Power play (Credit: Ukrainian Presidency / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The imminent return of Donald Trump to the White House has dramatically reframed the discussion about the Ukraine war. After years of insisting on a Ukrainian military victory at any cost, the Western political and media establishment appears to be begrudgingly acknowledging that this war can only end either through negotiations or Ukraine’s collapse under the strain of depleted manpower and resources. Given that the likelihood of the latter scenario is becoming increasingly apparent — in spite of the final aid package announced by the outgoing Biden administration on Monday — it’s not surprising that even the usually hawkish New York Times recently concluded that “it’s time to plan for the postwar phase”.
Putin has signalled his willingness to meet with Trump to discuss a peace deal, while the president-elect recently reiterated that “we have to end that war”. After meeting Zelenskyy in Paris during the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral, Trump called for an “immediate ceasefire”. In a remarkable shift, Zelenskyy himself recently acknowledged that Ukraine cannot reclaim the lost territories through military means and even suggested that he would be willing to cede territory in exchange for Nato protection.
The mere fact that negotiations are now on the table is a welcome development in a war that has already caused immense bloodshed and triggered massive economic and geopolitical tectonic shifts. However, despite making bold claims during his election campaign that he would end the war “in 24 hours”, resolving the conflict is likely to prove very challenging — as Trump himself now admits.
The main hurdle is that the West’s relentless push for an impossible Ukrainian victory against a much stronger opponent has strengthened Russia’s hand. By rejecting earlier opportunities for negotiation — when Ukraine was in a stronger position — Western leaders have allowed Russia to consolidate its military gains, leaving little incentive for Putin to compromise.
In this sense, the belief that the West can achieve at the negotiating table what it failed to secure on the battlefield is, as political realist John Mearsheimer has argued, a dangerous illusion. “To win at the negotiating table, you have to win on the battlefield,” he explained, “and it’s the Russians who are winning on the battlefield.” Putin’s own words at his end-of-year conference underscore this: “The Russian army is advancing along the entire front line… We are moving towards resolving the main objectives that we set at the beginning of the military operation.”
Ukraine — and the West — face a difficult decision: either accept Putin’s terms, or endure the continuation of the war, which will further weaken Ukraine’s position (while causing countless more lives to be lost for nothing). Putin’s conditions for peace are unambiguous: legal recognition by Ukraine and the West of Russia’s annexed territories — Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — as part of the Russian Federation; Ukraine’s full withdrawal from contested territories; and Ukraine’s renunciation of Nato membership aspirations and adoption of neutral, non-aligned status, coupled with demilitarisation, in exchange for Western security guarantees.
These demands render Zelenskyy’s proposed compromise — ceding territory for Nato membership — untenable. Preventing Ukraine from joining Nato was, after all, the primary rationale for Russia’s military operation. Trump appears to grasp this. Reports suggest his team is considering delaying Ukraine’s Nato membership by at least 20 years, possibly in exchange for continued Western arms supplies. Statements by his running mate JD Vance indicate Trump might advocate for Ukraine to cede Russian-controlled regions, while agreeing to a demilitarised zone.
Certain factions will undoubtedly decry such terms as an unacceptable capitulation. However, the reality is that accepting a deal now is Ukraine’s best option. All evidence suggests that the longer the war continues, the worse Ukraine’s position will become. The West bears significant responsibility for squandering earlier opportunities to pursue peace, when Russia’s demands were far less severe — and all to wage what even Boris Johnson candidly admitted in a recent interview to be a Nato proxy war against Russia.
Yet, Zelenskyy’s insistence on Nato membership essentially rules out any possibility of even starting negotiations. Trump could potentially sidestep this problem by excluding Ukraine from the first rounds of peace talks, as well as forcing Ukraine to face reality by cutting back military aid for Kyiv, but the real problem will be selling an agreement on Russia’s terms inside the US, where he is likely to face massive pushback from the pro-war establishment, including the neocons in his own party. They will try to weaponise Trump’s “America First” rhetoric against him by claiming — as they are already doing — that this would be a “humiliation” for the US.
Trump’s vision of a “quick fix” in the form of a ceasefire or truce, pending a more comprehensive agreement, is also unlikely to succeed. Putin believes a prolonged ceasefire would merely allow Ukraine to rearm and prepare for a renewed offensive; his scepticism is rooted in his perception of the Minsk agreements as a Western ploy to buy Ukraine time to pursue a military solution. And Western commentary has done little to dispel such fears. One recent RUSI article proposed using a “frozen ceasefire” à la North and South Korea to heavily arm a diminished Ukraine, transforming it into a more effective bulwark against Russia in the future. Such proposals all but guarantee Moscow’s resistance to any short-term, half-botched agreements.
The deeper challenge here lies in navigating the profound mistrust between Russia and the West. This demands a fundamental shift in the West’s approach: abandoning its (failed) attempts to isolate and weaken Russia, and taking genuine steps to address Russia’s security concerns. This is why Putin has emphasised that a comprehensive peace deal must include the removal of all sanctions against Russia.
Achieving such a geopolitical grand bargain, though, would require an all-out paradigm shift, in which the West relinquishes its pursuit of dominance and recognises the multipolar nature of global power dynamics. Yet, no Western leader — including Trump — seems prepared to make this leap. Despite potential shifts in priorities, such as focusing on Latin America and Iran, the strategic underpinnings of US policy are unlikely to change significantly under Trump’s leadership. There is little to suggest a fundamental departure from the US’s current strategy of aggressively countering the decline of American global dominance through diplomatic, economic and even military pressure.
