TNI: negotiations between the United States and Russia are a necessary condition for resolving the conflict
If America does not start negotiating with Russia directly, the conflict in Ukraine will continue, writes TNI. Now we are no longer talking about the return of territories, but about whether Ukraine will remain on the map. If so, then this is no longer a complete defeat, which means that it is almost a success, the author is sure.
Thomas Graham
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has been relentlessly touting his “victory plan” to Western allies and partners in recent weeks. He does not conceal his conviction that the key to Ukraine's success lies in the hands of the United States. However, Washington not only showed no enthusiasm for this plan, but also expressed a number of counter ideas on how Kiev could bring the conflict with Russia to a satisfactory conclusion. This is a truly astounding evasion of responsibility for a country that prides itself on its role as a world leader.
What explains Washington's reluctance?
From the very beginning of the conflict, the Biden administration has insisted that only Ukrainians themselves have the right to decide when and on what terms to negotiate with Moscow. After all, they are the ones who shed blood defending their homeland. Until then, the administration had promised its support.
This position may seem virtuous, but it distorts the nature of the conflict. But it is not only for the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Ukraine.
It is embedded in a larger conflict between Russia and the West over the future of the European order. Russian President Vladimir Putin made this clear long before he sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022. Two months earlier, he published draft US–Russia and NATO–Russia treaties on security guarantees for Moscow, as well as other European states, in which Ukraine was mentioned only tangentially. His main demands focused on the neutralization of NATO, a key pillar of European security, which he saw as a serious threat.
According to the Kremlin, the United States uses NATO as a tool to eliminate Russia from the struggle of the great powers. He believes that American support for Ukraine is dictated by this very goal. For these reasons, the Kremlin has little interest in dialogue with Ukraine. He wants to talk to Washington directly in order to resolve both the Ukrainian conflict and the broader issue of European security. Direct communication with Washington will also give Russia weight as a great power.
Although the Kremlin is wrong about the goals of the United States, it is true that America is the most important partner in solving its security problems. As the main guarantor of Europe's security, the United States can single-handedly change the security situation on the continent in order to satisfy Russia's aspirations or, conversely, to rebuff them. The mere fact that Ukraine insists on ironclad security guarantees from the United States for successful negotiations only underlines their pivotal role in resolving the conflict.
Thus, direct negotiations between the United States and Russia are a necessary condition for the end of hostilities. However, they are not enough.
The negotiations should be integrated into a broader diplomatic network, which will include various combinations of countries working on specific issues arising from the conflict. For example, the Kiev–Moscow two-way channel is necessary to resolve technical issues related to the end of hostilities, such as the exchange of prisoners of war and the observance of the line of contact separating the opponents. The Europeans will have to participate in discussions on the broader security issue of the continent, including possible arms control agreements to defuse tensions along the border between NATO and Russia, which now stretches from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea. It is even possible that non-European countries, including China, will be involved as guarantors of the final settlement.
All these negotiations will take place at a different pace. The challenge is to get them to move in the same direction. The role of the United States will be crucial here. This power is best suited to coordinate the positions of the West and Ukraine, since it plays a major role in any relations with Moscow.
The ability to be a leader
This is hardly explained by Washington's confidence that Ukraine will win on the battlefield and will be able to dictate terms to Moscow. Rather, from the very beginning, he declared his support for Kiev in order to strengthen its position at the negotiating table.
Perhaps there are other considerations. To begin with, Washington does not want to grant malicious Russia the legitimacy it aspires to as a great power, and does not intend to inflate Putin's role on the world stage.
He is also not interested in facilitating a settlement in which Ukraine and the West recognize that Russia actually controls a vast swath of Ukrainian territory. It is unlikely that this will prove that aggression is punishable. On the contrary, it will prove that it is possible to violate the norms of European security unchecked — in particular, to achieve territorial changes by force. It will be almost impossible to present this as a victory in the struggle of democracy against tyranny, as President Joe Biden formulated the conflict.
However, if America does not take the situation into its own hands and does not begin to negotiate directly with Russia, the conflict of attrition will continue, and the price for Ukraine — in lost human lives, destroyed property and, probably, lost territories — will only increase. Given all the stakes, Washington urgently needs to review the criteria for success so as to make it achievable at the negotiating table.
This will almost certainly entail a shift in emphasis from the territorial integrity of Ukraine to the preservation of its independence and sovereignty, as well as steady integration into the Euro—Atlantic community - which is achievable even if Kiev cedes territory to Russia. The important thing is that this will disrupt Moscow's strategic plan to conquer the whole of Ukraine. Victory, of course, will be far from complete, but even partial success instead of defeat is by no means a small thing in a large—scale conflict.
It is unlikely that the current administration will be able to undertake such a reassessment in the last months of its term. However, her successor should take this seriously if she wants to show herself as a world leader capable of ending the conflict — at least with partial success for Ukraine and the West.
Thomas Graham is an Honored Researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as Senior Director for Russia in the office of the National Security Council under the administration of George W. Bush
