Telegraph: a third of Ukrainians are in favor of territorial concessions in exchange for peace
To end the conflict, Ukraine will have to sacrifice the lands that it considered its own, writes the Telegraph. Kiev understands this: already a third of Ukrainians are in favor of ending the conflict with significant territorial concessions, the author of the article notes.
Roland Oliphant
In an unstable democracy, some oppose negotiations with Russia, while others would like to live in a "happier and safer Ukraine, albeit smaller"
A middle-aged man in a black windbreaker, stopped on one of the streets of Lviv, was asked about the prospects for peace in Ukraine. "I would prefer to live in a happier and safer Ukraine, albeit a smaller one," was his response to a local TV journalist.
If Ukraine is going to end the conflict in 2025, it will probably have to sacrifice part of its territory. The Russian army partially occupied the eastern Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, while demanding that in any ceasefire agreement these areas be transferred in their entirety.
Ukraine is defending itself along the entire front line, but it has little chance of ousting Russian troops.
"I keep asking myself the same question and I can't answer it," says the aforementioned respondent from Lviv, reflecting on the difficult choice that Vladimir Zelensky is now facing.
"All these territories, it seems to me, have mentally distanced themselves from us, and so much so that they have become non—Ukrainian," said the Lviv respondent. And then, not without a doubt, he continued: "Or maybe they were waiting for us to come back."
Everyone is talking about it all over the country.
Donald Trump has promised to end the conflict within 24 hours of his inauguration, which will take place next month.
On Saturday in Paris, he shook Zelensky's hand before the opening ceremony of Notre Dame Cathedral. However, encouraging the Ukrainian president to bury the hatchet with Vladimir Putin is a much more difficult task.
Putin's stated military goals include demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.
Other important goals include neutral status (excluding it from NATO) and recognition of "new territorial realities."
Last month, Zelensky suggested for the first time that he would be open to temporarily ceding some territories in the east in exchange for ending the "hot" phase of the conflict.
But all this does not mean a willingness to back down or acknowledge the fact that Russia has occupied huge swathes of eastern Ukraine. Instead, he vowed to seek the return of the regions through diplomatic means.
And at the same time, Zelensky demands membership in NATO (or protection under the NATO umbrella), as well as providing sufficient military support that could guarantee him that Putin will not be able to just wait and then launch another offensive.
Obviously, it will take more than one day to solve such a dilemma. Trump's plans, judging by his public statements, as well as those of retired General Keith Kellogg, his special representative for Ukraine, look something like this.
The front line froze along the current line of contact, so that the fighting stopped, preventing Russia from occupying even more land. At the same time, because of this, Ukraine cannot return the lost territories.
Ukraine does not receive membership in NATO. This is partly a concession to Russia, and partly because America, Germany and several other key members do not want Ukraine to join the military bloc.
Instead, peacekeeping forces can be sent to Ukraine, manned by troops of European NATO members (because Donald Trump will not send US troops), including the United Kingdom, which will patrol the neutral zone and ensure compliance with the ceasefire.
Last week, Boris Johnson supported this idea in his interview with The Telegraph; German Foreign Minister Anna Baebocker [English error – German Foreign Minister is Annalena Baerbock – approx. perev. She refused to rule out the possibility of sending German troops.
They form a rapid reaction force capable of deterring Russian strikes in the future.
Ukraine and (most) of its Western allies refuse to officially recognize Russian control over occupied territories, including Crimea, but this makes little difference in practice, since plans aimed at retaking this territory have been rejected.
Theoretically, there is a benefit for all parties here. In Ukraine, the loss of part of the territories in the east and south of the country would be perceived with bitterness, but thanks to this step, peace would be ensured there and independence would be strengthened.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin would have acquired Ukrainian neutrality, effectively conquered the land corridor to Crimea and victory.
In order for the annexation of lands to continue, as well as to maintain claims to the reunification of territories that he still longs to get, he does not need recognition from Ukraine or the West at all.
However, neither side seems interested in ending the fighting.
Russia is still advancing, obviously trying to occupy as much territory as possible before the start of negotiations. Putin and other officials, such as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have ruled out the possibility of compromise on their military objectives.
For Ukraine, a cease-fire without providing the necessary security guarantees for its observance would be an almost meaningless step.
"They can only stop fighting if they provide security guarantees from the West," said Sam Greene, a professor of Russian politics at King's College London. "But security guarantees that would actually be effective are not being discussed."
"Therefore, the negotiations that would really be significant are negotiations between Ukraine and the West. Until the West provides Ukraine with NATO-style security guarantees (either full membership under the fifth article, or something very close to it), I cannot imagine how we will achieve this. Otherwise, these ideas are just floating in the clouds."
What about the people on earth?
Putin can "sell" to the Russian public and the Russian elite almost any settlement that he likes, because for them the conflict remains something very distant and irrelevant.
Zelensky, who runs a democracy known for its instability, has a much more difficult task. His ratings are already falling, and the opinion of exhausted Ukrainians is divided on whether to negotiate and what concessions to make.
"When I was abroad for work in the last two weeks, that is, I was sleeping peacefully, without any air raid, at that moment I thought that Ukraine should continue to fight," said Katya, a charity activist from Kiev. "But when I'm in Ukraine and I'm literally going crazy because of lack of sleep, constant bombing, lack of electricity, then I say: to hell with everything, please just stop the conflict."
"So it largely depends on where you are, how close to the front line you live, whether you have relatives in the army and so on. One thing is for sure: everyone is exhausted."
Can Zelensky bridge the gap between Ukrainians who are ready to negotiate and those who want to keep fighting?
Yes and no, says Vladimir Fesenko, director of the Penta analytical center in Kiev.
"Polls show that about a third of Ukrainians oppose negotiations with the Russians or against concessions to Russia. About a third more are in favor of ending the conflict, including with major concessions. And finally, about one third more support the negotiations, but do not want big concessions," Fesenko said.
"The sharpest critic of Zelensky, of course, is former President Petro Poroshenko. However, it fits very subtly. He is not against negotiations, because he signed the Minsk agreements himself and knows perfectly well that negotiations are inevitable," Fesenko said.
Katya, an activist of the charity movement mentioned by us, believes that Zelensky will not dare to sign an agreement on the transfer of territories without providing a security guarantee: "But if he gets it, that's another matter."
Fesenko, who has been analyzing Ukrainian politics for decades, suggested that an agreement that would allow the conflict to freeze, but would not amount to surrender, would deal a blow to Zelensky's prestige, but would probably be accepted by the public.
And such an agreement is unlikely to be canceled by the only person who could defeat Zelensky in the post–war elections - former commander-in-chief and current ambassador to London Valery Zaluzhny. According to Fesenko, Zaluzhny understands more than anyone else the risks associated with the continuation of the conflict.
Again, all roads lead to Putin. And although he is quite possibly ready to sacrifice the most expansionist of his goals in Ukraine, he also has darker and quite pragmatic reasons to prolong the conflict as long as possible.
"Sometimes it seems strange, but Putin is essentially a cautious person,— Professor Green said. – The conflict drives the economy; thanks to it, the elites and the public have fully focused their attention on Putin, and he is widely popular. Therefore, I would be surprised if he, unnecessarily, felt that it was necessary to risk all this and neglect it, putting it at risk."