Trump’s foreign policy picks reinforce this view. For example, Keith Kellogg, his choice for special envoy to Ukraine, co-authored a report earlier this year arguing that it is in America’s interest to ensure a “defeated and diminished Russia”, and that the next Trump administration should continue to arm Ukraine and refrain from asking Ukraine to relinquishing the goal of regaining all its territory. While Kellogg might have changed his mind over the past few months, this kind of mentality is unlikely to facilitate the reassessment of US-Russia relations that Putin views as essential for peace.
Europe, too, represents a major obstacle. Its leaders have shown little inclination toward diplomacy, with some actively opposing Trump’s overtures. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s new foreign affairs chief, recently dismissed the idea of pressuring Zelenskyy into peace talks, claiming that Putin is unwilling to negotiate. Meanwhile, the European Council has just adopted a new sanctions package vowing that “Russia must not prevail” and reconfirming “the EU’s unwavering commitment to providing continued political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes and as intensely as needed”. This comes on the heels of an even more hawkish European Parliament resolution essentially calling for a total war against Russia — or World War III.
Europe’s economic and security interests clearly lie in ending the war and renormalising relations with Russia — a stance that enjoys growing support among European citizens. In this respect, Trump could be viewed as an opportunity: to the extent that the US has always viewed Nato as a way to ensure Europe’s strategic subordination, the president-elect’s threat of reducing US commitments to the alliance could present an occasion for Europe to redefine itself as an autonomous and peaceful actor. Instead, Europe appears to be reacting to its identity crisis by projecting the United States’ role onto itself, replicating the aggressive stance of its former protector.
Meanwhile, Nato’s general thrust seems unaffected by Trump’s impending return, suggesting that it answers more to the US military-security apparatus than it does to the White House. Hence, Mark Rutte, Nato’s new Secretary-General, recently said that the alliance shouldn’t be talking about peace but should instead focus on sending more weapons to Ukraine.
The path forward remains fraught with obstacles. Putin’s conditions for peace are uncompromising, Western leaders remain entrenched in their positions, and Europe’s hawkish stance only complicates matters further. For Trump, the challenge will be twofold: overcoming domestic resistance to concessions and navigating the geopolitical minefield of competing interests. While his desire to end the war is commendable, the complexities of achieving a lasting resolution will demand far more than quick fixes or bold proclamations.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Without a serious commitment to diplomacy and a willingness to make difficult compromises, the conflict will either continue as a slow-burning war of attrition or be temporarily frozen, only to flare up again later. In either case, this will further antagonise Western-Russian relations — with catastrophic consequences for Ukraine, Europe and the world at large.
Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.
battleforeurope 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTrump will end the war quickly because he’ll abandon them, as should have been done from the beginning. Actually, if we count Maidan as the beginning (as we should) there shouldn’t have been a war as the CIA shouldn’t have interfered in internal matters of states in Russia’s sphere of influence.
The hopes vested in Trump are misplaced. He will, as last time, be unable to achieve anything he wants because the USA is run by the “Deep State”, not the elected representatives. This has been evident during most of Biden’s tenure. Biden has been mentally incompetent but important decisions have still been made, and actions taken which were entirely beyond his capacity.
With regard to Boris Johnson, he is a man who is capable of holding two conflicting views at the same and considering both to be valid. The one constant throughout his life has been to do whatever is in his own immediate best interests. Whatever he says one day will be entirely contrary to what he says the next. No heed should be taken of his ramblings. Regrettably Zelensky did.
Johnson thought he was going to be the re-incarnation of Winston Churchill.
Well he certainly hoped the voters would believe so. But, of course, they didn’t…he won an election by promising to abide by the result of the Referendum…which he did (sort of…)…everything else was just winging it. Oh, and lying..
In many ways he is, Churchill was a drunken clown
‘My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly’
Fortunately, that was true.
I believe the phrase was rather more pithy…” Bessie, you are ugly but in the morning I shall be sober”…said to “Battling” Bessie Bradock…no less offensive, of course.
But back then people were more robust…no whingeing to the media, they took care of themselves…
It’s unlikely Winston Churchill ever said those words. If he did he was merely repeating a joke that by that time had been told countless times.
No doubt…a good story nonetheless
Certainly “alcohol dependent” to say the least, but good at the job of war leader. Any other job…not so much…
Every British PM since Churchill (except Wilson and Heath) wanted to be another Churchill.
Ah, Wilson! A great, and intelligent, politician, regrettably the problems he had to face as PM were many and large, not helped by poor advice from the “experts”.
He was wise enough to withdraw from “East of Suez” and stay out of Vietnam despite intense US pressure.
Further he didn’t regard his political career as a means of personal enrichment but tried to benefit the British people.
True. A good writer too. His book on the Labour Government 1964-70 is well worth reading.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will read it.
more like Winston Bogarde
Johnson was my MP. Completely true that he put himself first. Just a Joker parading on the world stage as a paragon of freedom. Not a joke.He (and I would add the BBC Ox bridge twats) have put the UK in grave danger. They should all have been in the Phoenix Theatre on the stage in Les Mis. On the barricades flying a fag .To quote Putin, the UK is Russia’s second enemy . But Johnson is not alone . One of the most bizarre moments was seeing Zelensky, possibly one if the most stupid leaders in history, getting a standing ovation in the British parliament. Shame on all of them.
Yes, and there he was on news footage of Boris at the UK-based Ukraine military training camp, running about like a pudgy Captain Waring with his little gun, tossing blank grenades, pretending to be a soldier. He’s a man-child.
