CNN
—
British wartime leader Winston Churchill once said he was an optimist and saw no point in anything else. In the year ahead, there has been intense and perhaps deliberate positivity in Ukraine from Kiev and, at least publicly, from parts of NATO that President-elect Trump can bring about meaningful diplomatic change.
They have little choice, as the level of American support will determine the outcome of this war, and Trump’s aides are already reluctant to continue with the Biden administration’s current near-adequate level of support. Even if it’s not, it’s far from convincing. But the Kremlin’s negotiating and peacemaking record in the decade-long war in Ukraine should give reason for great caution, if not cynicism.
Keith Kellogg, President-elect Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, has long advocated the principles of an optimist peace deal in a policy paper he wrote for a think tank last April. These include a ceasefire, Ukraine entering into negotiations as a condition for further military aid, and the creation of a demilitarized zone to ensure the current front lines are frozen. The plan relies heavily on Russian complicity in ending the war on terms devised by the United States and addresses the main problem it assesses: Ukraine needs more weapons than NATO can afford to provide. The problem of being there has not been resolved. But America’s allies are considering Kellogg’s proposal with some seriousness, and at least it appears ready and possible.
European defense officials told CNN that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries joining the peace deal are “actively involved” in how they would deploy troops to support the demilitarized zone if requested. “Discussions” are underway, he said. Western officials have often reiterated the view that the Russian government remains reluctant to start a full-scale conflict with NATO itself.
Perhaps the presence of some NATO troops on the Ukrainian front could deter the Kremlin from slowly advancing despite the cease-fire agreement, as it has attempted in the past. On Monday, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he had discussed sending a “partner contingent” of troops to Ukraine with French President Emmanuel Macron. Paris recently floated the idea of French troops stationed and trained in Ukraine, but Ukrainian media went further, speculating that this could refer to the seeds of a NATO peacekeeping force. There is.
On Sunday, President Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Rep. Mike Walz, told ABC News that “everyone knows we have to somehow end the war in Ukraine diplomatically.” . His comments were echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday, who said it meant Trump’s team was grappling with “the realities on the ground,” Reuters reported.
Mr. Trump will inherit the NATO alliance, which he has expressed skepticism about, and the unity of his pro-Ukraine message is beginning to crumble. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz broke months of diplomatic isolation from Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone conversation in November, but NATO’s easternmost member state faces threats from the Kremlin, emboldened by a partially observed ceasefire. is acutely aware of this, and remains focused on Russia’s enduring defeat. as the best way to guarantee Europe’s security.
Kaja Kalas, a former Estonian prime minister and current EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, told CNN from Rome that she believes Ukraine can still win with the right help.
“The risks to European security are very high,” she said. “The scale of hybrid attacks in Europe has already skyrocketed, and a defeat for Ukraine will cost more than aid.
“President Putin has a complete disregard for international law and cannot be trusted. Without reliable security guarantees, the cease-fire agreement is likely to fail. Russia will simply rearm and attack again. ” A wrong peace deal “will only lead to more wars, just like before,” she added. “We must learn from the past and ensure future agreements are sustainable.”
Russia’s previous peace commitments to Ukraine have been deceptive, suggesting that the ceasefire may be only in name. In the first invasion in 2014, Crimea was occupied by a small group of “green men” who denied being Russian forces but seized control of Ukrainian bases on the peninsula. (Putin later admitted they were).
The mercenary-led “uprising” that seized parts of the Donbass region in the following months also served as an unconvincing fig leaf for Moscow’s annexation. While Russia often talks of peace, it passionately pursues its military goals, completing a march on the strategic town of Debaltseve in the midst of peace talks in Minsk in February 2015, and finally in the first days of the ceasefire. occupied the town.
Those who were there will remember the flawed process. Alexander Hug, who ran the OSCE monitoring mission on the ground overseeing the 2014-2015 ceasefire, told CNN: Violations will always occur. The key question is what the agreement envisages in terms of sanctions and remedial measures. He said that even if one of them got away, “they could do more of the same thing.”
He added that while “the situation is not the same now as it was then”, “the important lessons learned 10 years ago are still valid today”.
The story in Moscow has also changed dramatically over the past decade, and so have the casualty numbers. In 2014, President Putin often pretended that he could not control the “separatist uprising” and the Russian military suffered relatively few losses despite significant territorial gains. As the war enters its fourth year, Western officials say Russian build-ups on the front are adding up to 1,500 casualties a day, bringing the war’s casualty toll to 700,000, according to the British Ministry of Defense. They rate it as being closer to people.
The Kremlin has also positioned the war as an existential battle for all of NATO, perhaps to excuse its poor performance. NATO, on the other hand, has yet to send any troops to the conflict, only deploying less desirable equipment. This imbalance in the perception of conflict will distort the negotiating table. Russia has more at stake than simply NATO. And Putin may find it harder to accept small concessions from Kiev in talks and instead seek bigger gains.
President Trump’s unpredictability and apparent desire to avoid a repeat of the embarrassment for the United States comparable to the withdrawal from Kabul have raised hopes that he may decide to see Putin fail. be. But to do that, two important constants in the president-elect’s behavior need to be reversed. A desire not to publicly upset Kremlin leaders and a desire to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.
Kiev and other NATO members like to invoke the idea of ”peace through strength.” But the bigger risk this year is that Putin’s incomplete adherence to the ceasefire and likely continued small territorial gains will divide Ukraine’s allies and leave diplomats unable to decide what level of violations warrant full involvement. The process can be slow and even torture. It’s NATO’s retaliation.
Will there be a war over Crimea, as in 2014, or over Debaltseve? If NATO or European troops are deployed along the demilitarized zone, what level of violation or casualty would warrant NATO retaliation against another nuclear-armed state? Would you agree?
And as NATO’s cohesion and strength of support for Kiev begin to erode and European governments begin to change, it may be difficult to reignite. President Putin knows this and has done it before. But only now does it have an obvious sympathizer like Donald Trump in the White House.
Time may not be entirely on Putin’s side, given that Russians’ life and financial reserves are rapidly being burnt out and the economy is severely overheated by military enlistment bonuses and death benefits. But this year, the Kremlin leader has shown that the one constant that caused the clock to tick the loudest in Moscow – NATO’s unified support for Ukraine – has shifted to the slow, generous diplomacy he used in 2014. It will change its appearance. Fast-paced persistence on the battlefield may be enough to propel him towards the victory he needs.
