A New Peace Initiative for Ukraine – Or Capitulation?

By Anil Madan

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine warned that direct negotiations between the US and Russia, about ending Russia’s war of aggression, but excluding his country that is the victim of that aggression, would be dangerous. “They may have their own relations but talking about Ukraine without us – it is dangerous for everyone.” Zelenskyy emphasized such a step would validate Putin’s illegal invasion and “show that he was right” and give him “impunity” and “compromise.”

Less than ten days later, President Trump had ignored Zelenskyy’s concerns and announced that he has had an extended discussion with Putin about ending the war, and that he will continue to negotiate directly with Putin to that end. He announced that he would meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia, visit Russia and that Putin would visit the U.S.

One would expect that the prospect of peace, particularly one that involves getting a nuclear power to stop its acts of aggression, would generate applause and optimism, rather than cause geopolitical churn and turmoil. But “churn and turmoil” seems and understatement when we consider the seismic shift that this unorthodox approach by Trump has caused.

In April 2022, almost two years ago, I wrote: “We cannot yet define the contours that will mark the end of the war. At the most basic level, we do not know if Putin will agree to a ceasefire without significant concessions by Ukraine amounting to a de facto surrender or at the point when its cities have been reduced to ruinous rubble, its male population decimated, and its displaced women and children unable to return to their homeland and carry on their lives before a massive rebuild of infrastructure, homes, services, and civil society takes place. We do not know, except in broad generalizations what the terms of any ceasefire acceptable to the Ukrainians might be. What we know is essentially some of the Ukrainian and Russian wish lists. To underscore the point, we cannot tell if the Ukrainian leadership will survive the assault staged by Putin, nor foretell the shape of the nation that will emerge.”

Two years later, in April 2024, I noted that Army General Christopher Cavoli, head of US European Command, the top general for US forces in Europe, testified to Congress that Ukraine will be “outgunned” ten to one by Russia within a matter of weeks barring fresh supplies of ammunition and weapons from the United States.

At that time, US Speaker Mike Johnson was heeding candidate Trump’s calls to stall aid for Ukraine.

I reiterated in 2024 what I had said two years earlier, some six weeks after Putin started his attack: “My thought two years ago, that Ukraine would have great difficulty surviving the Russian assault is reinforced by the developments recounted above.”

Most military and political analysts seem to agree that Russia is making creepingly slow progress, but progress nevertheless, in its assault on Ukraine and gaining territory. Although Ukraine has become proficient in drone warfare, it has severe manpower problems and whereas it could continue defending itself for some time, the prospects look dim.

Now, it appears that the US is abandoning Ukraine and perhaps Europe and Britain as well in the process. This could be viewed either as a realistic recognition of the dire situation facing Ukraine, or a transactional approach by Trump to secure critical rare earth minerals and supplies for the US, or simply as playing out Trump’s oft-expressed skepticism about NATO and that the Europeans are taking advantage of the US Secretary of Defense Hegseth, speaking in Europe, said the US would no longer “tolerate an imbalanced relationship” with its allies and reiterated Trump’s call for NATO members to increase dramatically, their defense spending.

Hegseth added that the US wants, just as the Europeans do, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. “But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” he said. Hegseth dismissed the idea that Ukraine could recapture its lost territory:  “Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.” And he added this coup-de-grace: “The United States does not believe that Nato membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”

Whether Hegseth was referring just to Ukraine’s loss of Crimea that Russia annexed in 2014, or to the portions of eastern Ukraine that Russia later annexed or occupies, is not clear. What is clear is that if Ukraine is to get peace on American and Russian terms, it must not only concede territory but give up dreams of joining NATO and gaining the security that Article 5 of the NATO charter provides. In 2023, President Biden and then Secretary of State Blinken declared that eventual NATO membership for Ukraine was a commitment and inevitable.

Hegseth’s pronouncements do indeed reflect a tectonic shift in American policy towards Ukraine and indeed to Europe. Underscoring this, Hegseth revealed the new American view that Ukraine is essentially a problem for Europe, not the US He called on European nations to provide the overwhelming share of funding for Ukraine.

Two of Hegseth’s statements suggest that this new approach may be slightly nuanced and does not, in fact, represent a wholesale abandonment of NATO or Ukraine. First, the call for NATO members to spend more of defense does not suggest dissolution of that organization but rather of strengthening it. NATO has no purpose other than deterring Russian aggression and encroachment. Second, Hegseth did suggest that Ukraine should get security guarantees.

But it is fair to say that Hegseth’s statements offer Russia major concessions even before Putin commits to any deal acceptable to Ukraine. With territorial cession conceded, NATO membership and continued American support off the table, Putin will get what he has long wanted, a weakened and neutral Ukraine with no prospect of NATO membership. Nor is it clear whether Putin will return Ukrainian children who were shipped to Russia. Or, for that matter, whether Russia will pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine’s cities and infrastructure that Putin has destroyed.

Zelenskyy had stated that he is willing to discuss swapping territory with Russia in exchange for peace, but he has insisted that Ukraine must get strict security guarantees in return. “There are voices which say that Europe could offer security guarantees without the Americans, and I always say no,” Zelenskyy said. He offered that it would be a “major mistake” to deploy British, French and other allied troops to guarantee Ukraine’s security without involving the US.

Zelenskyy has also warned Britain and other NATO member countries to increase their defense spending to strengthen their militaries to deter Russia, or risk finding themselves at war and forced to devote all their resources to defense. Curiously, this echoes Trump’s call for more defense spending by these countries, but for a different reason.

Hegseth snubbed Zelenskyy on this point too, rejecting the idea that the US would provide security guarantees to Ukraine. While acknowledging that a durable peace must include “robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again,” Hegseth said that such security guarantees should be backed by “capable European and non-European troops”. Further elaborating on de-emphasizing Ukraine’s prospects of ever joining NATO, he added: “If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-Nato mission and they should not be covered under Article 5.”

European reaction reflected dismay with the new US doctrine. The EU’s foreign policy head said that Europe will continue to support Ukraine if it does not accept any American-Russian deal thrust on it. Trump’s announcement and Hegseth’s pronouncements have sparked European and British fears that Ukraine could be fractured and carved up and overall European security being undermined.

On the heels of Trump’s announcement of his planned negotiations with Putin, the UK, the European Union and five other countries vowed to enhance support for Ukraine. They released this statement: “We are ready to enhance our support for Ukraine. We commit to its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s war of aggression. We share the goal to keep supporting Ukraine until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is reached. A peace that guarantees the interest of Ukraine and our own.”

So, what is really going on here? To give the devil his due, perhaps Trump genuinely believes that ending the killing and abating the threat of nuclear escalation are paramount considerations. Or it may be a simple realization that Ukraine cannot win and Russia will eventually grind it down. Zelenskyy’s apparent willingness to concede territory, even if phrased as a face-saving “swap” of one piece of Ukraine for another, suggests that he too realizes what the inevitable outcome will be.

Perhaps this is just another example of Trump trying to secure a transactional advantage to gain access to rare earth minerals from Ukraine and perhaps even from Russia. Perhaps Trump sees America, Russia and China dividing the world into spheres of influence as his recent overtures about Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada reveal. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal has reported that China has apparently offered to host meetings between Putin and Trump. This may be China’s way of staving off Trump’s tariffs as it did in 2017 when Trump sought to have China pave the way for his talks with Kim Jong Un.

What seems clear is that Russia will not pay the price for its war of aggression beyond the economic suffering already visited on its populace. And it is ironic that America would be the nation to abandon the principle that sovereign nations should be secure in their territory. The previous agreements signed by the US to that effect mean nothing.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 14 February 2025