In a fractious democracy, some are against talks with Russia while others would live in a ‘smaller Ukraine, but in a happier and safer one’
Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Volodymyr Zelensky before their meeting at the Elysee palace Credit: Sarah Meyssonnier/AFP via Getty Images
Senior Foreign Correspondent
07 December 2024
Stopped on the streets of Lviv, a middle-aged man in a black windbreaker opened up about Ukraine’s prospects for peace.
“I would rather live in a smaller Ukraine, but in a happier and safer one,” he told a local TV reporter in the western city.
If Ukraine is to end the war in 2025, it will probably have to sacrifice portions of its territory. Moscow occupies parts of the eastern Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions and has demanded their entirety in any ceasefire agreement.
On the back foot across the front, Ukraine has little chance of evicting Russia’s forces.
“I ask myself this question all the time and I can’t answer it,” the Lviv resident said, reflecting on the dilemma now facing president Volodymyr Zelensky.
“Those territories, it seems to me, have moved away from us so much psychologically that they have become non-Ukrainian,” he said before being struck by doubt: “Maybe so, maybe they were waiting for us to return.”
Throughout the country, such talk is in the air.
Donald Trump has promised to end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration next month.
On Saturday, he shook hands with Mr Zelensky in Paris ahead of the re-opening of Notre-Dame cathedral. But getting the Ukrainian president to bury the hatchet with Vladimir Putin is an infinitely more complicated task.
Putin’s stated war aims include the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine (in other words, stripping it of an army and changing its leadership).
Other warm aims included a neutral status (banning it from Nato) and recognition of “new territorial realities”.
Last month, Mr Zelensky for the first time suggested he would be open to temporarily relinquishing parts of the east in exchange for an end to the “hot” phase of the war.
But that does not amount to a willingness to stand down or recognition of Russia annexing huge swathes of eastern Ukraine. Instead, he has vowed to pursue the return of the regions through diplomacy.
And at the same time, Mr Zelensky demands Nato membership – or protection under the “Nato umbrella” – and enough military support to ensure that Putin cannot simply bide his time before launching another attack.
Clearly bridging such a divide will take longer than a single day. Trump’s plans, judging by his public remarks and those of the retired Gen Keith Kellogg, his Ukraine envoy, go something like this.
The lines are frozen along the current line of contact. That stops the fighting and prevents Russia from taking more land, but also stops Ukraine from liberating the territory it has lost.
Ukraine does not get Nato membership. This is partly as a concession to Russia and partly because America, Germany, and several other key members do not want Ukraine joining either.
In lieu, it might get a peacekeeping force manned by troops from European Nato members (because Donald Trump won’t send US forces), including Britain, who will patrol no man’s land and enforce the ceasefire.
Boris Johnson backed that idea in an interview with The Telegraph last week; Anna Baebocker, the German foreign minister, has refused to rule out sending German troops.
These form a “hair trigger” force that deters future Russian attacks.
Ukraine and (most) of its Western allies refuse to officially recognise Russian control over the occupied territories, including Crimea, but that makes little practical difference because the goal of military reconquest has been renounced.
In theory, there are benefits for everyone here. Losing chunks of the east and south would be bitter for Ukraine, but would secure peace and lasting independence.
Vladimir Putin would get Ukrainian “neutrality”, de facto conquest of the landbridge to Crimea, and a “victory” he can easily sell back home.
He does not need Ukrainian and Western recognition of his annexation to hold on to that, or to retain an irredentist claim over the lands he still covets.
Yet neither side really seems interested.
Russia is still advancing, apparently trying to seize as much extra land as possible before talks begin. Putin and other officials like Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, have ruled out compromising on their war aims.
For Ukraine, a ceasefire without the necessary security guarantees to enforce it would be almost pointless.
“They can only stop fighting predicated on security guarantees from the West,” said Sam Greene, a professor of Russian politics at King’s College London. “But the kind of security guarantees that would work are not on the table.