“internal matters of states in Russia’s sphere of influence”
aka the Imperialism you perverts like
To generate enough annoyance to start a war with Russia, supporting Ukraine and its military action resulting in 16,000 deaths in Eastern Ukraine, without ensuring there was sufficient military resources, like equipment, ammunition, missiles, soldiers fit for battle, and quality intelligence, wasn’t smart.
And yet, all I ever heard as a response was that Ukraine had every right to join NATO.
Delusional in the extreme! 🙂
Who is delusional here eh? RUSSIA started the war with its various invasions of sovereign countries in its quest for imperial glory.
You deny Provocation ? Perhaps you should read some Mearsheimer.
Mearsheimer is a senile academic still living in the pre-1914 era.
Read Timothy Snyder if you really want to understand Eastern Europe.
‘Look what you made me do.’
Well. it became part of the EU sphere of influence from 2007 on, when Prodi listed 6 countries as ‘ a virtual circle’ of enlargement; the Caucasus, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. Negotiations began earlier with Moldova, as I remember.
The author ignores the ability that the US has to escalate to reach a peace deal. Beyond the ability to vastly increase aid to Ukraine, the US can also target Russia’s shadow fleet that has allowed it to evade sanctions. If Russian ships can drag anchors and destroy underseas cables, Russia’s shadow fleet can start to get impounded, or suffer severe damage, or just disappear. Russia isn’t the only country capable of illegal aggression.
Exactly, in order to negotiate one must carry a big stick.
Two can play that game. As strategists like to point out, at sea there are two types of vessels: submarines and targets. And unlike Russia, the US is entirely dependent on maritime trade. Russia is not dependent on maritime trade for survival, only for income.
As the Houthi are demonstrating, it is not too difficult to hamstring maritime commerce.
the US is entirely dependent on maritime trade
Oh, those oranges must be from Spain, the milk from Brazil, and the beef from Japan. Haha!
The US is less dependent on trade than Russia or China. The US imports 15.4% of GDP and exports 11.6%, much of that is with Canada and Mexico. Russia imports 18.7% and exports 23%. China is at 17.6% and 19.7%.
Incorrect . The US is no longer dependent on maritime trade. (It ceased ~10 years ago when it became self sufficient in energy)
Unfortunately, it’s not just a question of raw kJ, it’s also a question of what the type of kJ. The US is wholly dependent on diesel, and diesel requires heavy crude. The US has no heavy crude. The US has historically purchased its heavy crude from Venezuela, and from Russia.
Feeling lucky?
Russia might not be reliant on maritime “trade”, but they certainly are reliant on maritime oil shipments via their shadow fleet. Start seizing those ships and Russia will suffer.
No doubt Russia would suffer. But that’s not the criterion. The questions are:
1) Will Russia’s “suffering” be existential? My guess is that it won’t at least not for the short- to medium term. Which leads to the second question:
2) If Russia retaliates on a like-for-like basis, who suffers more, and more critically, and more quickly?
Feeling lucky?
So let’s leave proxy war status and go in direct conflict with Russia ? Sounds like an aggressive move without provocation or justification.
Thomas Fazi thinks he can figure out what’s going to happen when negotiations are underway. He can’t. There’s no way to predict what the outcome will be with any certainty.
Donald Trump knows the best way to proceed when you want to get something done in a complex and uncertain environment. You start talking with the other side, you start taking steps, and you see how things progress.
It’s rather foolish to be like JD Vance and put a plan down before negotiations even start. That does no good and it limits you. He is a poor negotiator, with no training and no experience.
When Donald Trump was in office he always liked to say, “we’ll see what happens”. Those are wise words, and they say more that is helpful than anything Thomas Fazi says in this article about what to expect from Vladimir Putin.
“It’s rather foolish to be like JD Vance and put a plan down before negotiations even start. That does no good and it limits you. He is a poor negotiator, with no training and no experience.”
Obviously learned from the Teresa May school of negotiation.
Perhaps I didn’t read this article as closely as you, but I don’t see emphasis on what to expect at the negotiation table. More about they dynamics of where we are and why, and Russia’s – commenters keep forgetting this involves Russia’s view of the world not merely VP’s – already clear interests.
“Ukraine — and the West — face a difficult decision: either accept Putin’s terms, or endure the continuation of the war, which will further weaken Ukraine’s position (while causing countless more lives to be lost for nothing)“. Third option – give Ukraine nukes. After all, they had legacy Soviet nukes, and gave them up. Put Ukraine back in a position that would enable it to give Russia what it has richly deserved since 1949.
So obviously you’re “joining up” in order to assist with your proposal of widespread war…
As Ukraine had Soviet nukes, they were Moscow’s, not Kiev’s, so they didn’t give them up.
The Soviet military left with them.
The appointment of Keith Kellogg sent a signal of where Trump is on Ukraine that the Author looks to gloss over a little too easily. The Republican consensus for some time, which includes Trump, is whilst Ukraine can’t win this, Putin mustn’t either. It would send the wrong message to all other potential allies of the US and to China about US resolution.
Furthermore Trump’s ego won’t want actions to confirm the view he’s Putin’s poodle. He’s enough problems with President Musk! He’s also keen US oil and gas supplants Russian in Europe. Keeping Putin tied up actually has advantages as he’s then weak elsewhere too.
Ukraine joining NATO would be blocked by Orban and possibly others for the moment, but that does not preclude bi-lateral security deals.
Putin needs a deal too. Whilst he’s no restraint on throwing more young Russians into the meat grinder his economy is creaking and his world position embarrassed and weakened. Ukrainians are war weary but Bucha means they know they can’t capitulate.
