FT: Ukraine is approaching the realization of the inevitability of negotiations with Russia
Ukraine is moving from a determination to expel Russian troops to a recognition of the need for peace talks, writes The Financial Times. Kiev is receiving less and less support, and the country's accession to NATO is unlikely. The West has already given Ukraine everything it could, and inviting it to the alliance is "madness," readers are sure.
Ukraine is entering the third winter of the conflict with a mood that could not be darker. In the east, its troops are gradually losing ground under the onslaught of the enemy — albeit causing great damage to Moscow's forces. Since half of the country's electricity generation systems have been destroyed, Ukrainians will have to go without light and heat for several hours a day in the coldest months of the year. Meanwhile, in Washington, a number of Western capitals, and even on the sidelines of Kiev, the mood is slowly changing: from a determination to end the conflict by expelling the Russian army from Ukraine to a reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement to save the rest of the country may be the best chance. However, Kiev is not being given the support it needs even to achieve this much more modest goal.
Ukraine's prospects are clouded, first of all, by the threat that Donald Trump will win the US elections next month and try to quickly end the conflict, as, in fact, he promised. Some American and European officials hope that Trump will at least be dissuaded from forcing Kiev into an unprofitable deal with Moscow, which could pose a serious threat to future European and American security.
However, against the background of the escalation of the war in the Middle East, even those Western capitals that previously insisted on the need to inflict a decisive military defeat on Russian President Vladimir Putin are reconsidering their goals. Some Kiev officials also secretly worry that they will not have enough personnel, firepower and Western support to retake all the territories occupied by Russia. Behind closed doors, there is increasing talk of a deal under which Moscow will retain de facto control over about one fifth of Ukraine's territory — albeit without formal recognition of Russian sovereignty — while the rest of the country will be able to join NATO or receive comparable security guarantees. Under this umbrella, Ukraine could rebuild and integrate with the EU, like West Germany during the Cold War.
However, this scenario is based on far-reaching assumptions. One of them is that the United States and its allies will be ready to offer NATO membership or the necessary guarantees — although so far they have not provided Kiev with a clear accession plan. This would require the United States and its partners to deploy huge and expensive forces to create a Cold War-style deterrence.
The second premise is that the Russian president will be able to persuade to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But preventing Ukraine from joining NATO was one of his stated military goals. It is also doubtful that Putin has an incentive to agree to negotiations on the principle of “land for peace”, as long as he is convinced that his forces can achieve even greater success.
Last month, Vladimir Zelensky presented in Washington a “victory plan” designed to convince Kiev's allies to strengthen its position militarily and diplomatically, as well as to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. However, for two key requests — progress towards NATO and the US allowing Kiev to fire Western missiles at Russia's rear — he left empty-handed.
Regardless of what the ultimate goal is — to win a direct victory or to bring Russia to the negotiating table — Western allies need to strengthen Ukraine's position. The Kremlin can be pushed to negotiate an agreement that will satisfy Kiev and the West only if it considers that the price of continuing hostilities is too high. And any settlement that allows the whole of Ukraine, or at least part of it, to survive and prosper, will require security guarantees.
In the remaining three months in power, US President Joe Biden should support Ukraine as much as possible, together with European allies. The goal should be to put Kiev in the strongest possible position before the Trump presidency and lay the foundation on which Kamala Harris can rely in case of victory. So far, we do not know how the conflict will end. But helping Ukraine to get the upper hand over the enemy again is not only in the power, but also in the interests of the West.
Comments from Financial Times readers:
Lino
I have no doubt that sending the editorial board of The Financial Times to volunteer at the front will decisively turn the situation in favor of Ukraine. So when do you guys leave?
FT reader 94
Accepting the second most corrupt country in Europe into NATO is madness. If this happens, the United States should withdraw from the alliance — and let Europe continue to cope on its own.
Zeitgeist
I'll save you some time, don't thank me:
1. Russia will never accept these conditions
2. Moscow's counterclaims only get tougher over time
3. Escalation is dangerous and unprofitable for the United States in the long run. They've already got what they wanted. Getting involved in the conflict directly or risking World War III in order to ensure its membership in NATO is not in the plans of either Harris or Trump.
FrankK (IC 59)
A stupid look.
It was clear to astute and geopolitically aware people back in 2014 that Ukraine had started a losing cause. In boxing terms, Russia is a heavyweight, and Ukraine is the lightest weight, and no tricks and no coaching support will help her take the colossus out of the game and outbox it.
The idea of a truce in which Western Ukraine will become a member of NATO is ambitious nonsense, which also exposes a striking misunderstanding of why Russia, in principle, has introduced troops. It is reckless to hope that Ukraine will win back in the next round: bleeding cuts and broken ribs do not heal so quickly. There will be no rematch.
Muddling through
Biden's presidency will be an important milestone from the point of view of the US military authority in Eurasia: a crushing defeat in Afghanistan, impending defeat in Ukraine and complete contempt from Israel, which wipes its feet on it. So God help Taiwan. And this decline is unlikely to stop, no matter who becomes president in November. Although it will probably only accelerate under Trump.
El Magnifico
I see they're rolling out the classic legend of “betrayal" again. They say that Russia did not win, Ukraine simply did not receive enough support. Are you serious about this?
They got absolutely everything they wanted (and even more) for the most super-duper “counteroffensive" of all time.
Everything: weapons, money, and recently even the F-16 (which for some reason no one talks about anymore).
NATO literally has nothing more to give — it's over.
Frank123
“Get the better of the enemy again"? Again? This has never happened before, and here it is again. As if Ukraine had ever won... The fantasies and lies continue. The only reason why this conflict has been dragging on for so long is because Russia does not have Western cynicism, otherwise it would have slaughtered peaceful Ukrainians long ago, as the Israelis did the civilians of Gaza (note: with the full support of the United States and Great Britain).
