Macron, Starmer. Tusk and the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have pitched up in Kiev – to “intensify calls on Russia for a ceasefire”. [1][2] The AFP photo in Al-Jazeera shows Starmer. Macron and Tusk all grinning. I am often surprised when I see European leaders in Kiev grinning from ear to ear. The absurd Ursula von der Leyen is particularly good at this. Don’t these people realise there is a war on? Who knows – but it seems something like 200,000 people have already died. Tens of thousands more have been maimed. Hundreds are dying or being maimed for life every day. What is there to grin about? I think these people simply have no idea what is going on. At least Putin has the decency to look a bit grim in most of his public appearances about the war. (Indeed he is on record as saying he hasn’t laughed much since the start of the special operation).
The ceasefire gambit is going nowhere
The current gambit of the European leaders – the ‘coalition of the willing’ – seems to be to advocate for a 30-day ceasefire. This has become a talking point since Trump started, somewhat, disengaging the US from unequivocal support for Kiev. Zelensky is on board. I would imagine that in Kiev they have a pretty good understanding that this is a non-starter for Russia; but it suits them to promote it as they can appear to the US to be on the side of peace. In as much as Kiev is ready to accept a ceasefire they accompany it with the rhetoric about how they will “move to the diplomatic track to regain the lost territories”; this is the same line which we heard after the Minsk accords were signed. And, 8 years after that, they started to openly repudiate them. That does not bode well; and Russia is unlikely to have forgotten that lesson. The European leaders probably believe in it. The idea appeals to the European leaders because they could, at least, avoid openly losing to Russia. They could then follow Ursula von der Leyen’s plan for a EU-Ukraine military development project. (The plan is that the EU will source the new weapons they need, now that NATO is looking less secure, from Ukraine, thus aiding Ukraine’s own defence capacity and economy). The ceasefire plan won’t work because a) Russia will not agree to it – that is to a ceasefire which allows Ukraine to continue to receive US and European weapons and b) there is no way that you can make Ukraine impregnable. Porcupine Ukraine just doesn’t work, militarily.
Unfortunately, the US Administration, despite a few signs of understanding Russia’s position early one, are thinking about this in terms of a standard “ceasefire to negotiations” approach to ending the conflict. This kind of approach works when, for example, two groups within a country, are fighting and the fighting is driven by emotion or because each side has been captured by their own nationalist or tribal rhetoric, or some actually resolvable petty disputes, and have stumbled into a conflict. But, in this case, Russia simply has clear strategic imperatives. Because they are strategic and pertain to their core national security interests, they are fully (bar some details) non-negotiable. The standard ceasefire-to-talks model does not apply in this case; contrary to European propaganda, which they may actually believe, Putin did not start this war out of irrational emotion, and therefore, he cannot be “talked down” like a stressed child who is acting up. Because of this, the fact that Russia has key security demands, there are only two ways to end this conflict; accept Russia’s key and non-negotiable demands, or, let Russia impose something close to that on the battlefield. (Of course, a third option, is to defeat Russia, but acceptance that that is not possible seems to have finally set in). As long as the US is using the standard ceasefire-to-negotiations model then any efforts from that side will, regrettably, go nowhere.
Russia is, according to a quote from Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, [1] willing to consider a ceasefire if it includes a cessation of arms deliveries to Ukraine. That makes perfect sense; in this case, they would not risk losing their current winning position by accepting a ceasefire. It is in fact, if serious, a good offer. It would create a space for some kind of talks though, in reality, given the continued insistence by Kiev that they will not accept any territorial loss at all, including Crimea, it is hard to see how talks could be successful. We would be back to the position of the failed talks in March 2022; when Ukraine just offered a 15 year diplomatic track to talk about Crimea, while retaining their claim; something Russia cannot accept. The addiction of the Kiev regime to Western weapons and the unthinking compulsion of European leaders to supply them, seems hard to break. So; even that possibility of a ceasefire on Russian terms, (if serious), seems remote. It seems that Professor Mearsheimer is correct; the sides have totally incompatible positions, and this is going to be resolved on the field of battle.
Unrealistic ambitions
I notice that the EU (+ Starmer) leaders are still clinging to the idea of retaining Ukraine on the 1991 borders:
We are clear the bloodshed must end, Russia must stop its illegal invasion, and Ukraine must be able to prosper as a safe, secure and sovereign nation within its internationally recognised borders for generations to come [2]
There is no mention of NATO in the Coalition of the Willing statement, so, probably even they have grasped that part. But; it seems they are still clinging on to Crimea. I am not surprised; after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 the reaction was very muted. But; I think that reflected reality; there was nothing they could do about it. But; it was a big loss of face, and, so, it is no surprise, that now that there is an open war on, they have reinstated the aim of retaking Crimea. But; this is not realistic. You might be able to get some wriggle room from Russia on the exact borders in Zaporizhia, Kherson and Donetsk, but Russia is never going to “give back” Crimea, under any leadership. (I have lived in Russia for 4 years on and off and I have only met one Russian who did not believe that Crimea should be part of Russia; and he emigrated to Spain). About 60% of the population of Crimea is ethnic Russian and there is a very clear majority in favour of being part of Russia. (I simply don’t understand why the nationalists in Kiev can’t just let it go; they couldn’t rule it even if they could militarily or “diplomatically” retake it, just as, Russia could not practically rule Western Ukraine). On a pragmatic note; I, (as a independent), can certainly see scope for making the annexation of Crimea by Russia more acceptable to Ukraine; for example, cross-border bodies and a special regime for Ukrainian businesses. I don’t know if these kinds of ideas have ever been part of the negotiations that have taken place; I would hope so.
Only one way to end this war
The issue is very simple. Russia has a set of non-negotiable demands, which relate to their national security, (and Crimea). Any approach to ending the conflict which does not, essentially, accept this, is going nowhere. Even the Trump administration, which seemed, at one point to be ready to think about the conflict in realist terms and to listen to the Russian position, seem unable to take the final step and cut a deal based on realism. They seem to be falling back to this “ceasefire” line. This is, in turn, being exploited by Kiev and the pro-war Europeans to try to establish a strong fall-back position; a defended loss, which would enable them to claim that they hadn’t lost. From this point they would then probably hope that they could leverage their economic strength and exhaust Russia. I would guess this is why they are so keen on the ceasefire option. They are talking about “peace” but in reality are still trying to get a victory on their terms.
Notes