The Author has much ‘sunk cost’ in his view on the West’s role in provoking Putin. That thesis is just wrong, factually and morally. Nonetheless worth always reading his reportage through the prism of the outcome he needs for his own credibility.
Like with most things that are wrong in the world today the ultimate culprits are the Clintons and Blair.
Makes a change from it all being Thatcher’s fault….
She did leave office with the country well on its way to being able to finance the plans of Blair, and the Heir to Blair. 🙂
When Thatch left we’d just gone into recession. The 2nd her Govt generated. Too ‘rose tinted’ NS, or maybe you are just too young to remember?
the Conservatives left office in 1997, when the economy was well on the road to recovery . The 2nd recession you mentioned was mostly through our ill-facted attempt to join the Euro Monetary Union. (With hindsight Black Wednesday did us a favour or we’d now be in the Euro)
If Vietnam and Afghanistan didn’t send a message to the USA’s allies, then they must be sound asleep. Even Trump said, correctly, that they haven’t won a war since 1945. That is why the USA fights through proxies, such as Ukraine (as Lindsay Graham said no US troops have died…) and by subversion of foreign governments.
Trump won an election on the “Ukraine isn’t our problem stance” but he won’t be allowed to run with that.
As you say, the war will grind on…the USA is making a lot of money from it. Other countries…they lose, but not their rulers who are doing nicely.
Not sure the Vietnam and Afghan lessons apply much to Ukraine MC. And was the 1st Gulf War when Saddam kicked out of Kuwait a loss? Was the protection of Western Europe with significant US forces deployed for decades a Cold War loss?
As regards Trump winning the election saying one thing and doing another, well he’s going to have that sort of thing transpire in many Policy areas because much was incoherent and contradictory. Trump appointed Kellogg too and had prior supported Johnson agreeing the on-going Ukraine support Bill in the House.
Now Trump said he’ll end it quickly. He has two choices on how he might – cede pretty much everything to Putin, or immediately show the opposite intent to force Putin to the table. Few wks time we have a better understanding which way he’s going but I suspect just might be more the latter than some have thought. He’ll want Europe contributing more of course and he’s not wrong on that.
The first Gulf War was the USA remedying a diplomatic mistake made by its ambassador, so hardly a win, more a restoration of a status quo.
It should be remembered that Iraq under Saddam was effectively a US ally during the Iran/ Iraq war so an object lesson for “allies” once they have served their purpose.
As for the Cold War I am increasingly doubtful that the Soviets were ever likely to go crashing across the North European plain to take Western Europe. They just weren’t capable of doing it, let alone holding it, as is now obvious.
I am reminded of a New York Times contest in the 1920s, I think, for the most shocking headline. The winner was “Franz Ferdinand Alive: Great War Fought by Mistake”. I hope the same isn’t true of the Cold War but I think it may well be. All those resources which could have been better spent on the welfare of normal people…”What a Waste” to quote the late Ian Dury.
And only Trump knows what he will do, and that will change with circumstances.
Btw, there already ARE bilateral security deals, including with the UK.
How the UK benefits is not apparent.
Re: your comment “…his view on the West’s role in provoking Putin. That thesis is just wrong, factually and morally“: for goodness’ sake, this is not a children’s board game about war, and your analysis is naive in the extreme. Read Jeffrey Sachs for some knowledge about this whole situation.
I have. He’s wrong too. The whole premise is wrong.
Much of it is built on a conversation Jim Baker had with Gorbachev. Bush rejected the notion altogether and the revisionists chose to forget that.
As can be seen if you aren’t in NATO your chances of getting the tanks roll in are higher. Thus hardly a surprise adjacent Countries that don’t want to become vassals seek to be part of such an alliance.
Really? Tanks never rolled into Austria which had borders with the Warsaw Pact, and wasn’t in NATO but was neutral.
Didn’t Stalin actually respect the “Naughty Agreement” he made with Churchill, and propose a unified neutral Germany in the early 1950s? But was rejected by the West who then re-armed Germany…
This article is the biggest load of garbage I’ve read about Ukraine in a long time.
The author seems to forget that Putin has turned Russia (that was once taking fledgling steps towards becoming a proper democracy) into a magus state.
Secondly, his invasion of Ukraine was entirely illegal & immoral.
You do not concede to such a tyrant.
Thing thing about dealing with a bully is that people often try to protect the victims of the bully.
Sometimes the only proper action is to give the bully a punch on the nose & face him down.
Underneath, all bullies are cowards & can be faced down.
The mistake the west made was at the start of the war by not providing Ukraine with air cover. As Putin struggled in the early days, to make advances, a few well placed air strikes on Russian positions would have taken the wind out of his sails & given Ukraine tactical advantage.
The idea now, that Putin’s aggression should be recognised is both morally & tactically wrong.
If the West hasn’t the stomach to face him down then at least sit him out.
As we’ve seen recently in Syria, despots don’t last forever & in the ensuing chaos a better deal can be got for Ukraine.
Let’s not give this nonsense house room.
With hindsight, the Minsk Agreements look even better for the West than they did in 2015.
You don’t say. Too bad the neocons are such proud imbeciles that they missed this fact and deal. And now ‘we’ want to blame Russia- which is not without sin -for the terrible results (deaths on both sides). And BTW, some of Trump’s potential appointments don’t help my confidence. There are too many military hawks who don’t know how to keep their nose from where it shouldn’t be.
The Neocons purpose is to protect their own political power in the USA whilst advancing US power abroad. It is emphatically NOT to benefit anyone else, who are treated as mere instruments to advance the above goals.
