Negotiations with Putin: How Ukraine can ensure its security – an analysis by The Economist.
The key objective of any future negotiations with the Kremlin is to ensure the long-term security of Ukraine, which is best achieved through its accession to NATO. Following Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election, there arose a threat that he might pressure Kyiv into agreeing to a deal favorable only to Russia. This would lead to catastrophic consequences for the entire world.
As noted by The Economist editorial team, the Russian dictator has already expressed a willingness to cease hostilities along the front, but only if his key demands are met. Among these are the lifting of sanctions, Ukraine's renunciation of NATO membership, demilitarization, "denazification," and an official neutral status.
"If Trump supports such a deal, it would effectively mean a victory for the Kremlin: most of Russia's military objectives would be achieved, and Ukraine would find itself in a state of devastating defeat. Moreover, after the war, Putin could anticipate internal disputes in Ukraine, which would further weaken the country, or he might again resort to force to annex new territories," the article states.
Despite this, there is hope that any concession to Russia would be a public failure for Trump and America, compelling the U.S. administration to provide at least basic security guarantees to Ukraine. This could involve supplying additional weapons or intensifying sanctions against the Russian economy, thereby creating significant pressure on the Kremlin.
The publication believes that the return to the borders of 1991 is currently unlikely due to Ukraine's limited resources. Instead, the goal of negotiations should be to create conditions for the country's development in the territories under its control. For this, stability, reconstruction, and clear security guarantees are essential.
The Economist emphasizes that the best defense for Ukraine would be its NATO membership. Such a move would not only strengthen the country's stability but also thwart Putin's plans to destabilize Europe. Additionally, the Alliance would gain a strong army and defense industry, which would align with the interests of even those who are skeptical about NATO, including Trump.
Furthermore, the issue of occupied territories can be addressed by drawing parallels with historical examples. For instance, security guarantees might not extend to territories controlled by Russia, as was the case with East Germany when West Germany joined NATO. The deployment of allied forces, such as those from the UK, France, or Germany, in Ukraine to deter Russia is also a possibility.
Ultimately, the success of negotiations hinges on two scenarios: either Ukraine takes advantage of a ceasefire to strengthen its economy, reforms, and defense, or, under pressure from Russia, the country loses Western support. The West's task is to do everything possible to ensure the first scenario.
Chance for Peace Talks with the Kremlin
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that Ukraine currently lacks a strong position to initiate peace talks with Russia. He stressed that any agreement must be advantageous to Ukraine. Otherwise, there is a long-term threat to security.
It should be noted that former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Sullivan also believes that full-fledged negotiations with the Kremlin are currently impossible. However, completely excluding dialogue should not be an option either.
Additionally, the Informant reported that Ukraine insists on restoring its territories to their state prior to the full-scale invasion. This is the main condition for commencing negotiations with Putin, according to Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak. He emphasizes that this condition is enshrined in President Zelensky's peace formula, which is supported by the U.S. and Europe.