There is little reason for Russia to agree to a cessation of hostilities, after having suffered much loss, in a manner that undermines its invasion goals
Two things about the Ukraine ceasefire deal that US President Donald Trump is trying to bring about deserve to be taken note of. One is that the negotiation between Ukraine and the US took place in Saudi Arabia, not in Kiev or any of the European locations traditionally viewed as neutral places for staging peace talks, such as Geneva. The other is the concerted western commentary to the effect that Russia setting conditions for agreeing to a ceasefire amounts to manipulation, prevarication and continued belligerence.
Why should the ceasefire talks take place in Saudi Arabia? The kingdom has been striving to rebrand itself, far away from the American image of the country as the place from where Osama bin Laden and the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists hailed, if not as the lead mover in the oil price-manipulating cartel, OPEC. Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has been using the kingdom’s oil wealth to gain international legitimacy: it now owns a premier golf league, will host the football world cup in 2034, and is footing the bill for ranked women tennis players’ paid maternity leave.
Saudi Arabia’s new image
The kingdom is trying to present an image of modernity that coexists with the two holiest mosques of the Islamic world. It now allows women to drive and has done away with the mandatory niqab and the requirement that women get permission from a guardian to travel or have a male companion to move around. It is also trying to make Saudi Arabia a centre of moviemaking and Formula One races.
Also read: Ukraine open to 30-day ceasefire; US resumes military aid, intel sharing
It has made peace with Iran, and now seeks to become a hub of diplomatic activity. It is involved in negotiations to bring peace to Gaza and Sudan. It staged an Arab League summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in attendance, and has good relations with Russia on account of their common interest in controlling oil prices (Russia is the supernumerary in the OPEC+1 grouping). Saudi Arabia hosted the initial round of discussions between Russian and American officials on Ukraine.
Europe openly sides with Ukraine, and any talks held in Europe would not have the non-partisan gloss derived from the neutrality of the place where peace talks are held. Switzerland continues to be the land of Heidi and the cuckoo clock but no longer has the diplomatic panache of yore.
Why Russia’s conditions are justified
Coming to the Russian response to Trump’s ceasefire offer. What is disingenuous is not so much the Russian response as the so-called ceasefire offer. As soon as Ukraine agreed to a monthlong ceasefire, the US resumed intelligence sharing with, and arms supplies to, Ukraine. Putin would be entirely justified, if he were to wonder if handing over rockets, missiles, anti-missile systems and fighter planes, and sharing real-time signal intelligence are peacetime activities like picnics and Sunday School.
Right now, Ukraine is on the defensive, and Russia has the advantage not just in its region of Kursk that Ukraine occupied last August, to possess a bargaining chip in eventual peace talks, but all along the border and in a strategic sense: Ukraine is finding it increasingly difficult to find fresh army recruits, spends 37 per cent of its GDP on military expenditure, even as it suffers steady degradation of its energy infrastructure, and has to contend with increasing resistance in Europe and the US to pouring resources into Ukraine’s defence, even as their own citizens suffer economic hardship.
To allow a month’s respite for Ukraine to rearm itself, let Europe and the US rebuild some consensus on Ukraine aid, and rebuild Ukraine’s depleted armoury is for Russia to give away the advantage it has. It makes a lot of sense for Russia to put conditions that would address the original reason it had to invade Ukraine.
Also read: Russia gives US a list of demands before talks with Ukraine
The example set by the US
All nations have the right to make their own security choices, but not in a manner that undermines the security of another nation. For Ukraine, which housed both Sevastopol, Russia’s warm water naval base in Crimea, and the land route to Sevastopol from Russia, to join NATO is to undermine Russia’s security, not to speak of its role as a great power. There is every reason for Russia to insist that Ukraine should remain neutral, and that would exclude the presence of soldiers of NATO countries in Ukraine.
There is little reason for Russia to agree to a cessation of hostilities, after having suffered much loss of men and treasure, in a manner that undermines its invasion goals.
The US had threatened nuclear war when Cuba allowed Moscow to place Soviet missiles on an island just 143 km from Florida. Two decades later, the US invaded tiny Grenada and toppled a leftist government there, because then President Ronald Reagan feared its proximity to the Soviet Union and Cuba. The US neighbours that made strategic choices that endangered US security were forcibly made to alter their choices. Russia is following that example in Ukraine, and will not be deterred by Trump’s threats of further sanctions.
NATO and the Ukraine ‘experiment’
If Ukraine leaves Kursk and sues for peace, accepting as Russian territory Crimea and the land bridge from Russia to Crimea along Eastern Ukraine, as well as neutrality between Russia and NATO, the war would come to an end. The war took place only because of Ukraine’s readiness to serve as the laboratory for the NATO experiment to test the limits of Russia’s tolerance of the military alliance’s expansion to the east. The experiment had funding from NATO, and reagents from the US and European stockpiles. And it used Ukrainians as the lab rats.
Also read: Russia poised to win the war with Ukraine. But will Putin come out on top?
NATO is now preparing to draw the curtain on the experiment, with the grim conclusion that Russia is determined to hang on to its great power status. The Dnieper that vertically divides Ukraine will continue to serve as the dividing line between expanded Western Europe and the East, between the realm of the Catholic church and the realm of Russian Orthodoxy, and as the western boundary of lands where Russian is the native tongue.
Regular lab rats have no choice in whether to take part in the experiment being carried out on them. Ukrainians had choice, but chose not to accept their reality. The consequence has been tragic. The pain must cease, urgently. For that, the experiment should not drag on. If Ukrainians refuse to exercise their human agency, why would those experimenting on them be the first to cry halt?
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