It is entirely self centred but in its own way admirable. There is no woolly thinking about it whatsoever; it is clear and purposeful. It is others who misunderstand the position.
‘Not without sin’. How polite.
You have a strange view of Yeltsin’s Russia.
NATO should never have expanded east (twice) towards Russia’s borders, it was insane aggression committed by Clinton and Bush Jnr. The US should not have become involved in the 2014 coup in the Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of people have died for this stupidity.
The Ukraine was a part of Russia’s sphere of influence, like Georgia, until the coup. Now NATO want to setup a hostile power on their border, akin to Russia building bases in Canada and Mexico. The resolution to this conflict will have to involve the withdrawal of the offer of NATO membership at least, and the installation of a pro Russia government in Ukraine at worst.
NATO was very reluctant to increase its membership. The push came from the former Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe who had suffered under decades of Societ occupation. They wanted some security guarantees as they set out on their progress towards democracy and prosperity. Can you blame them?
Putin didn’t want more NATO on his borders but that’s exactly what he has achieved with Finland ditching decades of neutrality because of their fear of an expansionist Russia. It’s frankly condescending of people who have never lived under Russian occupation or have a border with Russia to tell those who have what’s in their best interests.
The Russian position is not as strong as this article suggests. The Russian Navy has been defeated in the Black Sea and Russian military might has been shown up as illusory. The US is spending around 5% of its defence budget on Ukraine, spending that has shattered the notion of Russian military competence and destroyed Russian ability, for the time being at least, to extend its ambitions to, for example, the Baltic States. Viewed that way, it’s a bargain.
Respectfully Dougie, I disagree with you. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct result of NATO expansion and the 2014 US orchestrated coup in Ukraine and that’s not me telling Baltic member states what’s best for them, it’s just stating the facts as I see them.
Having read a bit about Day 0 in the collapse of the Soviet Union I don’t think this conflict was inevitable. Is it possible that Putin would have invaded other Eastern European countries if it weren’t for their NATO membership? Sure, I can’t rule that out. My best guess is that they wouldn’t have directly attacked any of the Baltic states but there might be more pro Russia governments in those countries legitimately or illegitimately ala Georgia today.
You say it’s been a bargain, but for who? Russia didn’t pose a direct threat to the lives of US citizens, yet US citizens have paid billions to fight a proxy war paid in dollars and Ukrainian lives. Who’s the winner there? The sanctions imposed by the West on Russia have driven them into the arms of the CCP, and have wreaked absolute havoc on European economies; again, who’s the winner there?
The outcome of this war will be that Ukraine loses, and the terms of peace will be worse than they would have been on Day One when the likes of Johnson and Biden talked Zelensky away from the negotiating table.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan emboldened Russia that the US was getting soft. They knew the EU was reliant on Russian gas and their armament industry was virtually non existent.
Russia is not as strong as portrayed. China and N Korea could be subject to economic pressures if they continue to support Russia. Should Ukraine be given the missiles they want, then the war could be expanded to larger Russian cities so Putin will feel domestic pressure.
The fighting needs to continue to give a much stronger negotiating hand.
That word “emboldened” really rankles. Who do we think we are, some kind of parent figure to children? I think not. We flatter ourselves that we are the responsible ones, when we have been the children.
“talked Zelensky away”? I rather doubt mere talk did it…
Yes, the use of N Korean troops is a strong indication that Russia is in some trouble.
It’s frankly condescending of people who have never lived under Russian occupation or have a border with Russia to tell those who have what’s in their best interests.
While it may be condescending, the US must consider its own interests first. We are depleting much of our conventional weaponry, not to mention a lot of money. It is our right and duty to our own people to limit the damage to our own country. Same for the UK and others.
Many Russians of the right age to be drafted into the military may be reluctant to sign up, but even so, Russia should have no problem meeting its conscription targets. The use of N. Korean troops might be at North Korea’s behest, as a chance to deploy soldiers in an actual theatre of war in order for them to gain battlefield experience, similar to the Nazi’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War.
Russia and Russians also suffered under the Soviets. The USSR was initially headed by a Russian, Lenin, but subsequently by a Georgian, Stalin, and a Ukrainian, Brehznev. Today’s Russia deserves security guarantees and Europe should wish to be on good terms with her but the Neocons say no.
The western expansion of NATO saved the new members from what is being done to Ukraine now and was peaceful.
Russia has valid interests in the strategic choices of its immediate neighbours, but this does not mean it gets to run those countries and let’s not forget that they prefer the western orbit because of past domination by Russia, which is poor, brutal and unstable.
Let’s also remember that most NATO members had no intention of accepting Ukraine.
This article is an exercise in speculation. As such I wonder if it serves any useful purpose.
Now that, Malcolm Webb, is the most succinct, practical and intelligent post here. Apart from mine of course.!
Agreed. I win.
Of course it’s speculation. What else could it be? Do you want to Thomas to just wait until the chips fall where they may, and then give his opinion?
I think the article does serve a purpose, as it’s sparked debate and I’ve learned more from UnHerd reader comments than from the article.Seems to me that Thomas Fazi views conflict resolution as a strategy board game that the playing pieces act out in accordance to fixed rules. Biden, a supposed foreign policy expert, played that way, as if he’d learned strategy from some after-school gaming club, where every one agreed on the rules. Trump seems to understand there are no rules, or at least that they are fluid and change with each dawn.
