With Russian President Vladimir Putin already putting up unnecessary obstacles to starting talks aimed at ending the Ukraine war, Kyiv is now showing that it too is in no hurry to head to the negotiating table. Ukrainian officials are currently making the case that peace discussions should be postponed until after their country has regained the tactical upper hand in the conflict. However, there is a problem in delaying negotiations until Kyiv enjoys superiority — namely, that it may simply never happen.
While Ukraine’s optimism and courage are both admirable, its battlefield prospects are somewhat less propitious. Moscow is steadily seizing territory and Kyiv’s issues with manpower are well-documented. Delaying risks galvanising Putin by offering him more Ukrainian towns and headline-grabbing victories, ensuring he is less likely to negotiate and in a stronger position once talks eventually do commence.
Kyiv is in danger of trading land at the front for less vital successes far behind, its proposed strategy being to use long-range missiles and a record number of domestically-produced drones to continue striking oil facilities, industrial plants and military production sites deep within Russia. According to Ukrainian officials, this will in time place so much pressure on the Russian economy that the Kremlin will have no choice but to negotiate in good faith.
But is that true? While such strikes undeniably hinder Russia’s economy and ability to wage war, it is doubtful as to whether they could inflict so much pain on Moscow as to make it limp desperately into the negotiating room for some much-needed respite. A Ukrainian intelligence source admits that Russia has been able to repair damaged oil facilities within a week and, with data on the scale of the damage classified, the Kremlin may well view such attacks as a manageable irritation rather than an existential crisis. Kyiv’s intelligence sources have also acknowledged that strikes are only one aspect of the strategy, the rest depending upon the West dishing out more missiles to Ukraine and more energy sanctions to Russia.
The US is unlikely to be sold on the idea. While the Russian economy is under stress and therefore vulnerable to tougher measures, Donald Trump may be reluctant to implement those for fear of pushing Moscow closer to Beijing, his overall goal being to provoke a split between the two powers. Ukrainian predictions of regaining battlefield momentum will also probably fall on deaf ears: in April, Trump’s Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg was already arguing that Kyiv’s lost territory is likely to remain so, along with Ukraine’s chances of a military victory over Russia. With an Israel-Hamas ceasefire in place and the US President-elect boasting of his contribution, Trump can now turn his attention to resolving other world conflicts, all fodder for his Nobel Peace Prize nomination form.
This war has been marked by tremendous reversals of fortune for Ukraine. Kyiv stood strong, after the rest of the world predicted it would fall. Putin was left stunned after Ukrainian forces rolled into occupied territory. It is easy to believe in miracles when you have already pulled off a few. However, postponing negotiations until Ukraine has the upper hand will only ensure that Putin maintains it.
The Ukrainian commander in chief General Syrksi seems to have given up. Recent remarks of his suggest that he no longer sees a way to win the war. He is now simply waiting for the politicians to concede.
When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine’s victory was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time—supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”—was intentionally vague. It also raised the question: As long as it takes to do what?
○
6 mins read
How ‘Mild Bill’ Burns led a covert CIA campaign in Ukraine
Burns’s steadfast efforts mark a key chapter in his decades-long intelligence duel with Putin.