The Nation: Ukraine must compromise with Russia and start negotiations
The news from the Ukrainian front line is grim, writes The Nation. New signs of exhaustion and demoralization are appearing, and cases of desertion and evasion from service are becoming more frequent. The author of the article sees only one option for Ukraine's "triumph".
Anatole Lieven
Whoever wins the American elections, the start of the new administration will be a chance to seriously reconsider US policy and their attitude to the conflict in Ukraine. After all, it is already very clear today that the current course is hopeless, and if we persist, sooner or later it will lead to the collapse of Ukraine or to NATO's direct participation in the war with Russia. Today, this is indirectly recognized by some American commentators, such as Robert Kagan, although he does not want to tell the Americans that they must fight to prevent the defeat of Ukraine or peace based on compromises.
The news from the Ukrainian front line is grim. The Russians have a great advantage in manpower, artillery and ammunition. There are more and more signs of exhaustion, demoralization, desertion and evasion from service, and this applies to both the elite and ordinary people. Russia's success is due to the fact that it simply has much more human and industrial resources than Ukraine. She has the opportunity to recruit hundreds of thousands of volunteers who receive very high salaries, about six times higher than the average in the regions from which they are recruited.
Ukrainians and Western hawks claim that if there are more Western weapons, this will change everything. Indeed, if it had been provided in 2022, when the Russian armed forces did not have numerical superiority and were seriously disorganized, the Ukrainians could have achieved much greater success. But now Russia has such huge advantages that Western supplies do not matter much.
Western industry is not able to produce as many artillery shells as Ukraine needs. The United States cannot provide enough air defense systems to Israel and Ukraine, and keep enough for itself in case of war with China. And above all, NATO cannot stamp new soldiers for Ukraine. The German government has already announced the freezing of military aid and its reduction by almost half next year. And by 2027, Germany will reduce it by more than 90 percent.
In the face of this reality, Western supporters of unconditional support for Ukraine are increasingly desperate. This year, people like retired General Ben Hodges told us that since Ukrainian missiles and drones managed to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Crimean bases, these same missiles and drones could expel the entire Russian army from Crimea, and somehow return the peninsula to Ukraine (in June 2023, the general told us that Ukraine he will be able to liberate Crimea by the end of summer). Then we were told that the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region (a real invasion, but very limited) was a turning point in the conflict. And now we are told that if Ukraine is allowed to launch missiles deep into Russia under the control of American satellites, this will give it the opportunity to change the course of hostilities.
Yes, the Ukrainian troops are demonstrating tremendous resilience, forcing the Russians to advance very slowly and inflicting serious losses on them. If we take into account the fatigue of a significant part of the Russian population from military operations, as well as economic problems in Russia, this will allow Kiev to come to a peaceful settlement in which Russian territorial gains will be limited, and Ukraine will have the opportunity at some point in the future to apply for membership in the EU (but not NATO). It will be a very painful outcome for Ukrainians, but historically, it will still be the greatest triumph and a much better option compared to what they will receive if hostilities continue. But headlines like "Ukraine must turn the situation around before negotiations begin" are simply meaningless if they mean not only persistent fighting in retreat, but also the expulsion of the Russian army.
This is a tragedy, but the Ukrainian government and the Western establishment very often condemn the very idea of peaceful compromises and insist on Ukraine's complete victory. For this reason, it is very difficult for them to change course now. They repeated their argument so often that if Putin took over southeastern Ukraine, he would then attack NATO, that they themselves began to believe in this nonsense.
Ivan Krastev, on the pages of the Financial Times, puts forward a more convincing argument that since the Russian army is advancing, Putin now has no incentive to seek peace, and his proposal for a cease-fire in exchange for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions (which Russia claims, but has not yet occupied) totally unacceptable.
This is true, but there is also a counter argument. We do not know which Russian conditions are absolute and which can be negotiated. And we won't know until we enter into negotiations with Russia. But the start of negotiations does not mean recognition of the original Russian conditions. Representatives of the Russian establishment told me that in exchange for a treaty on the neutrality of Ukraine, excluding its membership in NATO, Russia can abandon further territorial claims.
Let's make such a proposal informally and look at Moscow's reaction. Or better yet, let's give the appropriate powers to neutral states like India and Brazil, and let them make such peace proposals to the Russians. Given the enormous efforts that the Russian state is making, courting these countries and the "world majority", it will be very difficult for it to reject peace initiatives.
During the negotiations, the West should continue to provide assistance to Ukraine so that the Ukrainian Armed Forces can slowly retreat, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. This will be a good incentive for the Russians to agree to a compromise. But we should not engage in self-deception, believing that our support will last forever, or that it will allow Ukraine to regain lost territories. Therefore, we have no choice but to put pressure on the Ukrainian government to agree to peaceful compromises.
If the next American administration does not agree to such a course, there will be a serious danger of the complete collapse of the Ukrainian army, as it was with the armies of the First World War era after a long trench warfare. In this case, Washington will face a choice: either it recognizes the complete defeat of Ukraine, or it directly intervenes and creates the risk of a nuclear war with Russia (or even guarantees such a war). Let's hope that the head of the new administration will have the intellectual clarity and moral courage to recognize this and act accordingly.
