I’m inclined to agree with Tasha Kheiriddin’s argument at GZero:
As the Israel-Hamas war intensifies, there’s talk that Ukraine is being pressured to seek a settlement in its war with Russia, now in its 20th month.
On Saturday, a current and a former U.S. official, both anonymous, claimed US and European officials have spoken to Kyiv about possible peace negotiations. The speculation follows an Economist interview with Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny who said the conflict has hit a stalemate, and that unless Ukraine acquires more advanced weaponry and information technology, “(t)here will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.â€
She’s arguing that neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians are prepared to negotiate and, consequently, pressing for such negotiations is premature.
Sad to say, I think that’s probably right. The Ukrainians who’ve voted with their feet don’t count and by the time those who’ve chosen to remain are ready to negotiate, what state will the country be in?
If there are to be negotiations, it will be in 2025. Domestically, the stage isn’t set for negotiations in 2024 for the 4 biggest actors.
1. Russia is scheduled to hold negotiations in March 2024. There’s zero chance Putin will seek negotiations before the elections, and given American elections in November; will likely push as hard as possible on the field in the hopes that war weariness among US voters will trigger a change of Presidents and bring one who is more amenable to a settlement on Russian terms.
2. Ukraine is also scheduled for a Presidential election in 2024. However, the election is suspended until the war ends. It is likely negotiations that results in the current status quo would be political (and perhaps literal) death for Zelensky in any subsequent elections. The reason being the status quo (not in NATO, loss of more territory) is worse then what the Russians demanded in the first couple of months in the war, and before all the subsequent deaths.
3. The UK has elections in 2024 (likely in the fall). The most hawkish major European power, the ruling Conservatives are unlikely to favor negotiations while in power.
4. Of course, US elections in Nov 2024. Just as Putin is seeking to use the war to replace President Biden, Biden has incentives to seek victory on the field in the hopes of reelection. Given some of the atrocious polling lately, a defeat on the field or even stalemate could be disastrous to Biden and Democrats 2024 hopes. Negotiations would be be risky too, dividing the Democratic party on an issue that currently unites Democrats and divides Republicans.
American history (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) shows that major war policy changes occur only if there is a new President.
I generally agree with Curious and would just add that the history of outsiders forcing peace onto warring combatants is rarely successful or enduring.
This past year both sides expended a huge amount of blood and resources (especially ammunition) in offensives that failed by their own objectives. The opportunities to create surpluses of ammunition and equipment over the next year to allow for future offensives is much diminished. And the reality of this particular battlefield is one that heavily favors the defender. I do not see that changing for some time, if ever.
That realization may incentivize both sides to support some kind of armistice, but it is one that is likely to be temporary IMO.