It would certainly be premature to uncork the champagne, but one gets the feeling the endgame in the war in Ukraine may well be at hand. Trump’s negotiators i.e. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Presidential Adviser (more important, also President Trump’s son-in-law) Jared Kushner have been busy shuttling between Abu Dhabi, Moscow and Dublin, meeting with negotiators from both Russia and Ukraine, and then subsequently also meeting up with Russian President Putin and Ukraine’s President Zelensky. Europeans have hitherto been on the margins, but there is emerging consensus that Europe will be part of the negotiations from now on. What then are the main issues? Plenty, it would seem.
A chicken and egg situation: Assuming the substantive talks take off, there is a big sequencing issue that needs sorting between the two sides. Russia wishes to discuss a new security architecture for Europe which could then be the basis for permanent peace. On the other hand, Ukraine supported by EU, wants the war to end first, with a ceasefire preferably followed by a peace agreement. Then, and only then, are they prepared to sit with Russia to discuss a new European security architecture, if at all. It is possible that at the end of the day, parallel negotiations may have to take place.
The World simply wants the war to end. There is also a fair bit of war fatigue, certainly in Ukraine, but perhaps also in Russia, since further territoral gains by the latter appear improbable. Some reports (admittedly Western) put the number of dead since the war began at half a million in Russia, a figure that is high even for a country as big as Russia. So, it is arguable that the basic ground situation is favourable to a peace agreement.
At the time of writing, it appears that a decision has been taken in principle that all the issues i.e. ceasefire, peace agreement and a broad European security architecture, will be discussed together in parallel. Prima facie, the Russians seem to have got their way.
Who should represent Europe: The Americans have now said that Europe should be part of future talks. Russia may have reluctantly conceded, if one is to go by Kushner who said Putin is willing to “give it a try”. However, the big issue amongst Europeans was who should represent them in these talks. One option that was looked at is for European Council President Antonio Costa assisted by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, to represent Europe at these talks. Costa may have been acceptable to some EU member states but Kaja Kallas was seen as too hardline and viscerally opposed to Russia. In any case, the big two EU member states i.e. France and Germany, wanted to be on the negotiating table and did not favour this proposition at all. Germany said that the E3 format i.e. France, Germany and UK would be preferable to represent Europe. The problem with this was that many other European states (such as Italy and Poland) did not wish this arrangement.
The final compromise from the European Political Community Summit in Dublin was typically the one you would expect from the Europeans. It has now been suggested that EU will be represented by E5 i.e. France, Germany, UK, Italy and Poland plus representatives from the European Commission and the European Council. It remains to be seen how united they will be and whether they can all speak in one voice. President Putin may have scored a tactical victory already.
Substance of the negotiations: The two sides, at the time of writing, are far apart in their starting positions, which is not unusual in negotiations of this kind. The territorial question is the thorniest of it all. Russia wants the four Oblasts belonging to Eastern Ukraine i.e. Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, but including parts of it currently controlled by Ukraine. Ukraine, on the other hand, wishes to have a temporary line drawn on the basis of the actual battlefield situation. And even so, Ukraine wishes to retain the right to recover the territory at some point in the future. There is also the issue of buffer zones, to which Russia vehemently objects. Russians merely want a line clearly indicating what belongs to Ukraine and what belongs to them, something that is easier said than done.
The presence of European troops on Ukrainian soil to maintain peace after an agreement is signed, is a red flag for Russia but is a matter of life or death for Ukraine, since the latter wants to ensure there is no repeat of the Russian invasion that happened in February 2022.
Then, there are issues surrounding the proposed security architecture for Europe. NATO expansion, restoration of force posture to pre-1997 period, Ukraine’s force levels and presence of weaponry near Russia’s borders are all difficult issues. This also boils down to what security guarantees Ukraine and EU are willing to accept (no NATO membership for Ukraine but EU membership) in the final analysis and what can be acceptable to Russia. There are other issues like what happens to the Euros 260 billion which were frozen by EU and other G 7 countries when the war started. Russia’s energy ties with Europe, can they be normalised in some way? Finally, Russia will want all sanctions (primary and secondary) lifted against it after the peace agreement is signed, while Ukraine and EU will want a gradual lifting of these sanctions based on progress in the implementation of the peace agreement.
Meanwhile, Jared Kushner outlined a broad security framework for Europe that could have five principal goals: permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and an enduring framework for long-term European security and stability. Kushner also underlined the principles that would underpin the new system: Any arrangement must fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independent decision-making of every nation; each country will retain authority over its own security and alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices. A number of European observers have described this as too general and too vague to be meaningful. EU’s High Representative Kaja Kallas responded acerbically as only she can: We already have a European security architecture in place — NATO and European Union both have their respective roles. This points to some tough negotiations ahead, to put it very mildly.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s hands may have been strengthened in these negotiations now because National Security Advisers of the E5 group referred to above are expected to join in the technical discussions. But this could also make the talks much more acrimonious and difficult.
Yalta bis: To complicate things further for the Europeans, on the margins of the APEC meeting in Shenzhen on 18/19 November, there is a Russian proposal for a trilateral summit meeting between President Trump, President Xi Jinping and President Putin. Issues likely to be discussed have been reported in the press as: Ukraine, Iran and Arms Control. The idea that the three leaders can even discuss Ukraine without Ukraine or EU being present, has caused predictable outrage in Ukraine and Europe. But knowing President Trump, this may well happen, much to the consternation of the EU and others. This summit has been promptly dubbed “Yalta bis” by observers – a reference to the original Yalta summit between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt which led to the division of Europe and the cold war. The rest that followed from it, as they say, is history.
Conclusion: It is curious to read President Trump after the midterm debacle in the US. With him though, any prediction one makes is hazardous business. But it does seem as though if there is one thing he may take away from the voters’ mandate, it is to try and resolve a war or two. Maybe he still yearns for that elusive Nobel peace prize. Certainly, with regard to Ukraine, he seems eager, some would say too eager, to reach a settlement which he describes as a ” big, beautiful agreement involving not just Ukraine, but all of Europe”. This is precisely the kind of talk that sends cold shivers down European spines!
Dr Mohan Kumar is a former Indian Ambassador to France and Director General of the Motwani Jadeja Institute for American Studies at OP Jindal Global University. Views are personal.
