Depending on who you ask, the peace talks between Ukraine and Russia are either making slow but steady progress or are floundering.
Mykhailo Podolyak, Kyiv’s lead negotiator, has described the diplomacy with Moscow as a “real negotiation,” where the parties are actually trying to work through their many differences. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has taken a more skeptical tone, saying that he “had not seen anything that suggests … this is moving forward in an effective way.”
Still, the Ukrainian and Russian delegations seem to be moving toward a general diplomatic framework.
Several days ago, Kyiv submitted a proposal that suggested it would declare some form of neutrality, giving up on its unrealistic NATO membership prospects. A ceasefire would be established, with Russian forces withdrawing to positions held prior to the war. The future status of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, would be deferred for 15 years. The complicated question of the Donbas area would be kicked to a later date. And Ukraine would receive security guarantees from other countries, including the United States, France, Germany, Turkey, Israel, and others.
Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, there is a big problem with the proposal: It’s highly unlikely any of the countries listed by Kyiv as defense guarantors are interested in playing such a role. Indeed, some Western officials were reportedly surprised Ukraine tabled the proposal in the first place, which suggests they weren’t even consulted before the Zelensky administration floated the idea.
From Ukraine’s perspective, acquiring NATO-style Article 5 security assurances just makes sense. This is a country, after all, that has seen thousands of its citizens killed, many of its cities heavily pocketed (or in the case of Mariupol, destroyed), infrastructure damage to the tune of $100 billion, and an economic downturn that would make the 2020 COVID-fueled recession look mild — all in a matter of weeks. In the minds of many Ukrainians, the only way Ukraine can be ensured security over the long term is to have powerful benefactors on its side who are willing to come to Kyiv’s defense.
Western leaders, however, have different priorities than Ukraine.
While the U.S. and Europe would like nothing more than to end the most destructive war on European soil in over 75 years, they also don’t want to put themselves in the position of fighting Russia directly on behalf of a third party. It’s one thing to release a flowery diplomatic communique or press statement pledging unconditional support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but it’s another thing entirely to sign an agreement effectively binding your country to wage conflict against a nuclear power if Ukraine’s territorial integrity is violated.
Third-party security guarantees to Ukraine are also difficult to envision for another reason: the Russians are highly unlikely to permit something like this, particularly if NATO members are involved.
Moscow has spent decades stewing about NATO’s incorporation of former Soviet bloc countries. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is the stuff of nightmares in the Kremlin. Are we really to believe that Russia would endorse a scheme whereby NATO’s most powerful states granted Ukraine an explicit defense commitment, one that practically makes Ukraine a NATO member in all but name?
Wars end in one of two ways: an outright military victory by one of the combatants or through an agreement that ends the fighting. Pursuing the first would just lengthen the war and result in more civilian casualties, while the second is only possible by putting commonsense proposals on the table. Based on the information we have, Ukraine’s demand for third-party protection doesn’t look like one of those proposals.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
