Don’t expect negotiations between Ukraine and Russia anytime soon — in fact, they might be years away.
With European leaders assembled in Brussels this week, speculation is rife about whether major capitals could ultimately press for talks between Kyiv and Moscow. Stubbornly high energy prices, dwindling weapons stockpiles and a soporific economy have all fueled chatter that some of Ukraine’s allies may lean on the country to at least open a dialogue with the enemy.
The reality, however, is that none of it may matter for a while. According to current and former officials, Ukraine and Russia appear headed toward a potential stalemate, with neither side seeing an advantage to opening up end-stage talks.
“Honestly, for the time being, I don’t see any prospect for negotiation,” said Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg. “But the important thing,” he said in response to a question from POLITICO, “is to keep the possibility open.”
The reasons are manifold: Russian President Vladimir Putin is in too deep to change course — doing so might even mean his ouster. A steady supply of western arms is also ensuring motivated Ukrainians can keep fighting. Meanwhile, neither side currently has the resources for a quick win, but both see opportunities to gain ground in the coming months.
That could mean a years-long, deadly slog on European soil — one that raises profound questions about how Europe will reshape its economy, and whether it can (and wants to) keep refilling supplies.
“My guess is the most likely scenario is a murky one where the conflict will end in some kind of stalemate or even frozen conflict,” said one senior European diplomat.
“I doubt,” the diplomat added, that “there will be a clear ‘win’ for either side.”
Negotiations chatter
The topic of negotiations has been in the air in recent weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden declared himself “prepared to speak” with Russian leader Vladimir Putin “if in fact there is an interest in him deciding he’s looking for a way to end the war.”
French President Emmanuel Macron then took it a step further, offering vague suggestions for such talks, indicating Europe had to consider “how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table.”
“I hear the rumors about possible peace negotiations,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda told POLITICO this week. “But you know, those rumors are created not in Ukraine and not in Russia,” he said, arguing that Moscow is neither committed nor ready for peace talks.
NATO officials don’t observe a negotiation-conducive situation on the ground, with both Russia and Ukraine eyeing battlefield opportunities well into next year.
“What we see now,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said last week, “is Russia is actually trying to have some kind of ‘freeze’ of this war at least for a short period of time so they can regroup, repair, recover — and then try to launch a bigger offensive next spring.”
Kyiv, meanwhile, has been emboldened by recent advances and plans to continue relying on a stream of western arms and supplies to push ahead.
“While it is objectively difficult to predict when and how exactly this war will end, I believe that Ukraine will win,” said Yuriy Sak, an adviser to Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov.
And it won’t be a partial victory, he insisted.
“We will restore our territorial integrity within the internationally recognized borders,” including Crimea, the Ukrainian territory Putin annexed in 2014, Sak said. Then, he declared, “we will seek and obtain reparations from Russia” and “an international tribunal will be set up.”
He called these conditions “the only scenario that will work for Ukraine,” insisting “this is the only scenario we are focused on.”
Essentially, neither side appears ready for concessions. Putin may not even have the capability to budge — if he wants to keep his grip on power, that is.
“I don’t think the war can end with Putin there,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a think-tanker who previously led the U.S. intelligence community’s strategic analysis work on Russia. “Doing so would require a certain amount of political reckoning.”
And that reckoning could be career-ending, given the amount of political capital Putin and his allies have invested in the war.
“The sad reality is that there’s a strong possibility that even a replacement leader after Putin will also have a hard time extricating Russia from the war,” said Kendall-Taylor, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
Some policymakers have their eyes on ordinary Russians, wondering whether popular unrest may be the quickest way out. The tightening economic noose of sanctions and international isolation could fan those flames.
“The strongest key and the fastest way to stop this brutal war and madness is in the pockets of Russian people,” said Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur. “This is how it happened in 1917 and again in 1991” — the two most recent de facto Russian revolutions.
Yet social change often happens incrementally and then all at once.
“Russia’s future lies in abandoning her imperial ambitions,” said a second senior European diplomat. “Realistically this could take generations.”
How long will the weapons last?
Another key factor determining the course of the war — and possible future negotiations — is weapons.
Ukraine is heavily reliant on western, notably American, arms. And its war plans are thus tied to the White House’s willingness to keep the defensive assistance flowing.
While Joe Biden has shown no signs of backing away from Ukraine, it might be the type of weapons he’s willing to give that could turn the conflict into a prolonged stalemate. What Ukrainian forces need to fully claim victory, said CNAS’ Kendall-Taylor, are more advanced weapons systems such as longer-range artillery.
Western governments have trashed numerous weapons taboos since the early days of the war to give Kyiv increasingly lethal arms. But there are still some military lines western capitals are reluctant to cross, fearing an escalation with Russia. Some officials and experts particularly fear that the prospect of losing Crimea could heighten the risk of Putin dangling a tactical nuclear weapon.
And questions remain about whether Western leaders would actively support a Ukrainian push into Crimea, which some policymakers interpret as a red line for Putin.
“I don’t see any signs,” Kendall-Taylor said, “of Western governments leaning in and giving Ukraine what they would need to actually win.”
Many argue Ukraine, with its current allied support, could still come out victorious — though much depends on how a “win” would ultimately be defined.
“One could argue that anything short of control by Russia of the whole eastern part of Ukraine is a win for Ukraine. Which is where we are now,” said the first senior European diplomat.
The second diplomat framed it this way: “Ultimately, Russia can’t win. In fact, Russia has already lost. The only question is how much more damage and suffering Putin will inflict on Ukraine and his own people.”
A third senior European diplomat predicted that moment may come “if Russia cannot make a difference with its attacks on civilian infrastructure and with the anticipated spring offensive.”
In that case, the diplomat concluded, “we may witness a net Ukrainian victory.”
Definitions aside, the long-term reality is, of course, that talks eventually have to take place — whether when both sides are exhausted in several years, or sooner if the battlefield lines change unexpectedly.
“At the end, peace is never done on the battlefield,” said Schallenberg, the Austrian foreign minister.
“It’s done,” he stressed, “at the negotiation table.”
