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.Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 14 February 2025