On May 7, during his inaugural speech, which was widely boycotted by Western countries, Putin essentially indicated a willingness to engage in negotiations. Russia expressed readiness to engage in dialogue regarding global security and strategic stability with the West, yet it firmly demanded acknowledgement of its ‘aspirations as a global power’. Putin emphasised the need to approach discussions on equal footing, with mutual respect for each other’s interests. However, the genuineness of Putin’s commitment to fostering sustainable peace is highly questionable, and Russia’s interests jeopardise Ukraine’s very existence.
The total number of unique positions in chess is approximately 10^120, surpassing even the number of atoms in the universe. Yet, in the end, there’s only one goal – a checkmate. When it comes to Russia’s war against Ukraine, strategies are scarce, and there’s little agreement on what constitutes victory.
In 2022, Western experts foresaw Ukraine facing defeat within three days to three weeks of a full-scale invasion. However, after two years of resilient resistance against the formidable enemy, followed by a glimmer of hope, the voices of “political pragmatism” are resurfacing. Former Commander of the United Kingdom’s Joint Forces Command, General Sir Richard Barrons, recently warned of a “serious risk” of Ukraine’s defeat this year, suggesting that “Ukraine may come to feel it can’t win.”
General Mark Milley cautiously noted that liberating the entire territory of Ukraine from occupiers is an extremely difficult task. “Zelenskyy has publicly stated many times that the Ukrainian objective is to kick every Russian out of Russian-occupied Ukraine. And that is a significant military task […] I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying it’s a very difficult task,” the Joint Chiefs chairman said. “They certainly have a right to that; that is their country. And they are on the moral high ground here,” he added.
In 2022, the Ukrainian leadership briefly considered as a victory option a return to the borders as of February 23 to end hostilities and further negotiate the occupied territories. According to a document recently published in Die Welt, during the negotiations on April 15, 2022, in Istanbul, the Russian side demanded that Ukraine incorporate ‘neutrality’ into its Constitution, impose limitations on the size of its army, and recognise what was called ‘territorial realities’. Given the subsequent developments, it appears that the Russian leadership did not take these negotiations seriously.
This year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared his willingness to mediate in reviving peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. “As before, I maintain the belief that diplomacy and dialogue must be given a chance to bring an end to the war with a fair and robust outcome,” Erdogan stated.
However, Ukrainian leadership insists on Ukraine determining the terms for peace and the negotiation format. During the February forum, President Zelensky stressed that Ukraine cannot afford to lose, as it would result in the country’s disappearance and the loss of many Ukrainian lives. However, negotiations with Putin are currently described as “negotiations with the deaf,” prompting Ukraine to plan the launch of the Global Peace Summit.
The inaugural summit is scheduled to take place in Switzerland this year. It is anticipated that state leaders will endorse a unified plan outlining the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity within the internationally recognised borders of 1991. Following this, Andriy Yermak stated that Russia, not included in the Western invitation, would receive the plan “should the representative of the aggressor nation genuinely seek to cease this war and restore a fair peace.”
Some in the West see Ukraine’s official stance on victory—returning to the borders of 1991—as ranging “from the overly optimistic to the magical.” It’s evident that Ukraine has never received and likely won’t receive enough weaponry. “There is no path for Ukraine to win this war. American support will not change this reality,” an observer for The Hill expressed, echoing classic Russian narratives.
In the vivid imagination of some Western experts and policymakers, Ukraine’s definition of victory implies the total defeat of an aggressive nuclear empire, resulting in its disintegration and the unregulated proliferation of nuclear weapons, leading to increased instability.
At times, it appears that Western analysts have fallen prey to their own narratives and biases. The blend of Western intrigue regarding Russia and apprehension about its unpredictability and aggression has formed a paradigm where Ukraine’s complete triumph doesn’t fit, and Western success has been defined as evading direct conflict with Russia.
Zero-sum game
It’s clear that the USA’s primary strategy to bolster Ukraine’s negotiating stance by retaining control over its territory without reverting to the borders of either January 2022 or 1991 is now being put into action. There are already concerns emerging that the aid package approved by Congress after a six-month delay is the last significant U.S. military aid for Ukraine, and the outcomes of the American presidential elections could serve as a catalyst for talks.
At the moment, the main focus is on reinforcing Ukraine’s ability to protect itself and maintain its hold over the territories it currently controls. US strategies are directed towards weakening the Russian military and economy, with the aim of reducing the chances of a nuclear conflict and containing the escalation of the conflict. However, these strategies also impose a burden on Ukraine’s resources.
According to estimates from the Ukrainian government and the World Bank, a staggering $486 billion will be required to rebuild the Ukrainian economy over the next decade. Despite promises of aid from Western allies for reconstruction efforts, each timely delivery of a Patriot system could not only save lives but also safeguard economic capabilities. Essentially, the total cost of implementing the most advanced missile defence systems available today, essential for securing Ukraine, amounts to just half of the assistance package designated for the country’s economic reconstruction as of early 2024.