“So the negotiation that matters is the negotiation between Ukraine and the West. Until the West gives Ukraine Nato-style security guarantees – either full membership with Article Five, or pretty damned close to it – I don’t see how we get there.
“Otherwise these ideas are just castles and unicorns in the sky.”
And what of the people on the ground?
Putin can sell pretty much any settlement he likes to the Russian public and elite. For them, the war is still a distant irrelevance. With full control of the media and all branches of power, the predictable grumbles of the hard-Right about “surrender” will easily be brushed aside.
Mr Zelensky, who runs a famously fractious democracy, has a much trickier job. His own approval ratings are already sliding, and exhausted Ukrainians are divided over whether to negotiate and what concessions to accept.
“I’ve been abroad for work for the past two weeks – I mean sleeping properly, with no air raid alarms, so I think Ukraine should continue fighting,” said Katya, a Kyiv-based charity worker.
“Whereas when you are in Ukraine and going insane because of sleep deprivation, constant bombing, no electricity – I say f*** it, please just stop the war.
“So it heavily depends on your personal situation. How close to the frontline you live, do you have loved ones in the army, etc. One thing is for sure. Everyone is exhausted.”
Can Mr Zelensky bridge the divide between Ukrainians willing to talk, and those who want to fight on?
Yes and no, says Volodymyr Fesenko, director of the Penta political science think tank in Kyiv.
“The polls show about a third of Ukrainians are against talks with the Russians or concessions to Russia. About a third are for ending the war, including with big concessions. About another third support talks, but do not want to accept big concessions,” he said.
“The sharpest critic of Zelensky is of course former president Petro Poroshenko. But he is taking a very subtle position. He is not against negotiations, because he himself signed the Minsk agreements and he knows perfectly well that talks are inevitable,” said Mr Fesenko.
Katya believes Mr Zelensky would not dare to sign away territories without a security guarantee. “But if he gets one, that’s a different matter.”
Mr Fesenko, who has watched Ukrainian politics for decades, guessed a deal freezing the war but not amounting to surrender would deal a blow to Mr Zelensky’s prestige, but would probably be accepted by the public.
The only person who could beat Mr Zelensky in a post-war election, Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander in chief and current ambassador to London, would be unlikely to reverse such a deal. He understands the dangers of continuing the war more than anyone, said Mr Fesenko.
Again, all this comes down to Putin. And while he may be willing to sacrifice the most expansionist of his goals in Ukraine, he also has more darkly pragmatic reasons for dragging on the war for as long as possible.
“It sometimes seems strange, but Mr Putin is fundamentally a cautious person,” said Prof Greene.
“The war drives the economy, drives repression, keeps the elites and public focused on Putin, and is broadly popular. So I’d be surprised if he felt he had to risk upsetting all that unless he really had to.”
……………………………
From Petro Poroshenko’s FB page yesterday:
Had a lovely opportunity to meet Mrs Kemi Badenock, the new Chair of the Conservative Party UK.
Congratulated on recent appointment to a high position and wished her success in this important mission. And also thanked for deep understanding of the challenges ahead of us.
I am inspired by the absolutely clear position of support and desire to continue helping Ukraine in our joint struggle for peace, security and stability in Europe and the world.
So, to buy peace, Ukraine has to chew on Kellogg’s shit sandwich. A shit sandwich that nevertheless doesn’t contain enough shit to satisfy putler, even though the rat nazi would get his claws on $trillions worth of Ukrainian mineral resources.
The world has gone insane; rewarding evil and savagery by kicking the victim in the teeth.
Btw, Asshat’s regime is going tits up. But it’s hard to say how Ukraine will benefit, as more putler air power and orcs become unexpectedly available to the bastard.
They say that every picture tells a story. The pic of Poro with the young (in UK political terms) new Tory leader would suggest he’s plotting a comeback.
I have hopes of the delightful Kemi becoming a black Mrs Thatcher. But she has to see off Starmer and Farage first.