An End In Ukraine?
By RAY LI ‘28
The Ukrainian conflict, which has been ongoing for over a thousand days, has cost both Russia and Ukraine, as well as various other nations, great loss in capital and human life. In May of 2023, now-president Donald J. Trump pledged to be able to end the Ukrainian conflict within 24 hours due to his relationship with both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a major point in his campaign for the presidency. However, in the month since the inauguration of President Trump, no immediate peace has been achieved. The Ukrainian war is a war of policy, a war in which the foreign policy, objectives, and willingness to commit decide the outcomes. In order to accurately approximate the possibility of an end to the war, we must first analyze the strategic objectives, what has been attempted, and what may change in 2025.
As of early February, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine has maintained that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is of utmost importance in negotiations, including the return of Crimea, as well as the four Ukrainian provinces currently under partial to full Russian occupation: Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Possible alternatives to the return of territorial integrity proposed by President Zelenskyy include the accession of Ukraine into NATO or the return of nuclear weapons that Ukraine previously relinquished in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Taking a look at the strategic objectives of Russia in the region, Russia seeks to maintain its control over occupied territories as part of the post-war settlement, and Putin has also strongly rejected the idea of Ukrainian accession into NATO — even a delayed one — as part of any peace negotiation. Because Russia claims significantly more territory than it currently occupies, controlling the entirety of the four provinces seems to be a point that Putin is willing to back down upon given a favorable proposal.
There have been three significant attempts at establishing peace in the region: the Istanbul peace talks, which took place at the start of the conflict in the spring of 2022, the proposal presented by China in 2023, and the peace summit in Switzerland, which many world powers took part in. However, each of these attempts has failed to create peace. In the Istanbul Communiqué, peace talks constantly stalled due to the rapidly shifting positions of the front lines, neither side willing to negotiate while the possibility of a full capitulation of the opposing side was in sight: Russia stalled negotiations during their initial blitz into northern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian foreign office equally delayed peace discussions during their successful counteroffensive, which saw tremendous Russian morale, territorial, and material losses. Due to these reasons, Ukraine rejected the Istanbul Communiqué which aimed at establishing it as a neutral demilitarized state. In the peace plan proposed by China, crucial elements such as the post-war settlement of occupied territories — the most heated point of contention — were left ambiguous. Lastly, in the Switzerland conference, an impressive roster of 92 nations gathered; however, because the primary belligerent in the war, Russia, was left out, the attempt was of no avail.
Having seen the demands required for a peace proposal issued by both sides, it is quite obvious why peace or even a temporary ceasefire is extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated their capacity for a prolonged struggle and have enough confidence in their national strength to create a better position at the negotiating table sometime in the future. Ukraine attains its confidence from the until-now unwavering support of Western nations and Russia from its nuclear weapons and the lack of Western aid for Ukraine. In the short term, successful negotiations have not yet taken place, as the will to fight, stemming from the belief in ultimate victory on the battlefield, remains strong in both nations.
What may change in 2025? On the 18th of February, a US delegation led by Marco Rubio and a Russian delegation led by Sergey Lavrov met in Saudi Arabia, without the presence of a Ukrainian delegation to discuss the development of a potential peace, a one sided conference with an uncanny resemblance to the Switzerland Summit. President Trump has based his claims for peace on his ability to tilt the battlefield advantage in favor of either side, forcibly bringing both sides to the peace table. Despite the brutal slaughter ongoing in Ukraine, for the first time in the conflict, leaders of both Russia and Ukraine have expressed interest in negotiating. On the fifth of February, President Zelenskyy said, “If that is the only set-up in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this set-up,” in response to a question asking him about the possibility of him sitting at a table and talking to the Russian leader. In recent interviews with President Trump, he claims numerous conversations have taken place in regard to an end to the war. However, leaked peace plan proposals of Trump involving the stationing of European troops on a frozen demilitarized zone have been sternly rejected by the Russian leader, who maintains that post-war Ukraine must be a demilitarized neutral zone. Recent polling on the Ukrainian population has also seen a significant decline in the proportion of the population in favor of total victory from 73% to 38%. Taking into account the inconsistencies of polling, this is still a prominent trend. However, this is more than equally matched by the degradation of Russian offensive capacity in conventional aspects of war. As of a recent development in mid-February, President Trump has begun to demand 50% of Ukrainian rare earth metals with an estimated worth of 500 Billion USD as compensation for aid. Despite initial consideration, on February 16th, President Zelenskyy has rejected the demand on terms that it does not provide adequate guarantee and protection for the future of Ukrainian interests. Following President Zelenskyy’s rejection, President Trump has spoken quite harsh words criticizing the Ukrainian leader, in which he commented on President Zelenskyy’s “Competency” as well. However, in the rapidly shifting geopolitical climate of today, the significance and endurance of these words are to be questioned.
Negotiations and grand strategies of post-war peace are greatly nuanced and a delicate balance that is often hard to find. The incentives of every party to end the war are obvious, but the solution is not as clear. Russia seeks to end the war with a diplomatic victory to not fade into geopolitical oblivion, the United States, with its change in leadership, seeks to end its involvement in Ukraine due to an accompanying change in geopolitical objectives, and Ukraine seeks to end its righteous war of liberation in favor of itself and its people. Presented with the facts, a path to peace appears far likelier in 2025 than in any other year of the war. Will the peace settlement be fair? Will an end to the war with the current US administration resemble the Munich agreement — a hopeful, foolish acquiescence to an aggressive power? Developments are already emerging in the form of President Trump’s alignment with President Putin on Ukraine holding new elections under justified martial law. And if an end is not reached, what is the price of justice?
