Hints of a Future Peace in Ukraine?

Despite the ongoing escalation of hostilities in Ukraine, marked by intensified reciprocal strikes on energy and fuel infrastructure, a number of indicators suggest the potential emergence of a window of opportunity for a negotiated peace settlement

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: The past few weeks have been rather discouraging for those hoping for a swift end to the bloodshed in Ukraine. A new round of direct negotiations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was canceled fairly quickly, reportedly, according to insider information from Western media, due to Russia’s “excessive” demands and “inflexible” stance. Following that, the current White House administration imposed the first sanctions against Russia since Joe Biden’s office, targeting its oil giants – Rosneft and Lukoil. Then we witnessed something resembling a “nuclear ping-pong”. First, Putin announced the successful tests of new weapons systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads – Burevestnik and Poseidon. The first system, in particular, drew special interest from experts, since if its declared characteristics are accurate, it becomes a true game-changer, virtually neutralizing existing Western, including U.S., missile defense systems. Trump responded by announcing the launch of U.S. nuclear tests, which stunned the international community, given that members of the so-called “nuclear club” (with the exception of North Korea) have not detonated such warheads since the mid-1990s. In parallel, active offensive operations by Russian forces continue on several key sections of the front. According to the official position of the Kremlin, these offensive actions have resulted in thousands of Ukrainian soldiers being encircled, something which Moscow suggested Western media should verify directly on the ground. Objective data, however, does not seem to confirm the presence of such large-scale “cauldrons”, though the fact of Russia’s gradual advance is not disputed, including by Ukraine. Against this backdrop, both sides have intensified and escalated long-range strikes on energy and fuel infrastructure. Moscow has already carried out several combined attacks this month, using hundreds of missiles and drones to systematically target power generation facilities. Kyiv, in turn, has focused on disabling oil refineries, and has been partially successful, causing fuel shortages in several regions of the Russian Federation. At the same time, both sides are gradually “pushing further” in their attacks. According to IAEA reports, after the Russian shelling on October 30, substations that supply power to Ukrainian nuclear power plants were damaged for the first time and these are critically important for the country’s nuclear safety. As a result, the South Ukraine and Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plants lost access to one of their external power lines, and at the Rivne NPP it became necessary to reduce the output of two out of four reactor units. Ukraine, in turn, in addition to striking oil refineries, yesterday targeted a CHP plant in Oryol and a major power grid substation known as “Vladimirskaya”. At first glance, the events taking place give little reason to hope for a rapid end to the hostilities, let alone the conclusion of a full-fledged peace agreement. At the same time, against the backdrop of high-profile reports about various attacks and the regular frontline updates, a number of developments have remained somewhat in the shadows and these may in fact serve as indicators of a possible shift toward a more positive and constructive paradigm in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. First and foremost, attention should be drawn to the peace plan currently being developed by Ukraine and the European Union. Information about it has not delivered much excitement, since there have been many similar initiatives in recent years. However, all of those were drafted in such a way that any substantive discussion with the Russian side was ruled out from the outset. Yet just recently, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty disclosed details of the current working document and, surprisingly, it turned out to be rather compromise-oriented. Firstly, it is important that the ceasefire is envisaged after the adoption of the document, rather than before, which aligns closely with the Russian vision of the settlement process. Secondly, the plan provides not only international security guarantees for Ukraine, without mentioning NATO, but also certain guarantees for Russia in the form of a “non-aggression pact” with Kyiv. Thirdly, it specifies the readiness to lift “symbolic” anti-Russian sanctions immediately, followed by a gradual easing of the overall sanctions regime as the agreements are implemented. Finally, the plan addresses negotiations and arrangements regarding the administration of occupied territories, effectively acknowledging Moscow’s control over parts of Ukrainian land de facto, without contesting it. The key point lies in the clause stating that Kyiv and Moscow “enhance mutual understanding and respect for the diversity of languages, cultures, and religions”. This represents a significant shift in the positions of Ukraine and the EU, which previously deemed it impossible to adjust Ukraine’s internal policies under Russian pressure. In this context, the news that the Verkhovna Rada is no longer considering the bill to remove the Russian language from the protection of the European Charter is particularly noteworthy; according to MPs, this move was made under pressure from “Russian lobbyists” in the Council of Europe. Undoubtedly, there are provisions that Russia is currently unlikely to agree to: freezing the front line as it stands and the transfer of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. For this reason, for example, Volodymyr Zelensky is pessimistic about the prospects of its acceptance by the Kremlin. Nevertheless, as a starting point for subsequent negotiations, the plan appears quite acceptable. Most likely, even before the end of the year, the “global peace party” will attempt to make its moves, bringing the war closer to a mutually acceptable outcome. The Ukraine-European plan can be regarded as a positive development, signaling a renunciation of obviously utopian ambitions and illusionsб, pursuing which would lead only to countless new casualties, and a possible willingness to finally begin dialogue with Moscow, taking existing realities into account. In this sense, what many perceive as an “unprecedented escalation” may paradoxically turn out to be a harbinger of impending peace. On the eve of such an outcome, the warring parties are laying all their cards on the table, striving to secure key advantages to strengthen their positions in the negotiations expected in the near future. It should also be noted that even the new American sanctions, often seen as Trump “putting on Biden’s shoes”, do not in themselves indicate a deviation from the path toward peace negotiations. From the U.S. president’s perspective, sufficient pressure has already been exerted on Ukraine, securing its agreement to halt military actions along the front line – a step Kyiv had previously categorically refused, insisting instead on advancing to the 1991 borders, and later to those of 2022. In addition, reports indicate that the U.S. is reducing its military presence in several eastern members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Specifically, contingents are being withdrawn from Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. Although this is not publicly announced, it can also be interpreted as a de-escalation and a gesture toward Russia, which from the outset sought to push NATO away from its borders. The nearly four-year history of this war, full of unexpected plot twists, makes any attempt at forecasting a challenging task. However, it can be stated with certainty that major moves in the negotiation process are likely to occur before the New Year.