Hope for the War to End and Whether US Has a “Plan B”

Sergiu CEBAN

By the third anniversary, the war in Ukraine is closer than ever to its conclusion. But it seems it will end in no less agony than when it began

Yesterday, a summit of the leaders of the European Union and other allies of Ukraine was hold in Kyiv on the third anniversary of the war. Many of the usual uplifting words were spoken, hope for a just peace was expressed, and new military aid packages were approved. But the wind of change was felt even in the Ukrainian capital. Thus, the visit of the distinguished guests was overshadowed by the unheard-of failure of the Verkhovna Rada to vote in favor of a resolution that was supposed to certify parliamentary support for Volodymyr Zelensky’s rule. In the presence of the European Commissioners, with a sense of strategic confusion and disorientation, Ukrainian MPs signaled that Ukraine’s political field is ready and, moreover, in need of a total reset. This resounding slap to Zelensky can be construed as the first step towards his delegitimization and gradual loss of control over the state system, even if the resolution was passed today. By the way, the foreign ministers of the European Union also “distinguished themselves” and failed the initiative on military aid to Kyiv for 2025. At the same time, Europe is most fiercely resisting Russian-American plans to stop the war. Judging by Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Washington, the EU leaders expect, if not to change Donald Trump’s mind, then at least to get a place at the “big negotiating table”. The split and rivalry that has emerged and is deepening within the collective West was also evident at the United Nations General Assembly. Two resolutions on Ukraine were presented there at once: a restrained American resolution and a European-Ukrainian one. Washington officially announced that it would not support the draft condemning Russia for the invasion and called on the EU and Ukraine to withdraw their version (which they eventually voted against together with Russia, shocking their allies). This stratification of positions is sure to cause a satisfied smirk in Moscow, as the White House’s change of rhetoric and approach reflects a rethinking of both the causes and possible model for conflict resolution. In addition, by the end of yesterday, for the first time since 27 February 2022, the UN Security Council adopted a draft resolution entitled “Road to Peace”, which had been developed and introduced by the United States of America. Previously, the UN Security Council had been unable to agree on such documents on Ukraine for three years due to fundamental differences of opinion and the regular use of the veto. This time, US diplomats used the most neutral language possible, which allowed to adopt the resolution and lay the international basis for the start of the peace process. While Washington has so far failed to win over its European allies, Trump is still planning to squeeze the Ukrainian leadership to get a deal signed on rare earth metals and other strategic facilities. Conflicting statements coming out of Kyiv suggest that haggling is ongoing, but it appears that the overall agreement is almost ready. The US president is expected to receive the Ukrainian delegation led by Zelensky in the Oval Office very soon to sign the agreement. Forcing Kyiv into such a deal solves several problems at once. First, it demonstrates to the Kremlin the ability to get the Ukrainians to make compromises that are even painful and difficult for them. Second, the transfer of strategic resources under U.S. control gives the U.S. new opportunities in negotiations with Russia, since the issue will be about the security of U.S. capital. As we can see, Moscow is quite ready to talk to the White House about guarantees, up to and including investment partnerships in Ukrainian territories. Let’s not lie, but the Russian Federation feels victorious in this war. In fact, it has achieved one of its main strategic goals - the unity of the West has been severely shaken and weakened, Europe is split, and the overwhelming number of governments that declared personal war on the Kremlin and Putin have faded into history. Yes, it came at the cost of great human and resource losses, but Moscow has always been ready to pay for its geopolitical ambitions. However, even with such an active exchange of signals, a real cessation of hostilities seems unfortunately far away. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has made it clear that until a “sustainable” peace treaty is ready, the Russian army will continue its offensive operations. The impression is that the diplomatic fast-track regimes initially set up cannot cope with the volume of the load. Consequently, no quick solutions can be expected. In addition, it should be understood that the Ukrainian problem is only part of the Russian-American negotiations, which include a huge layer of issues of strategic importance. We are talking about cooperation in the economy and high technology, and mutual security commitments. Therefore, the prospects for long-term peace in Ukraine depend directly on the complex architecture of bilateral agreements between the United States and the Russian Federation, the achievement of which is a much more complex and painstaking process. Amid the bickering between Europe and the US, the prudent thing to do would be to take a neutral stance and wait to see where this situation goes. However, our leadership decided to choose a side by voting in favor of the European-Ukrainian resolution at the United Nations yesterday. The authorities explained this by the fact that “Moscow will not stop” and will not be satisfied with Ukraine, but will expand its sphere of external influence, projecting it on Moldova as well. It seems to us that such a diplomatic game of Chisinau is very dangerous and risky. We should realize that something similar to Ukraine can happen to us at any moment, given the desire of the new American administration to quickly close local European conflicts and shift attention to other regions. And this is not about the Kremlin’s attempts to restore its position in any way, but a kind of ‘diplomatic invasion’, when the consolidated position of the international community, agreed upon in the UN Security Council, and, in particular, to impose a settlement of the Transnistrian issue within the parameters already agreed upon, can suddenly be released to us. We are not sure that in such a case we will be able to resist as well as Kyiv. So, probably, Volodymyr Zelensky will be travelling to the USA soon, formally to sign a “mineral” deal. However, it is certain that the hardest negotiations for Kyiv or, in other words, the “peace enforcement” operation will take place behind the scenes. It is far from certain that Donald Trump will be able to tempt the Ukrainian leadership to the desired compromise with Moscow. Therefore, the main question for the next few days is whether the US has a conditional “Plan B”. That is, how Washington will behave in case of diplomatic failure: will it take a strategic pause and switch to other directions, or will we expect further escalation of the conflict with the crossing of new “red lines”. We will know the answer soon enough.