Assessing Prospects for Peace in the Ukraine Conflict
Recent discussions surrounding peace negotiations for the Ukraine conflict have gained traction, with hopes directed towards the potential influence of Donald Trump as the new American president. However, skepticism remains about the feasibility of achieving lasting peace through his administration.
The proposed framework for resolution advocates for a ceasefire followed by peace talks, a sequence reminiscent of numerous regional conflicts throughout the 20th century. In many cases, external pressures led to ceasefires that merely postponed conflicts, often resulting in renewed hostilities. For this approach to succeed in Ukraine, the implications of continued conflict must outweigh those of a ceasefire for Moscow--a scenario not currently in play.
One of the central challenges lies in the West's lack of commitment, which diminishes the likelihood of a comprehensive peace agreement involving Russia, the United States, and Western Europe in the near future. Nevertheless, a more stable peace in Ukraine remains a possibility, albeit without Western assurances.
The conflict in Ukraine has deep-rooted origins, exacerbated by the West's failure to offer concrete commitments to either Kyiv or Moscow. In early 2022, Ukrainian officials were eager to negotiate in Istanbul to halt the invasion, expecting security guarantees from Western powers. Simultaneously, President Putin sought a significant agreement with the West to delineate spheres of influence. Unfortunately, neither party achieved its objectives, as the West opted to bolster Ukraine with arms, effectively utilizing it as a proxy against Russia.
Initially, NATO's strategy appeared effective, with Ukraine achieving military successes that fueled optimism about defeating Russia through additional military support and sanctions. However, by late 2022, the conflict had morphed into a grueling war of attrition, with Ukraine facing resource depletion at a faster rate compared to Russia.
Currently, as Ukraine grapples with escalating front-line challenges and domestic instability, the situation mirrors early 2022. Kyiv is once again seeking commitments from Western leaders, including Macron and even Trump. Yet, the West's inability to provide substantial alternatives only compounds the uncertainty. Unlike the initial optimism fostered by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's rallying cry to resist, current rhetoric lacks persuasive power. Recent proposals from U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to deploy young individuals to the front lines have elicited feelings of shame rather than hope among Ukrainian patriots.
As the prospect of peace rests on Trump's administration, questions arise regarding his capacity to facilitate resolution in Ukraine. While his tone appears to have moderated, aligning more closely with the Biden administration, his promises remain ambiguous. The previous assertion of achieving peace in '24 hours' has transitioned to a more tentative 'if I can,' with emphasis on a strong Ukraine and NATO, indicating limited inclination to alter existing Western policies.
Despite Trump's purported aversion to military conflict, tangible solutions to the root causes of the war remain elusive. His strategy seems to involve shifting the focus of the conflict towards China, which, while potentially advantageous for Russia, does not contribute to resolving the situation or addressing territorial disputes.
In the absence of expectations from the U.S. or the West, Russia is intensifying its military operations, aiming to exhaust Ukraine into submission. Moscow's strategy involves maintaining a steady operational tempo to gradually weaken Ukrainian defenses. The Kremlin appears determined to create conditions under which Kyiv might acquiesce to peace on Russian terms, thus ensuring its long-term security.
While the current dynamics favor Russia, alternative outcomes remain feasible:
- A Ceasefire Without Commitment: Russia may agree to a ceasefire if its resources begin to dwindle. However, without Western guarantees, such a truce would likely only serve to delay conflict.
- A Protracted Low-Intensity Conflict: Should Ukraine enhance its defensive capabilities, Russia might adopt a more conservative approach, potentially leading to a fragmented, unstable state akin to a 'Palestinianized' scenario.
- Escalation: Should either Trump or NATO decide on direct military involvement, Russia might respond with escalatory measures, including the potential use of nuclear options.
In summary, Moscow seems confident in its ability to sustain the conflict for an extended period, banking on Ukraine's eventual collapse under the weight of military and economic pressure. The Kremlin's strategy focuses on imposing peace on its terms, compelling Ukraine to renounce its anti-Russian posture.
