Limits of compromise. Prospects for negotiations with Russia

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba rightly noted that in any war there are two finals: an unconditional total defeat of one of the parties or a peace agreement.

It is obvious that in the war of Russia against Ukraine, no matter how the Kremlin dreams, there will be no total defeat on the Ukrainian side, and hence no surrender.

But the struggle over whose terms an agreement will be reached is still going on.

Starting positions

An agreement is a search and fixation of mutually acceptable solutions. But Russia began negotiations with Ukraine with ultimatums.

The Russian delegation put the following demands on the table: “demilitarization”, “denazification”, abandoning the course towards joining NATO, recognition of the occupation of Crimea and the independence of the so-called LDNR.

It is clear that such “wish lists” are absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine, especially since after almost a month of war, the results of the aggressor on the fronts definitely do not allow him to dictate conditions unilaterally.

Among the military achievements of Russia since the invasion is only the occupation of part of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia  regions. And although Russia has seized these territories, it does not control them, Ukrainian authorities continue to operate there.

In principle, Moscow itself can hardly explain the essence of its “wants”. Take, for example, the so-called denazification, which was bravely picked up like a flag by Russian propaganda. It does not at all cling to Ukraine, whose president is of Jewish origin.

And after the Russian bombing of Babi Yar, Uman, the maternity hospital in Mariupol and the murder in Kharkov of a former prisoner of three Nazi concentration camps Borys Romanchenko, a logical question arises – so who is really a Nazi in this war and who should be denazified?

With the demand for “demilitarization” the same story. So far, it is Russia that is successfully “demilitarizing” in Ukraine – Chobaivka will not let you lie. In addition, then we should also talk about a mirror demilitarized zone in Russia near the borders with our state.

Ukraine’s negotiating position calls for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of all Russian troops, and new security guarantees. The Ukrainian authorities are ready to discuss Crimea and Donbas exclusively within the framework of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Dancing around negotiations

Obviously, the demands of the parties are diametrically opposed.

The only issue on which it was possible to bring positions closer, according to the Russian delegation, is the so-called neutral status of Ukraine, or refusal to join NATO.

Moreover, the Kremlin has already begun to gush with ideas about the Austrian or Swedish model of neutrality. To which in Kyiv they immediately answered that the model could be exclusively Ukrainian!

Photo: facebook.com/david.braun.50951

At the same time, talk about refusing to join NATO caused outright indignation in society.

First, when thinking about neutrality using the example of Austria and Sweden, one should not forget that they do not have 2,000 km of a common border with Russia. Yes, both Austria and Sweden are not members of NATO, but they interact very closely with the Alliance.

Austria is generally cordoned off on all sides by NATO countries, its only neighbors that are not members of the Alliance are Switzerland and Liechtenstein, an attack from which on Austrian territory should hardly be expected.

Both Austria and Sweden regularly conduct joint exercises with NATO. Sweden is generally called a “neutral” ally in the official documents of the Alliance.

Secondly, Ukraine has already gorged itself on “neutrality” during the time of Viktor Yanukovych, having been attacked in 2014 by Russia.

Thirdly, the course of joining NATO is fixed in the Ukrainian Constitution. Changing the Basic Law at the request of the aggressor against the backdrop of the heroic resistance of Ukrainians is not the most acceptable solution for Ukrainian society.

Against the background of NATO’s refusal to close the sky over Ukraine after the Russian invasion, the current rhetoric of Volodymyr Zelenskyy of “cooling” in relation to the Alliance is understandable.

The Ukrainian authorities publicly admit that no one is waiting for us in NATO in the next 10 years, which means, they say, there is nothing to strive to get there.

But before February 24, this was also obvious. Moreover, Moscow is well aware that no one expects Ukraine to join NATO, but still puts forward such a demand.

Judging by the latest statements, Kyiv is ready to exchange the course for Euro-Atlantic integration enshrined in the Constitution for a new security structure in which the nuclear states – the United States, Great Britain and neighbors like Turkey – will act as guarantors of our sovereignty.

Now Ukraine is focused on establishing during the negotiation process what security guarantees the Russian Federation is ready to provide Ukraine, as well as other states, primarily permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Once we understand what kind of security guarantees we are talking about, we can decide where our constructive step will be. I would not now start a conversation about neutrality or any other area, but I would talk about how Ukraine will receive security guarantees and what they will be.

Neutrality in itself is not a solution to the problem. The solution is security guarantees, and not the same as they were in the Budapest Memorandum, – says Dmytro Kuleba.

But in this case, it would be more rational to immediately conduct negotiations not in the Ukrainian-Russian format, but with the involvement of Western countries.

– It should be negotiations between Ukraine and Western leaders with Russia. These negotiations cannot be left face to face. After all, Western partners will not give us any guarantees if we do not oblige them to take part in this process immediately, – said the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko.

It turns out that the ideal negotiating structure for Ukraine is a ceasefire, the withdrawal of troops, and then a discussion of security guarantees and the status of the previously occupied Crimea and Donbas. Russia wants to sign any documents here and now, even without stopping the bombing.

Maximum truce, not peace

Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul believes that the most favorable conditions for a peaceful settlement will create success at the front.

The decisive factors in subsequent negotiations will be not so much the efforts of the negotiators as the stability of Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression, the readiness of our partners to more effectively help Ukraine in strengthening its defense potential, and the internal socio-economic and political situation in Russia, – states political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko.

We hope for the heroism of our soldiers, the exhaustion of the enemy and the devastating effect of Western economic sanctions inside Russia. The Kremlin is trying to intimidate Ukrainian society with barbaric bombing of civilian targets and believes in stopping the West from supplying arms to Ukraine.

At the same time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that it is possible to resolve all issues with Russia not at the current negotiations, but only at his personal meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Like, in Russia, all decisions are made by one person, so you need to talk to him personally. Only in Moscow they are in no hurry to agree to such a meeting, demanding to work out some documents first.

For Putin, the very fact of meeting Zelenskyy, whom he used to call both a “Nazi” and a “drug addict,” is already a defeat. Moreover, some negotiations with him. In addition, the entire civilized world calls Putin a war criminal. Therefore, it is surprising to sign anything with him.

Zelenskyy has already insulated himself from all disputes about compromises and the surrender of national interests by declaring that any decision regarding security guarantees in negotiations with Russia will be submitted to a referendum.

This further complicates the negotiations and especially the fulfillment of Russian “wish lists”. Therefore, if anything should be expected from negotiations with Russia, then only a temporary respite, and not the final security of Ukraine. In the meantime, only our army remains the biggest security guarantee for Ukraine and the most effective negotiator.

Whatever we now agree with Russia, if we agree on anything at all, it will be a truce, not peace. And for the next war, we must be ready at such a level that any Muscovite leader knows that his army will be destroyed on our roads. Then there will be no war,” – notes political observer Vitaly Portnikov.

As Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir said: “We intend to remain alive. Our neighbors want to see us dead. This is not a question that leaves much room for compromise.”