Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world
After more than 1,100 days of fighting and hundreds of thousands of people killed or injured, a pause in hostilities in Ukraine is within sight. Now that Kyiv has agreed to a US-brokered proposal for a 30-day ceasefire with Russia, the ball — as US secretary of state Marco Rubio made clear — is firmly in Russia’s court. The first question is whether Vladimir Putin will accept the plan; with US officials heading to Moscow, an answer could come soon. An even bigger question is whether such a ceasefire has any chance of opening the way to a stable and lasting peace — or whether Russia will agree to terms anywhere close to what Kyiv could accept.
The Russian president has reason to resist a cessation of hostilities. His troops have the upper hand in part of Russia’s Kursk region that Ukrainian forces occupied and want to hold as a bargaining chip. Putin would have to accept a freezing of the conflict that might become long-term, when his war goals are far from met. He has insisted a ceasefire can begin only once a political settlement is already agreed. Yet in Rubio’s words, if the Kremlin rejects the proposal “we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here”. Putin would antagonise Donald Trump and jeopardise his best chance in years to redraw relations with Washington.
If the Kremlin does not reject the plan or try to add its own preconditions, and there is progress on confidence-building measures including prisoner swaps, the next problem is that negotiating positions are oceans apart. Putin has stuck to peace terms set out last June: withdrawal of Kyiv’s forces from areas they still control of four Ukrainian regions that Moscow claims to have annexed; and military neutrality and “demilitarisation” for Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace plan still includes restoring his country’s territorial integrity.
A compromise might be conceivable involving Moscow retaining de facto, but not de jure, control of some territory. But Kyiv would need security guarantees to deter any future Russian assaults, while Moscow has ruled out troops from Nato countries on Ukrainian soil.
One merit of Ukraine’s switch to backing a ceasefire, in which UK, French and German officials were also involved, is that it might allow an education for Trump. The US president — who regards peace largely as the absence of fighting — would be exposed to the complexities of Ukraine’s situation, Russia’s recalcitrance, and the perils of a “bad” settlement. The transactional former real estate developer seems to believe Putin’s war was aimed at seizing territory. In fact it was about crushing Ukrainian statehood and returning it to Moscow’s orbit.
The Trump approach to diplomacy and browbeating of Kyiv, including his Oval Office dressing-down of Zelenskyy and suspension of military aid and intelligence-sharing — now restored — has brought Ukraine to a position that seemed unlikely just weeks ago. No one knows exactly what Trump has discussed with Putin. But he has so far shown a remarkable reluctance to adopt similarly hardball tactics with the Russian leader.
To stand any chance of securing an enduring settlement in Ukraine, the US president now needs to find ways to persuade Putin to negotiate credibly and demonstrate flexibility in talks. That might involve a Trumpian mixture of enticements, such as offers of future economic co-operation, and menaces such as re-arming Ukraine, stepping up sanctions and confiscating frozen Russian assets. But without such pressure, any ceasefire — welcome as it would be — could turn out to be dangerously shortlived.
Source link
