Allies send signals to Ukraine that recovering lost territory is unlikely

The more months the war in Ukraine continues, the more difficult it is for its allies to agree to guarantee assistance that will allow it to win the war. It is above all in the United States, with the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans to continue with military assistance, where it is becoming clear that Ukraine is increasingly weaker on the international stage. The change in the speech of Joe Biden, president of the United States, in the meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, last December in Washington did not go unnoticed: “We will continue to provide weapons to Ukraine for as long as possible.” Until this moment, Biden's promise had always been to provide support “as long as it takes.”

The countries that make up the G-7 committed in July 2023 to establish bilateral security plans with Ukraine for ten years. The first agreement came this January, with the United Kingdom. Washington Post released the bomb January 27: Biden's plan, according to sources in his Administration, contemplates a level of assistance for Ukraine that allows it to stop Russian advances, but rules out the possibility of recovering 18% of Ukrainian territory in the hands of the Kremlin.

Messages in this regard have also arrived from Germany. Christoph Heusgen is the director of the Munich Security Conference, a reference forum between governments for debate on military conflicts. Heusgen was formerly Germany's ambassador to the United Nations and advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel. The diplomat stated on January 31 on ARD television that the end of the conflict inevitably involves a situation like that of the 2015 Minsk agreements, in which a ceasefire was agreed between Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists in the region of Donbas (in the east). “We must already be thinking about how to put an end to this, we must reach a situation like the one in 2015, when Vladimir Putin recognized Petro Poroshenko as president of Ukraine,” Heusgen said, adding: “Putin has said that with this Government does not want to make peace. This must change, he must accept Zelensky and Zelensky, we must know what price he is willing to pay, as in Minsk. “I don't see any other alternative.”

The American television network NBC reported last November that at a meeting of defense ministries, American and European diplomats asked their Ukrainian counterparts “what they could give up to reach a peace agreement with Russia.” The sources consulted by NBC indicated that the discussion was especially “delicate.”

Zelensky has not moved one iota regarding his so-called Peace Formula: the end of the war is only possible if Moscow withdraws its troops from Ukraine and returns all occupied territories. The official position of the allied governments is that they will support the conditions that Ukraine demands to negotiate with Moscow. “We cannot allow Russia to win,” French President Emmanuel Macron said on December 20: “We must give Ukraine the support that allows it to negotiate peace under the best conditions.” He also admitted that “there are European countries that are possibly starting to doubt.” The Polish president, Andrzej Duda, stated on Friday on Channel Zero television that he was not clear that the Crimean peninsula could once again be under the control of Ukraine, but he was confident that the provinces of Donbas would be liberated.

Ukraine's problem is that, as Zelensky himself reiterated this January, it has never received enough support to win the war, only to resist. The Russian Defense budget for 2024 is more than three times higher than the Ukrainian one, with the latter having the best forecasts for the transfer of European and American funds. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valeri Zaluzhni, made public this Thursday on CNN an essay in which he argued that the West neither has enough resources nor is it contemplating providing the necessary assistance to push back the invading troops. The alternative is to develop a new strategy of maximum efficiency with the technological resources available, especially exploiting the use of drones: “We must take into account a reduction in military support from key allies, who are embroiled in their own political tensions. “Our partners' arsenals of missiles, air defenses and artillery ammunition are increasingly depleted.”

“The threat of aid to Ukraine ending or being reduced will only increase in the future,” wrote Oleksandr Daniliuk, former advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and the leadership of the Armed Forces, on January 24. Daniliuk published an article for RUSI, one of the main defense studies institutes in the United Kingdom, in which he warned precisely of the voices that suggest that the time to negotiate with Russia is approaching: “Any attempt to conclude [la guerra] “With a peace treaty with Russia, according to which Ukraine could survive despite losing territory and sovereignty, it would be another Minsk agreement, giving Putin a strategic pause to prepare a new aggression.”

Academics in favor of negotiating

The weekly Der Spiegel published last December that the head of the German Chancellery, Wolfgang Schmidt, gave in a meeting as an example of the strategy to follow the proposals of the American academic Samuel Charap, researcher at the RAND study group. Charap argues that the solution to the conflict inevitably involves assuming that Ukraine will not be able to recover all of its territory, and that the war must end as soon as possible because, otherwise, there is an increasing risk of an escalation of war that directly affects the countries of Ukraine. NATO.

Charap is not the only one who puts forward similar positions from the academic world. Anthony King, director of the Institute for Strategy and Security Studies at the University of Exeter (United Kingdom), published on January 29 in the newspaper Moscow Times that the best position for Ukraine “is an aggressive defensive strategy.” “Russia could keep the land it has illegally invaded, but the price if it attempts new aggression would be catastrophic. “Ukraine needs to secure the ground it now holds and make it impossible for Russia to hold on to it,” she explained.

“Ukraine has the right to the full reintegration of its territories, which would be desirable in an ideal world, but is it a realistic strategy for 2024?” asks King, to which he himself responds: “It seems unlikely. “A maximalist Ukrainian strategy could weaken Western support, rather than strengthen it.”

Korea as a reference

Stephen Kotkin, a professor at Stanford University and one of the most renowned historians on the history of Russia and the countries that formed its empire, has argued that the best option for Ukraine is to give up, at least temporarily, the occupied territories. . Kotkin's thesis is that “the time to win the war” has passed and now “peace must be won.” The most similar historical precedent, according to Kotkin, would be that of the Korean peninsula, with one part, South Korea, rich and with a model of liberal democracy that shows the isolation of the northern par
t. Former supreme commander of NATO forces James Stavridis referred to this precisely in an interview on January 28. This American admiral, according to The Hillindicated that the ideal moment for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will come after the US presidential elections, in November 2024. Stavridis noted that, in his opinion, everything indicates that the conflict will end with a division of Ukraine as in Korea.

But there is another determining question, and that is whether Russia is willing to negotiate. Kremlin sources explained last December to The New York Times and this January Bloomberg that Putin had conveyed to the White House, through unofficial channels, his interest in agreeing to peace, even accepting Ukraine's accession to NATO. The White House has ruled out that Moscow is really interested in opening a negotiation process. In a short essay published in January, Norwegian reserve general Arne Bard Dalhaug summarized what most defense analysts conclude: that Russia controls the war, sees the West as weakened, and therefore has no incentive to give in. “The Kremlin sees no reason to end the war,” emphasizes Bard Dalhaug, “Western doubts convince Putin that NATO does not have enough energy to be involved in the war like Russia.”

Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.

_