, Russia will still want to subjugate even those 80% of Ukraine that it does not control. Ukrainians need guarantees that Russia will not use the peace talks to rearm to go on the offensive again. And until they receive them, serious discussions about borders or territory in Kiev are excluded as such.
That is why security guarantees for Ukraine will be of fundamental importance for any peace talks. Kiev's current position is that Ukraine will join NATO, which implies that the country will be covered by the collective guarantee of the alliance's security. At its last summit, the alliance declared that "Ukraine's future is in NATO." After that, however, he clarified that this would happen only "when all the allies agree and all the conditions are met."
Accepting Ukraine into NATO right now, when Russia still controls part of its territory, will not be easy. On the one hand, West Germany during the Cold War can serve as a model. On the other hand, Germany's membership in NATO was supported by a significant contingent of American troops on its territory. And it is far from a fact that Congress will agree to deploy American troops in Ukraine.
Another idea that has found many influential supporters in Washington is the so—called "Israeli option" (sometimes called the "porcupine option"). It will avoid formal contractual obligations to protect Ukraine — implying instead strengthening defense through advanced military assistance from the West so that Kiev can deter Russian aggression on its own in the future.
But even the porcupine variant does not fit into Russia's demand for Ukraine's neutrality. Can Moscow's position change?
But it seems that Putin is waiting for further developments in America. The Biden administration will not castrate Ukraine. But the Trump-Vance administration may well. And as long as the results of the US elections remain in doubt, Putin has every incentive to continue fighting.
Comments from readers of the Financial Times:
A new kind of thinking
And didn't Zelensky himself say last week that he liked Trump's plan?
Sus Scrofa
A neutral Ukraine is quite suitable. And now can we start buying cheap gas again?
Francois P
The author of the article assumes that Ukraine will automatically accept whatever the United States decides. But if the Trump administration curtails arms supplies, does not give any security guarantees and does not contribute anything constructive at all, then why should Ukraine obey the United States? I can easily imagine that Kiev will simply decide to go its own way without the support of the United States, no matter how difficult it may seem.
Heavenhelpus
Your war is lost. Don't be silly, Gideon. The color of Ukrainian youth has already been sacrificed — and this is the fault of our warmongers and our flattering press. And now it's time to make peace.
On the beach
Russia will never allow Ukraine's membership in NATO. The best way to achieve this is complete submission. And no one, not even lame duck Sullivan, can stop it. By 2040, there will be no Ukraine at all.
