Can US-Russia Talks End Ukraine War?

The Ukraine war is now three years old. On February 24, 2022, Russia crossed the international border in a violation of the Charter of the United Nations of which Russia was one of its architects.  The Charter respects the territorial integrity and sovereign equality of all nations. When the war started, there was a widespread belief that Kyiv would fall in a matter of days. It is still standing. 

As promised during the campaign last year, and following “lengthy and productive discussions,” over the phone between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12, a high-profile meeting between the US and Russia at the foreign ministers’ level took place in Saudi Arabia on February 18, to discuss the future of war in Ukraine and arrive at a ceasefire.  President Trump hopes that “this effort will lead to a successful conclusion, hopefully soon.” He has been saying that he wants “to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the war between Russia and Ukraine.” 

Rift

Though discussions were characterised as positive, constructive, and solution-oriented, details of talks have not been officially announced. However, reports indicate that the two delegations discussed a three-stage peace plan that would include a ceasefire, elections in Ukraine and a final peace agreement. Talks were reported to have gone well covering “serious conversations on all issues.” In parallel, European leaders along with NATO Secretary General and Presidents of the European Council and European Commission had an emergency meeting in Paris to discuss the US government’s decision to exclude Europe and representatives from Ukraine in the talks.  Paris was reported not to have made much headway in crafting a common position.  The rift in transatlantic relations was distinctly visible. 

President Trump has been asking European leaders to increase their defense spending, and giving a message that the US is not going to be a prime guarantor of security for Europe. Vice-President JD Vance repeated the message at the Munich Security Conference. Whether it will galvanize Europe or disturb the balance of power will have to be seen.  Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “Our relationship will prioritize empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that they would consult with Ukraine and European allies about important issues. There are larger questions involved in peace talks. Parties to the conflict including Ukraine, Russia, USA, have competing and conflicting interests, adding to the complexity of the situation on the ground. 

After having suffered the devastation of three years of war and about 20 per cent of its territory lost, Ukraine is not in a position to drive away the Russian army from its soil.  Ukraine wants to preserve and protect sovereignty and territorial integrity in peace.  It would not recognise any annexation of its territory by Russia including Crimea annexed in 2014.  For Ukraine to accept a ceasefire along the current front lines will be a severe blow.  Ukrainian president wants Western security guarantees and to join NATO.  It wants the continuation of Western support and supplies of artillery ammunition and explosive drones. 

Russia wants to redraw the border and recognition of the annexation of Ukraine's provinces. It wants Kyiv to embrace permanent neutrality. It wants to install a government in Kyiv that is sympathetic to it. Russia wants all restrictive and punitive conditions imposed by Europe and America lifted before the proposed ceasefire.  It wants to stop the expansion of NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations.  Moscow has made it clear that any presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is unacceptable. Russia seeks a “long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people, who live in the region.” 

President Putin says, “Russia would fight for the interests of Russia and Russian people which is the objective of the special military operation,” Russia is unlikely to agree to a peace deal until all Ukrainian forces have been expelled from the Russian-occupied regions. The United States has its own set of interests. It wants to immediately end the war with a ceasefire. It wants a peace deal that guarantees a sovereign Ukraine and free to join Europe. It does not want the Russian sphere of influence in Europe or elsewhere. President Trump says Ukraine joining NATO is “impractical,” his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calls the prospects of Ukraine returning to its pre-2014 border “an unrealistic” objective. The US desires to have privileged access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth - a large part of which is in disputed territories- in exchange for US financial and military aid. 

The US and some EU members are not enthusiastic about Ukraine’s NATO membership.  European leaders are also divided on sending troops to Ukraine if there is an agreement to end the war. France and Britain seem ready while Sweden and Denmark said they could consider sending troops. German Chancellor said it is “highly inappropriate” to discuss sending troops to Ukraine before a ceasefire deal. Poland and Spain say no. The US opposes boots on the ground. Without the US military, the European military would probably be unable to provide security guarantees. There is a widespread belief that US security guarantees are the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again. 

Peace plan 

China floated a 12-point peace plan in 2023 that respects “the sovereignty of all countries.” Indian Prime Minister has said, “This is not the era of war but of dialogue and diplomacy.” Given the dialogue format, three possible scenarios could emerge from talks: First, the US and Russia reach a ceasefire deal without Ukrainian and European involvement. Second, the US-Russia talks collapse without achieving a ceasefire and third, if the peace deal is forced upon, it could lead to a collapse of the Zelensky government and the country on a path of implosion.

In either scenario, there will be far-reaching implications raising questions on the future of Ukraine, Europe’s security, the post-World War order, transatlantic relations, survival of NATO and collective security. Deciding the fate of the Ukrainian people without their participation would grossly undermine the very foundations of long-standing international rules and norms.  US-Russia talks without Europe and Ukraine are seen as a radical departure from the US policy of post-World War II paved to weaken the “no-limits” friendship between Russia and China, and also keep away Russia from North Korea and China.   Some China watchers have viewed the US’s pivot to Russia as a “reverse Nixon scenario.”

(The author is a former ambassador.)