Millions of words but no one states why this war occured. It is simple. The Ukrainian people wanted stuff. Zelensky promised they would get their hands on EU stuff . Getting stuff seems now to rule the heads of mankind even to the brink of World War 3
Fazi’s articles about Ukraine are one of the weakest contributions to UnHerd. He makes vague statements without resorting to statistics and clear definitions and is clearly influenced by Russian-influenced English speaking sources (one could even less graciously say that he’s uncritically parroting them). As a source for his claim that Ukraine is losing he’s using Putin press conference. Regardless whether this is true or not, using such source is laughable. He should engage with various sources written in Ukrainian and (by all means) in Russian. Also, define how you understand victory, success- give examples of the latest military movements, actions and statistics and where they come from (Russian, Ukrainian or American sources?).
Fazi presents a picture lacking nuisance: Putin wants to negotiate. Zelenskyy doesn’t but now comes round. Russia is stronger. Ukraine is weaker. Sadly, the world is way more complicated. None of these statements are simply true/false.
The author also ignores another important factor in the conversation. If we concede to Putin now, we’re likely going to have another Russian invasion of Europe in 5-10 years, and we show weakness towards other world powers like Iran and China. This is beside the moral questions involved.
The moral thing to do would be to accept a Multi-Polar World.
It makes no sense to me, to fight a real war now, to perhaps avoid a hypothetical war in 5-10 years.
When the USSR fell apart the West completely ignored the fact that the KGB was a state which controlled the country. It was like keeping the SS in charge of Germany post 1945.
After 1921 the Professional Middle Class had either been killed or emigrated. The KGB became the most competent and powerful organisation in the USSR . It was similar to Pakistan, the most competent and powerful institution was the army after independence .
The sale of Soviet assets to oligarchs and the massive poverty especially for middle classes from 1990 to 2000 created vast humiliation for Russians and hatred for the West which propelled Putin into power. The West then weakened itself militarily progressively from 1990 and became dependent on Russian gas.
It is very difficult to think of any correct decisions made by politicians, civil servants, bankers, writers, industrialists, military officers , lawyers since 1990 with regard to Russia. Perhaps it was by the FCO who sent experts from British supermarkets in storage and transportation who managed to get food from the fields into the shops in the early 1990s which prevented mass starvation. Russia had the food but lacked the storage and transportation skills.
Russia depends upon oil and gas. If Trump pushes fracking and brings oil down to Below $60 a barrel and ideally $50, then Putin and Iran will not have the money to cause trouble. This would also help the Developing World lift itself out of poverty.
Yes I agree generally but after the war West Germany was effectively run by ex-N@*!s until that generation died out. The WAllies had no great objection because they were the people who could get things to work.
Compare and contrast the dissolution of the Ba’ath party in Iraq.
“…while causing countless more lives to be lost for nothing…”
Ukrainians may think otherwise.
As for ‘negotiating’ with Putin, what cards do the West hold other than to keep supporting Ukraine to push Russia out? If the West has signalled it is no longer minded to do that, it is not a negotiation, it is a capitulation. Putin understands that even if Mr Fazi does not.
Trump will make it clear to Putin that the US will crank up support if Russia doesn’t accept terms. The idea that the west ‘can’t’ supply Ukraine with enough to defeat Russia (which it has done in the Black Sea let’s remember) is a fantasy. The economies of Western countries utterly dwarf that of Russia, which is taking very heavy losses on the battlefield and is struggling economically – witness the ‘demand’ for sanctions to be lifted. Whatever happens, sanctions should remain if Putin does.
Perhaps the solution is to offer NATO membership to Russia. Problem solved.
Putin asked to join jn 2008.
He said in 2004 he didn’t see a reason why Russia couldn’t be a member ‘if we are treated with respect’. Its political direction would have excluded the possibility anyway, and indeed has led to the invasion of Ukraine.
You have to apply to join, not have a chat behind a glass of vodka.
Or dissolve NATO altogether.
Quite. The Russia will be unleashed!
I think the best hope for peace is that the Ukrainians themselves come to realize that they have been played as useful idiots in support of a proxy way on the part of US/NATO against Russia. No better evidence is the constant US pressure to reduce the conscription age in Ukraine to 18.
The Ukrainian people may well recognise that, but they have no say in the matter.
The Ukrainian people have all the say, even during the war and martial law no one is silencing us unlike in Russia. Perhaps you should refrain on commenting on things you have no idea about.
Alternatively – they’re outraged at the injustice of being attacked without provocation, with enormous consequent loss of life, property and well-being – and they want their territory back. They’ve seen the conduct of the Russian army in the territory it’s seized, and they’ve found it insupportable – and are unwilling to let this pass without consequence. They are also fearful of what Russia will continue to do, if allowed to.
The Ukrainian leadership have repeatedly claimed, rather than quietly conceded, that they are fighting for the west as a whole. If Putin isn’t resisted in Ukraine, there’s no reason to suppose that he won’t scent weakness and contrive some kind of historical justification for a move against one of the Baltic states. Western resolution in support of Ukraine could forestall worse things in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia – or, indirectly, Taiwan.
Nonetheless, the wishes of the Ukrainians matter above all else. If they want peace with extensive concessions to Russia, they should have it. If they wish to be armed to the teeth in order to redouble their efforts, they should be supported in that. Or in anything between those two poles.
As a general point, I don’t see why Russia’s vicious paranoia and habitual bad behaviour towards its neighbours should be accommodated or indulged.
