Skand Tayal | Amidst Peace Moves By US & Europe; No Early End Likely To Russia-Ukraine War

Last month’s much-anticipated summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15 and the White House meetings hosted by President Trump with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and top European leaders on August 18 have so far failed to achieve any tangible results.

President Trump has conceded Russia’s line seeking a peace agreement rather than an immediate ceasefire, that Crimea would remain a part of Russia, that there would be territorial exchange and that Ukraine would not join Nato.

The August 18 confabulations in Washington between President Trump and the European leaders, including Mr Zelenskyy, had opened a window for direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and also narrowed the divergence between the US and Europe on the elements of an acceptable Russia-Ukraine deal.

However, the crux is that the four parties involved -- Russia, Ukraine, the US and Europe -- have conflicting geopolitical objectives in the region.

Ukraine, under President Zelenskyy, had been viscerally anti- Russia and has two basic objectives: To ensure its sovereignty and territorial integrity in its 1992 borders; and to receive iron- clad security guarantees for the future. It is evident that despite heavy losses in men and material, the Kyiv government’s resolve and that of Ukraine’s people to keep on fighting Russia has not weakened.

Russia’s geopolitical objectives are to stop Nato’s eastward expansion and to integrate Ukraine’s Russian-speaking areas with “Mother Russia”, which began in 2014 with its occupation of Crimea. Russia also wants to ensure its future security by ensuring a disarmed Ukraine.

America’s geopolitical objectives under President Trump are diametrically opposite to that of his predecessor Joe Biden. Mr Trump feels this conflict is a European issue and doesn’t directly affect US interests. He has rightly determined that Ukraine winning this war against a more powerful Russia is a fantasy. He doesn’t want to spend more American money on an unwinnable war. Also, to recoup some of the billions the US has already spent on armaments for Ukraine, President Trump had pressured Ukraine for an agreement on April 30 to facilitate US investments in Ukraine’s rich mineral resources.

Most influential European nations are wary of an expansionist Russia: first in Georgia and now in Ukraine. They think it must be confronted and checked in Ukraine itself. 31 Nato members, all except the US, are ready to back Ukraine with financial, diplomatic and military support. Amidst this, Russian forces are steadily advancing on the battlefront, putting Ukraine under pressure.

After the rather unpleasant February 28 White House meeting between Mr Zelenskyy and Mr Trump, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, but Russia said no, saying the root causes of this crisis must first be removed. After the recent White House meeting, Mr Trump confirmed that security guarantees would be provided to Ukraine by the European countries, with US “coordination”. President Zelenskyy said the “guarantees” could include a $90 billion package of US armaments. The financing of this package could be tricky as the Europeans would be

required to foot the bill. The package of “security guarantees” may also be difficult to negotiate. French President Emmanuel Macron suggested a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine, which would amount to a de facto Nato presence on the Russia-Ukraine border. Russia has clearly said on August 27 that any European troops in Ukraine will be unacceptable.

The next expected but delayed steps are meetings between Russia and Ukraine, followed by a bilateral summit between the two Presidents, leading to a trilateral summit with President Trump.

The negotiations on the timing of a ceasefire, details of security guarantees, as well as territorial adjustment issues are likely to be prolonged and contentious. Mr Trump will need to apply sustained pressure on both Ukraine and Russia for any early move towards a peace agreement.

Over the past few days, the conflict has escalated with Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv and Ukraine’s retaliation. To step up pressure on Russia, European countries are considering freezing up to $245 billion in Russian assets. On August 27, Mr Trump warned Mr Putin of an “economic war” against Russia if President Putin stalls meeting President Zelenskyy. Russia’s position is that the meet can take place only after the summit agenda is prepared first.

India has got caught in the Russia-Ukraine crossfire, and on August 27, the US imposed a 25 per cent “secondary tariff” on most Indian exports over the purchase of Russian oil.

The meetings in China’s Tianjin around the SCO summit on August 31 and September 1 saw a confident and defiant President Putin. Speaking at the summit, he said: “This crisis was a result of a coup in Ukraine, supported by the West.” The Tianjin Declaration adopted by the SCO’s 10 members was silent on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his talks with President Putin, declared that “a way has to be found to end the conflict as soon as possible and establish lasting peace.”

What is America’s leverage over Ukraine? If the key European countries have the resolve to continue to finance and arm Ukraine, Kyiv is unlikely to agree to a permanent loss of Crimea and vast territories in eastern Ukraine.

Does the US have any punishing leverage over Mr Putin? Any secondary sanctions against Russia are likely to be defied by China, which will continue to buy Russian oil and pursue normal trade with Russia. China has shown its economic teeth to the US by denying it rare earths and industrial magnets.

In this scenario, the most likely outcome is that Russia and Ukraine may hold direct talks, but remain inconclusive. This unfortunate conflict may then drag on till either Russian forces win the territory they claim in eastern Ukraine, or Ukraine gets tired of this unending and unwinnable conflict.

The writer is a retired Indian diplomat