War ends and an end to the war in Ukraine
Russia is not budging on its aims. The world should take President Putin at his word.
In a nutshell
- Russia is using peace talks to entrench its position
- Ukraine’s fate hinges on major Western support
- At best, the situation could become a Korea-like frozen conflict
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
Russia has turned away from Europe. Jingoism fanned by war and hostility toward the West will shape the mentality of an entire generation. The country is being “Putinized.” The Russian military will grow. With more clout, the Kremlin’s foreign policy will be increasingly aggressive and destructive. Europe must prepare against hybrid warfare and clandestine operations. This confrontation benefits China in that it weakens the two established superpowers and prevents them from forming an anti-China understanding. Russia, 60 years ago the big brother and ideological ideal for China, is now the junior partner in this relationship.
There is no peace agreement in sight. Moscow’s demands remain unchanged: recognition of Crimea and the four annexed provinces as Russian territory; regime change in Kyiv; permanent neutrality for Ukraine; and drastic limitations on Ukrainian military forces. This was reconfirmed during the May 15 talks in Istanbul, and also during a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and United States President Donald Trump on May 19.
The latest round of peace talks in Istanbul on June 2 did not yield any progress. Russia rejected Ukraine’s call for a full and unconditional ceasefire, offering instead vague proposals for limited, temporary truces and reiterating its maximalist conditions, which included Ukraine’s military withdrawal from occupied territories, demobilization and formal neutrality.
The U.S. and Europe should have taken President Putin at his word. On July 12, 2021, he published his views on Ukraine. He argued that Ukrainians have no national identity since they are part, together with Russians and Belarusians, of one single nation. He further claimed that they have no right to a separate state, that Ukraine’s borders are illegitimate and that its government is a clique of fascists and Nazis – puppets of sinister anti-Russian forces in the West.
The essay was dismissed as the off-the-wall ideas of an amateur historian. In fact, it was a veiled declaration of war that stoked jingoistic instincts within the Russian population.
In December 2021, Russia submitted two draft treaties to the U.S. and NATO. They demanded an end to NATO’s enlargement, a ban on military activities in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, the relocation of NATO forces to where they were positioned in 1997, a ban on intermediate missiles in Europe, and a return of nuclear weapons to the territory of their owner states.
Time favors Russia
Territories behind Russian lines are being relentlessly Russified. Residents are forced to accept Russian passports, children are indoctrinated, resistance is met with execution or deportation. Russians from beyond the Urals are being resettled in the occupied areas. With each passing day, this situation becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
After astounding successes in 2022, Ukrainian forces have achieved no major breakthrough. Russian forces are slowly but steadily gaining ground. The Kremlin nurtures a dual myth of inevitability: at home, the belief that “we are destined to win”; internationally, the message is “resistance is futile.” President Putin knows that public support is fickle. Triumph brings adulation, but failure invites blame. If he emerges as a loser, his grip on power could weaken.
By annexing the four eastern provinces of Ukraine before he fully controlled them, the Russian president has burned all bridges. After this, any territorial concession would sacrifice Russian land, contradicting both its constitution and the myth that Russia is predestined to expand. As time seems to favor Moscow, why should President Putin pause the war?
Unless Ukraine pushes back Russian forces by driving a wedge toward the Sea of Azov, cutting off the land bridge connecting Russia with Crimea and/or destroying the Kerch Strait Bridge, hopes for a compromise will remain dim.
Western support eroding
Western resolve to fight collapsed in Vietnam after 10 years; it unraveled in Afghanistan after 20 years. President Putin reckons that, sooner or later, Western support for Ukraine will also peter out. He has until 2036 (In 2024, he enacted a law that allows him to seek re-election for two more terms in his lifetime). He is six years younger than President Trump. In his eyes, it is not inconceivable that by 2030 some important members of NATO might have Russia-friendly governments, indifferent to the fate of Ukraine. He believes the weak are doomed to lose and the strong get what they want. In this, his thinking aligns with that of President Trump.
Western support is resolute in rhetoric, hesitant in funding and timid in action. It withholds the weapons that could decisively shift the balance on the battlefield. It refuses to consider deploying troops even as North Korea engages directly, supplying both arms and personnel.
The West lacks strategic determination. The formula “Kyiv must not lose, Moscow must not win” remains meaningless unless one defines what “losing” or “winning” implies. In a war of attrition, both sides lose. Serious negotiations will only take place if one side feels it has to avoid imminent strategic disaster. The present level of conflict could go on for years. Europe and the U.S. were too slow and too cautious. If Western weapons systems that now abound in Ukraine had been supplied in the summer of 2022, Ukraine might have swept Russian forces back beyond the Dnipro River.