Best regards
I think you are missing a crucial historical point, and that is the very closely intertwined relationship between Russia and Ukraine with Kiev being the birthplace of Russian civilization (Kiev Rus). Further, you are also missing a key point in terms of Russia’s attitude and actions. Specifically, Russia’s actions are no different from those that the IS would and has followed according to the Monroe doctrine. As for Russian paranoia they have every right to be paranoid given their absolutely massive losses during WWII.
Putin often tells the Russian public that their nuclear arsenal keeps Russia safe from invasion. Their military losses in modern conflicts, both WWII and Ukraine reflects their disregard for their soldiers’ lives, as well as the stupidity of their ‘massing’ tactics. The Monroe doctrine refers to interventions in US politics. As Ukraine has shown, most of its people do not think of themselves as Russian and Russia recognised Ukraine’s independence shortly after the collapse of the USSR.
A number of commentators below really do need to read Mearsheimer and others on all this. The Neocons controlling the US military industrial complex engineered thru Nuland and her CIA catspaws the overthrow of a president who knew that neutrality was the best course of action for Ukraine. But the former wanted another market for their goods – as with all NATO countries – so pushed for the coup. NATO leaders have acted through irrational fear rather than on political and military realities. Europeans should stop swallowing the fearmongering from their politicians and refuse to comply with the Neocons’ destructive foreign policy.
Mearsheimer is a sad cvnt, who has no clue of Eastern Europe spouting “wise” bullshit to maintain his political niche (let’s not forget this was the guy foaming at his mouth saying Russia won’t invade and calling the warnings “Western hysteria” and “propaganda”) – and Fazi is a moron of even grander magnitude.. I would need text as long as his article to point out all the factual inaccuracies and simply lack of logic and common sense. I am all for different points of view but really UnHerd, why do you keep publishing this severely biased and illiterate idiot?
I couldn’t agree with you more.
The West can arm Ukraine to the extent needed to halt and partially reverse Russia’s advance if it wants. It also holds colossal levers over the Russian economy, which is why the Russians insist on sanctions being lifted.
It really cant. Not to think of continuing to prevent bankruptcy and hyper inflation.
There is much unused capacity esp in the US. It’s mainly given Ukraine redundant surplus. The ‘fear of escalation’ has held the west back as well as some capacity constraints in Europe.
Putin’s demands, Ukraine’s demands…you may think that negotiations never change things,but history shows otherwise.
I think the conflict resolves itself, although this may take longer than the new American administration would like, Russia will likely declare “mission accomplished” once they have control of all of the Donbas.
Trump can limit support for Ukraine during this phase with the proviso to Russia, that if they seek further gains, large scale back stops will come into effect. That should be enough, since Russia is unlikely to want to conduct further campaigns outside of its well established logistic hubs it’s currently operating from anyway.
The only question that then remains is how much more blood and treasure both sides are willing to expend before bringing the war to a close.
Russia’s hubris over Ukraine was incredible: an attempted blitzkrieg became a near three year war of attrition which despite its upper hand on the battlefield currently continues to involve crippling losses. Putin would not have attempted the invasion if he knew this would happen. He is not in a ‘strong position’.
Trump’s biggest problem will be to find a way out of the unwinnable catastrophe that his predecessor created without being blamed for “losing Ukraine.”
Truman was blamed for “losing China” after 1949, though it was never his to lose in any real, operational sense. Kennedy did not get out of Vietnam before he was assassinated for fear of being accused of “losing Vietnam” before his 1964 re-election campaign. After Johnson became President, he went deeply into Vietnam despite having been told be people he somewhat trusted that it could turn into a quagmire, for fear of being accused of “losing Vietnam” and thereby jeopardizing his beloved Great Society program.
At least the China and Vietnam messes were bad situations that pre-existed American involvement, whereas previous American Administrations from Clinton to Biden bear much responsibility for the Ukraine war.
Loosing Ukraine, maybe. What about winning Russia back, at least being neutral in the struggle if the US with China, instead of forcing Russia into an alliance with China? Couldn’t this be the strategic and public relations way out?
“Preventing Ukraine from joining Nato was, after all, the primary rationale for Russia’s military operation. ”
No, a basic error, misunderstanding Putin’s ambitions to reinstate Russia’s dominance in the Black Sea region and Eastern Europe.
Putin has still not recovered from the trauma of the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
Correct. Pitin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to conquer and rule Ukraine. Preventing them from joining Nato is just a partial method to that end.
Regardless of how the war ends, Russia should remain blacklisted for decades. It is a criminal culture.
Trump will end the war in Ukraine and thus the floods of Ukrainian and Russian blood, blood on the hands of the West with its amoral riding of – dubious – principles, and pushing for the impossible, a Ukrainian victory. Yes, Trump does face resistance in Washington, from both aisles, yet these forces lost in the last election and Trump has, as the polls in the US show, a popular mandate to end the war in the only way possible, which now means on Russia´s terms. It will work because Trump is able, first, to reestablish trust between the US and Russia and, second, accept the Russian terms as one means necessary to stop pushing Russia into the Chinese sphere of influence, or even to reverse this geopolitical disaster for the West. Verbally belligerent and militarily impotent Western Europe will simply be ignored in this world of grown-ups.
All those Ukrainian lives lost for nothing?Their
cities lying in ruins their citizens being sheltered around the World – all this for nothing?
This would signal to China, N Korea and other dictatorships that the West has little backbone. The instant withdrawal from Afghanistan is one reason why Putin attacked Ukraine
If Ukraine had the weapons they requested and could unleash them so that Russia really felt the impact in Moscow and other cities, it would give the West a much stronger negotiating position in peace talks.
Iran for one would feel confident that NATO has no backbone.Europe and Canada needs to rapidly expand their military capabilities and relieve the US of the financial burden burden.
