​No ceasefire: On the Russia-Ukraine war

Ukrainian and Russian officials met up in Istanbul, Türkiye, last week, their first direct meeting since March 2022, the year when Russia invaded Ukraine. Little was achieved except for one agreement on swapping 1,000 prisoners of war each. The Ukrainian delegation rightfully complained that Moscow had made “new and unacceptable demands”. Russia’s posturing, however, seems to be a consequence of the dithering by Kyiv’s key ally, the U.S. In the run-up to the meeting, Kyiv, which has been on the back foot in the conflict, losing substantial territory in the east and reeling under failures such as the retreat from the Kursk offensive, had sought a 30-day ceasefire — an outcome that the U.S. was also pushing. While the U.S. has been discernibly less enthusiastic about continuing to arm and support the Ukrainians, during Donald Trump’s second term in the White House, Kyiv’s European allies had urged Moscow to agree to the ceasefire, or face increased sanctions and the transfer of weapons to Ukraine. After pushing Kyiv to the meeting without the ceasefire as a precondition, Mr. Trump had said on the eve of the Istanbul meet that it would not yield anything until he met directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. True to his mercurial nature, he went on to say that the conditions of a peace deal — which he has been pushing as a means for the U.S. to exit the conflict — could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine, with possible help from the Pope.

Amid this diplomatic uncertainty from Washington, the Russians have shown no inclination to back down from their maximalist demands on rejecting security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of a truce, and for its demilitarisation. This week, Russia continued to launch a barrage of attacks. Kyiv did manage to rally its European allies to support it militarily while imposing fresh sanctions on Russia. But the Ukrainian regime’s precarity in its eastern regions is evident with Russia continuing to hold on to significant territory and gaining ground in fresh incursions from the east. With Mr. Trump showing scant regard towards taking a consistent position, and seemingly staking out a line that is different from that of the Europeans, Kyiv might be left with a Hobson’s choice — accommodate some of Russia’s territorial demands to begin the process of peace or endure the attritional war with limited support. Mr. Putin might have seized the upper hand in the geopolitical dynamics of the war, but its effects have been devastating for Moscow as well. Reason suggests that peace would yield greater dividends than continuing an illegal invasion and this should allow for a fresh impetus for talks leading to a ceasefire. The ball is in the Kremlin’s court.