Sound, Fury And Hope Over Kyiv

Even as Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned against any decisions by big powers without his country being represented at peace talks, United States’ President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin met at Anchorage in the American state of Alaska on Friday for a marathon sit-down to discuss peace for the war in Ukraine. No breakthrough for a ceasefire was expected. Kyiv’s presence will be required to formalise such a deal, after all. The follow-up pace and progress should produce a convincing conclusion.

Trump has been describing the crisis as his predecessor Joe Biden’s war that should never have happened. Prior to the summit, he hinted at “some switch and some swapping of territories... It’s final.” The 2-hour-45-minute talk should be seen in light of Trump’s earlier statement. He would know within the first few minutes how the meeting would go, and would end it quickly if the tone went uncongenial.

The focus was apparently on territorial swap, Ukraine’s demilitarisation and no-NATO membership to the former Soviet republic that became independent in the wake of the world’s first communist country’s disintegration in 1991. Sensing that the two superpowers might broach the idea of Moscow retaining the regions under its control, Zelenskyy had rejected any idea of ceding any territory. Russia controls a fifth of Ukraine’s total territory. 

Several prominent European leaders and the European Commission had jointly asked for Ukraine’s representation at the Alaska talks. In response, the White House was willing to bring Kyiv for a trilateral meeting on a later date. European Union and NATO members were confident that their long-time superpower benefactor’s patronage would continue to stand them on the Ukraine crisis. Reality dawned on them when they realised that the time had come for a new world order. 

High stakes

Billed by the Western press as high-stakes meet, NATO alliance secretary-general Mark Rutte anticipated that Russia would retain some of the pre-war territories now under its control. In June, he had cited a security threat from Russia for the 32-member organisation having “no alternative” to spending more on defence. European nations that joined the chorus of supporting Kyiv until victory was achieved no longer seem to be committed to what they had publicly pledged since Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022. 

It only shows them as no more than a distant second fiddle to the world’s No. 1 superpower, on whose strength they applied strong-arm tactics against smaller states. On the eve of the Alaska summit, the EU’s foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in Paris to persuade Trump to put pressure on Putin to end the crisis. However, US Vice-President JD Vance made it clear that Washington was sick of bankrolling the war. In the preparations for the Alaska meet, Putin engaged in a flurry of activity, which included phone conversations and personal meetings with several foreign leaders.

NATO lost sight of the fact that Russia could not afford to “lose” the war if its superpower status were to be retained. Prevailing developments point to the gradual decline in Western global influence. Russia asserts its security interests in a departure from the 1990s. At the same time, China is set to overtake the US for the World No. 1 economic spot in less than a decade. 

Despite Western support, Ukraine was in poor fighting shape. All that the West did was to prolong the war. Zelenskyy was waylaid by his misplaced sense of confidence that NATO support would enable him to push back the Russians, and he would emerge a hero to Ukrainians.  NATO’s idea was to drag Putin into a prolonged war, in which he would be portrayed as an autocrat and a war-monger. 

Today, Zelenskyy stands in deep trouble.  War fatigue has taken its toll at home.  His neighbours no longer cheer him up with continued weapons supply and other support. In recent weeks, several European capitals have directly or indirectly talked about the exhausting war in need of a realistic deal. When announcing his scheduled meeting with Putin, Trump indicated Kyiv would have to surrender territory and give up NATO membership. He has engaged in a rapprochement with the Russian leader, something unthinkable during the Biden years. 

Broad outline

Zelenskyy’s allies were dismayed that he signed a law curtailing the independence of two anti-corruption agencies. Few people bought his argument that the measures were aimed at efficient control of corruption. Thousands of people joined protest rallies in Kyiv. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen wrote to the Ukrainian government for “explanations”. At the same time, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi bluntly told the EU that Russia losing the war against Ukraine was not acceptable; otherwise, the US would find a clearer avenue to focus greater attention on China. 

Beijing’s public statements on the Ukraine war mask long-term calculations. Weeks before Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership with Moscow. Their subsequent steps have added to political and economic ties. Zelenskyy had a traumatic meeting with Trump at the White House in February, five weeks after the American president was inaugurated, when the host tried to dumb down the guest in full view of the press. Trump said Ukraine would find no NATO berth.

Putin’s key demands include retention of territories Moscow already controls and Ukraine’s status as a neutral state, which would inherently preclude NATO membership. Expediency or otherwise, ensuing negotiations might result in recognition of Russia’s “de facto” and not “political” rule in occupied areas that constitute about 20 per cent of pre-war territory. 

In a tearing hurry for a peace deal, Trump has outlined the main framework for ending the war. Putin might not be averse to his American counterpart’s basic approach.  In a reciprocal gesture, Trump might even fly to Russia for another meeting with Putin. The game might be over quicker than Zelenskyy might imagine. His European supporters might offer brave words without substantial concrete backing, including money, materials and technical advice.  

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)