President Zelensky emphasized the need for 25 Patriot systems, each equipped with 8 batteries, to 8 batteries to close the sky. The cost breakdown reveals that one battery comes with a price tag of approximately $1 billion, with $400 million allocated for the system itself and $690 million for missiles (each PAC-2 GEM-T missile costing roughly $4 million).
Another repercussion of this strategy is the ambiguity surrounding the fate of the occupied territories. With Russia’s aggressive policy of deportation and Russification, reintegrating these regions over time could prove to be as formidable a challenge as liberating them.
A more pressing issue is Russia’s ability not only to adapt to sanctions and circumvent them effectively but also to strengthen an axis of authoritarian regimes. Its resilience underscores the West’s vulnerability in facing the evolving threats of a new era.
However, Ukrainians are buying Western countries time to bolster their defence capabilities, revive NATO from its dormant state, and shift away from their own idealistic notions regarding the inexorable spread of democracy and Russia’s willingness to assimilate into it, or at least coexist peacefully on mutually advantageous terms.
Naturally, during hypothetical negotiations, it’s unlikely that the occupied territories (if they persist) will be formally acknowledged as Russian, as doing so would essentially signify Western impotence. Examples of Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh illustrate that territorial disputes may endure for decades and culminate in varying resolutions.
What’s more dangerous for Ukraine is abandoning the intention to join NATO. Although today, the Alliance is not ready to risk inviting a country clearly in Russia’s sphere of interest, cementing a neutral status at Russia’s demand effectively enables the ongoing pursuit of the destruction of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Signing bilateral security agreements cannot replace full membership in the Alliance.
It appears that the West’s primary strategy is to await regime change in Russia and hope to avert the prospect of a larger war. There are still lingering aspirations to weaken Russia’s military prowess by undermining its economy.
Meanwhile, Ukraine, grappling with the repercussions of not only its own government’s miscalculations but also those of others, is outlining strategies for its reconstruction. Furthermore, given the prolonged nature of the conflict, reconstruction efforts should commence immediately without waiting to cease hostilities.
Presently, Western governments, intergovernmental organizations, and international financial institutions have earmarked just under $80 billion for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. Ukraine has implemented the DREAM system to ensure transparency and accountability for the allocated reconstruction funds.
The analytical report by the Center for European Policy Analysis and the Kyiv School of Economics identified four key tasks for recovery and reconstruction.
- Maximizing wartime resilience in the face of continued Russian aggression
- Investing in the economy and infrastructure of Ukraine’s future rather than its past
- Preparing Ukraine for rapid and mutually beneficial integration into the European Union (EU)
- Hardening Ukraine’s state, economy, and infrastructure and deterring future Russian attacks
Encouraging and incentivising Western companies to invest in Ukraine, even amid conflict, necessitates the development of risk insurance mechanisms, ongoing anti-corruption efforts, and judicial reform. Post-war reconstruction planning should prioritise building a digital, environmentally sustainable, and globally integrated economy, overcoming Soviet-era legacies, and fostering innovation. Strengthening Ukraine’s defence-industrial base, implementing deep structural reforms, and advancing Eurointegration are the cornerstones of success in these endeavours.
Ukraine’s ability to counter Russia is crucial for safeguarding many nations; it averts direct confrontation and upholds values that shape its foreign and domestic policies.
Public opinion
In line with the White House, some Ukrainian analysts argue that preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is already a victory. Such sentiments are also prevalent among Europeans. According to a YouGov survey commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) in January 2021 across 12 EU member states, Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive in 2023, growing concerns about changes in US policy, and the prospect of Donald Trump’s second presidential term have shifted attitudes towards the end of the war.
Only 10% of EU citizens believe in Ukraine’s victory. Twice as many believe Russia will emerge as a winner. Almost 40% of surveyed Europeans are confident that the war will end in a compromise.
Ukrainians maintain a more optimistic outlook. Based on a sociological survey conducted by the Razumkov Center in January, 85% of respondents expressed belief in Ukraine’s victory. Nearly half of the respondents anticipate victory within 1-2 years, while around 40% view victory as the expulsion of Russian troops from Ukraine’s entire territory and the reinstatement of borders as of January 2014.
Nearly a third see victory as the destruction of the Russian army and the instigation of rebellion or disintegration within Russia. Some 10% mention restoring the status quo as of February 23, 2022, while 7% refer to expelling Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory except for Crimea, which remains occupied. Additionally, 4% mention ending the war, even if Russian forces remain in territories seized during the full-scale invasion after February 24, 2022.
If, however, from the very beginning, the West had believed in Ukraine as much as Ukraine believes in itself, today, the Ukrainian interpretation of victory wouldn’t seem ‘magical’. But Ukrainian determination lacks resources, and resource-rich countries lack the same level of determination as Ukraine.
