As the bombs continue to rain down on Kyiv and Kharkiv, the medieval siege of Mariupol intensifies, and reports emerge of Russian soldiers shooting civilians and looting shops, the prospect of a deal to end the war in Ukraine may seem remote. But that has not stopped Russian and Ukrainian officials talking up the prospects of a negotiated outcome. Both sides report progress in peace talks, the fourth round of which took place this week via video link. Ukrainian officials say Russia is listening to its ideas and that the talks have broken out into working groups to focus on separate aspects of a deal. Vladimir Putin’s spokesman has even held out the possibility of a meeting between the Russian president and Volodymyr Zelensky, whom he has previously called a Nazi.
However, talk of an imminent deal should be treated with caution. It invariably suits both sides to talk up the prospects of an end to the fighting. The expression “light at the end of the tunnel” was first popularised during the Vietnam War, when it was used by American leaders to reassure a battle-weary public. For Mr Zelensky it is important to be seen not to leave any diplomatic stone unturned in an effort to spare his people further suffering. For Mr Putin the talks enable him to claim to be seeking a peaceful settlement, even as his soldiers bomb the very humanitarian corridors that his negotiators have just agreed.
Any optimism over a deal is based on signs that both sides have given some ground. Mr Putin is no longer insisting on regime change. Instead, his terms for peace now amount to no future Nato or European Union membership for Ukraine and Ukrainian recognition of Russia’s possession of Crimea and the independence of the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk republics within their official administrative boundaries. For his part, Mr Zelensky has accepted one of Russia’s central demands, publicly acknowledging yesterday that his country must abandon hopes of Nato membership. That could pave the way for some form of “Finlandisation” of Ukraine, whereby Kyiv commits itself to neutrality, as Finland did after defeat to the Soviet Union in 1944.
Even so the obstacles to a deal appear to be formidable. If Kyiv were to concede Russian possession of Crimea, it could hardly accept the independence of Donestk and Luhansk, at least not without some form of credible democratic sanction. That is unlikely to be forthcoming given that many people in both territories are fighting to remain part of Ukraine. Nor could Kyiv abandon its ambition to join the EU, given that Ukraine’s European aspirations inspired the 2014 Maidan revolution and have fuelled the resistance to Russia.
Kyiv would rightly require credible security guarantees in return for abandoning hopes of joining Nato. Russia’s demand that it “demilitarise” is clearly out of the question. Any deal would also need to address the vital question of reparations. A week ago, the International Monetary Fund estimated the cost of the damage to be more than $100 billion. It will be far higher now.
Advertisement
Despite heavy losses on both sides and Russia’s clear tactical blunders, there is little evidence that either side is yet ready to make significant concessions. The risk for Kyiv is that Russia instead uses peace talks as a ruse, offering a ceasefire at a moment of its choosing that enables it to keep what it currently holds, freezing the conflict while talks drag on. That would leave a rump Ukraine in limbo while Moscow consolidates its grip on the south and east of the country. Yet that could never be the basis of a lasting peace, not least given the likely Ukrainian resistance to Russian occupation. Nor could the West agree to ease sanctions while Russian soldiers remain on Ukrainian territory. There may be light at the end of the tunnel, but first someone has to find the tunnel.