So far as I know, Iran is nowhere near the North Atlantic or threaten any member of NATO. It is therefore no concern whatsoever of NATO.
Really? Iran exports terror globally to the West. Including attempting to assinate Donald Trump.
Does it? I thought that was Al Qaeda/ IS who are Sunni, Iran is mainly Shia.
I am unaware of any Iranian inspired terrorist attacks in the UK.
see if you can think of a reason other than Afghanistan for why Russia acted. And if Ukraine had the weapons you speak of and used them on Russian cities, those Russians might strike at the countries that supplied said weapons.
Well done Thomas. You will have ruffled the feathers of European hawks with your realisms. The arrogance of European leaders to shun diplomacy will be the downfall.
By rejecting earlier opportunities for negotiation — when Ukraine was in a stronger position — Western leaders have allowed Russia to consolidate its military gains, leaving little incentive for Putin to compromise.
A cynic might say that was intentional.
Russia must gain as little as possible from negotiations.
Fazi is a Leftist (self-proclaimed at that) and thus has built-in reality-blinders combined with probable hostility toward Trump. The overwhelming possibility is that Trump will succeed in ending the Ukraine war because he excels at crafting settlements (“deals”) that all sides find acceptable (and often even beneficial). Mark this prediction and watch.
The main problem is the poor quality of European leadership, not least for talking themselves into a position from which they cannot retreat without making themselves look like the fools they are. Western Governments have forgotten that the key to successful diplomacy is to say as little as possible when grappling with very serious geopolitical problems while never walking away from the role diplomacy (and only diplomacy) can play in resolving serious geopolitical problems.
“The deeper challenge here lies in navigating the profound mistrust between Russia and the West. This demands a fundamental shift in the West’s approach: abandoning its (failed) attempts to isolate and weaken Russia, and taking genuine steps to address Russia’s security concerns.”
The above is the most significant passage in the article. The only pragmatic approach is to try to see things from Russia’s point of view. Soviet days are done, but geopolitically little has changed. Russia has a historic fear of “encirclement”. It also has a historic and present need for warm-water ports. Western involvement in Ukraine going back more than a decade has only made matters worse.
Well, I am not sure what chops the author has to comment on regarding what could occur in Ukraine. However, it doesn’t really seem to matter if you are a translator or the Foreign Minister, Secretary of State, and any other “expert” on Foreign Policy. The aforementioned clowns (not the author) have been screwing it up big time since 1950 and if the same educated idiots remain in position, I have no real hopes of any lasting settlement.
Trump is the wild card in this. As mentioned, he is a transactionalist and will always try to work it out. If he can’t he will do what is best for the interests of the U.S.
Here is my guess: Russia and Ukraine will settle and Russia will annex some amount of traditional Russian land in exchange for bucks and energy. That should have happened before the war began, it is logical and benefits both countries. The West and their leaders have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands with their agenda-driven support for Ukraine without ANY real adults in their governments to try to talk it out.
Sad and tragic.
“Ukraine — and the West — face a difficult decision: either accept Putin’s terms, or endure the continuation of the war, which will further weaken Ukraine’s position (while causing countless more lives to be lost for nothing).”
This seems to make the decision easy.
It is bizarre to see this line here: “US orchestrated coup in Ukraine.” This is just Kremlin’s propaganda, clear and simple. After the “coup” Ukraine held free and fair competitive elections. And a bit of the same: “taking genuine steps to address Russia’s security concerns.“ In recent years there have never been any genuine „Russia’s security concerns.“ Nobody can believe that NATO countries could have had any expansionist designs about invading Russian territory either from Ukraine or from the Baltic States. All this is about Russian imperialist aggression against neighbouring countries, nothing else.
Presently, the idea of negotiating to end the war is obviously a good one, but to end the sanctions against Russia would mean that expansionist military aggression is an effective way to achieve imperialist goals.
When your last words are famous Thomas, I trust you will come back and say ‘I was wrong’
Mr Fazi makes two core points in his essay.
It is the stupidity of the West that lead to this situation. Negotiations should have started when Ukraine was in a stronger position.
The West should defer to Russian demands for hegemony or conquest of the areas that constituted the former Soviet Union.
Mr Fazi neglects to note that Russia is advancing its goals through violence, subversion, and duplicity. Apparently, these policies are sanctioned for Russia. Defense is condemned as stupid for Ukraine.
The many hawks in this comment section amaze me. All this talk of punishing Putin, give him a hiding, teach him a lesson, Russia is evil, etc. etc. It’s as if they have completely forgotten that we are talking about a major nuclear power here. Weapons that Putin has said he will use if Russia faces “a critical threat to its sovereignty.” I for one would hate to play chicken with Putin with respect to that promise, and I pray decision-makers in the Western world feel the same.
Okay then: let’s accept whatever part of Ukraine that Russia leaves us, welcome it into the EU and NATO, and then turn poverty to it all the frozen Russian assets in western banks that have been seized from Putin’s oligarchs Ukraine’s needs these funds for reconstruction.. Let Putin live with NATO on his border and no relations with the free wold forever.
Among all Thomas Fazi’s clear and insightful work, this piece stands out for its ability to bring all the unstated complexities into sharp relief in minimum word-time.
Here is Mearsheimer saying that the Russians won’t invade Ukraine. https://x.com/osmnactej/status/1874796439408419271. As for this piece TL;DR
There are many criticisms one can make of the west opposite Russia and Ukraine, but views that put the majority of the blame for this war on the west simply never make sense.