Western sanctions have no visible impact. Economically and financially, Russia appears equipped to sustain the war for years to come.
Realistic perspectives
Prospects for Ukraine and Europe look grim. Until Russia asserts full control over the four provinces annexed in 2022, the war will go on. Russia cannot back away from its current position, and there is no prospect of Ukraine moving the frontline decisively eastward. Only a massive increase in Western military support, not capped by the paralyzing fear of escalation, could reverse present trends. If the West really wants to change the dynamics of this war, then it must consider measures that would result in a decisive strategic breakthrough across Russian lines.
Ukraine’s resistance could falter if Western support dwindles, if morale within the armed forces breaks down or if Ukrainians lose the resolve to resist because of exhaustion and desperation. Russia knows that war is not about death and destruction, but about willpower and stamina.
Ukraine is more vulnerable to sudden, radical political upheavals than Russia. In 2036, President Putin is much more likely to be still in charge in Moscow than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv, particularly if the promises of membership in NATO and in the European Union fade away. With President Trump in the White House, NATO membership appears highly unlikely. Within the EU, opposition to liberalized Ukrainian access to the single market is growing.
One day, this war, like all wars, will come to an end. However, that day may still be distant. Present trends suggest what its aftermath might resemble. A formal peace treaty may never materialize. The so-called “brother nations” may settle into a relationship resembling that of the two Koreas: frozen hostility, uneasy proximity and no true reconciliation.
More by Rudolf G. Adam
- Beyond Putin: Russia against Europe
- Prospects for a multipolar world order
- Beyond Russia’s war against Ukraine
Ukraine will have to give up its hope of restoring its pre-2014 national unity and Russia will have to revise its annexations of September 30, 2022. The actual frontline, the correlation of forces and the resolve to continue fighting will determine the outcome of any negotiations.
An armistice will probably follow the principle of “land for peace.” Ukraine will have to give up some territorial claims in exchange for freedom in choosing its strategic alignment. At the moment, neither side is considering such concessions.
Ukraine will have to remain a viable state with open access to the sea via Odesa, a free democratic choice of government and true sovereignty, including the right to choose alliances.
The armistice line will have to be heavily guarded. This will require Western soldiers to monitor and, if necessary, repel any encroachment.
The total lack of trust in the word of the Russian government will be the chief stumbling block. President Putin has broken treaties. His government is spreading patent lies. Who can negotiate, let alone conclude agreements about war and peace, when the opponent spreads abuse and distorts essential political facts?
Russia will have to repudiate the substance of President Putin’s essay and its two draft treaties. It will have to recognize Kyiv as the legitimate government of a sovereign state and independent nation. As long as Vladimir Putin remains president, the chances of such a reversal of Russia’s positions are minimal.
Further demands, like taking those responsible for war crimes to court or making Russia pay reparations, are unrealistic. They are conditions imposed on a defeated enemy and will never be accepted by Russia. Insisting on this point will only put any practical arrangement between the two parties out of reach.
Facts & figures
Crucial lessons learned from the Ukraine war
- Boots on the ground matter.
- Aerial defense is vital.
- Automated platforms and artificial intelligence will dominate the battlefields of the future.
- When attacked, never let the opponent establish a foothold on your territory. NATO will have to revert to forward defense.
- Russia will spare no effort to strengthen its military. It will count on Western societies being more vulnerable, easy to divide, less prepared to endure sacrifices, and, most importantly, lacking the stamina and willpower to stay the course in the face of painful setbacks. With Donald Trump as president, the U.S. no longer provides the undisputed leadership necessary to infuse a sense of common purpose. NATO is a group of 32 diverging nations. Its seeming unity may split under serious strain.
- President Putin’s principle “Where Russian is spoken, there is Russian territory” is an enduring threat to Estonia, Latvia and Kazakhstan (and eventually Belarus, if there is a regime change). The threat of an outright military attack on Europe remains low, but the threat of clandestine operations, cyberattacks, disinformation, influence via social media and other hybrid warfare operations is rising steeply.
- China has a strong interest in prolonging a war that weakens Russia, increases Russian dependence on China and prevents rapprochement between Russia and the U.S. President Putin’s principle about Russian irredenta plays directly into Chinese hands over its claim to Taiwan.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
