The phone call Tuesday between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin may indeed have been the start of a peace agreement between the Kremlin and Ukraine, but much work remains to be done.
And that work will mean nothing if it doesn’t include a complete buy-in from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was noticeably not involved in Tuesday’s phone call. News reports said the Kremlin indicated a preference for leaving Ukraine out of any final deal. That must be considered unacceptable, as should be the idea that Russia won’t have to agree to real concessions.
During Tuesday’s call, Russia agreed to a limited ceasefire against energy infrastructure. That may have little strategic value, however, considering winter is ending, giving Russia limited returns on attacks that affect heat and electricity.
Ukraine has already agreed to an unconditional ceasefire. The Kremlin now seems to have begun inching in that direction. It’s a small start, with a seemingly long road ahead. Each side also agreed to exchange 175 prisoners.
We agree that Trump and other observers are correct in worrying that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is becoming a “forever war” costing lives. And continuing to pour money and munitions into Ukraine’s coffers without clear obtainable objectives won’t lead to a total victory.
One may also convincingly ask more of European nations to support Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian cause. As of last summer, nine of 32 NATO countries had yet to reach an agreed-upon level of devoting 2% of their GDP to their own militaries.
But Russia should not be rewarded nor encouraged to engage in any other conflicts because of gains won in Ukraine. It has been the clear aggressor in the war that began three years ago.
U.S. allies confused
Peace negotiations tend to be fraught with potential unintended signals and consequences. This is no exception. Not surprisingly, America’s allies, not to mention her citizens, are rightly concerned and worried about what seems to be an abandonment of NATO, or worse, a shift in alliances toward foes who, for decades, have been considered oppressive and tyrannical. The question for America: How do you engage with Russia and China without empowering Russia and China? And can our relationship with our allies be strengthened, rather than weakened?
Perhaps these acts are part of a get-tough policy designed to shake NATO countries into doing more. But even small diplomatic gestures away from our allies carry great weight in international relations. Going forward, China may feel emboldened to attack Taiwan, reasoning that the United States might view the defense of Taiwan as more trouble than it’s worth. Russian President Vladimir Putin may now wonder whether the U.S. is still committed to honoring Article 5 of the NATO charter, which obligates its members to consider an attack on one allied country as an attack on all. He may feel emboldened to attack the strategically important Swedish island of Gotland, for example.
Facing facts in Ukraine
We agree with the experts who are concluding that Ukraine cannot recapture all its original territory, and that her losses going forward would constitute unnecessary deaths. One of these is Valerie Hudson, a distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. She wrote for the Deseret News, “We are now reaching a stage where Ukraine-the-land and Ukraine-the-people cannot both be saved. For the sake of the people, the war must come to an end.”
Elusive ‘realisms’ of war
Military realisms aren’t always what they appear to be. As the columnist George F. Will has noted, World War II was preceded by similar “realisms” that fueled events. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was falsely convinced that carving up Czechoslovakia, for no reason other than that Germany wanted it so, would put a stop to Nazi aggression. This was a tragic miscalculation, which became evident as German bombs began to fall on England.
Writing for Foreign Policy, Natia Seskuria, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said it’s clear Putin now sees a rare opening — one he can use to show Russians that the sacrifices of the last three years were worth it.
“A cease-fire would provide Russia with a much-needed pause and space to rebuild its military and resources, setting the stage for a renewed offensive when the conditions are right,” she wrote. “This is why Russia adamantly rejects any Western presence on Ukrainian soil, fearing that such a presence could hinder its long-term objectives.”
The United States cannot afford to ignore these realisms, either, as it deals with the realism of Ukraine’s dwindling options in the war. Negotiating a truly lasting peace in Ukraine might result in land to Russia, but it shouldn’t sacrifice a country and its people.