Wanting to get something done and getting it done are always tricky in serious conflict resolution negotiations – and President Donald Trump may be about ready to throw in the towel when it comes to ending the Russia-Ukraine war. The bilateral meeting, if it comes off, between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, is shaping up to be the most complex and challenging in modern history. Ending the conflict between Ukraine and Russia turns on several key issues. Among the most significant are Ukraine’s sovereignty and security guarantees. Equally important are territorial disputes.
Trump Takes a Timeout
Following the Monday, August 18, multilateral meeting, the process was set in motion to convene two subsequent meetings. The first, and proving to be the most problematic, was to be a bilateral discussion between Presidents Putin and Zelensky. If that meeting held promise for more productive peace negotiations, there would be a tri-lateral summit with Zelensky, Putin, and Trump. But now President Trump is signaling that he will step back for now and take a break from trying to broker peace.
“I’m not happy about anything about that war. Nothing. Not happy at all,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, August 22. He said he plans to take “two weeks” to decide whether to hit Russia harder economically or to simply step aside and leave Ukraine to fight its own battles. “We’ll know which way I’m going, because I’m going to go one way or the other,” he explained.
One might think that getting two leaders to talk to each other wouldn’t be so difficult, and the White House announced earlier in the week that Putin had committed to attending such a meeting. Yet still the Kremlin downplays the likelihood of it actually happening. One issue is that meeting directly with Zelensky implies Russia’s recognition that he’s the legitimate leader of a sovereign nation, undermining the legitimacy of Putin’s invasion.
President Trump has said he’ll give Putin some time to decide whether to meet with his Ukrainian counterpart, however. If no meeting occurs, “I’ll se whose fault it is,” he explained. “It’s going to be a very important decision,” Trump said. “And that’s whether or not it’s massive sanctions or massive tariffs or both, or do we do nothing and say ‘It’s your fight,’?”
Bringing Peace to Ukraine?
Still, arranging the meeting is the easy part. What’s considerably less simple is resolving the issues of territorial concessions between Ukraine and Russia. The latter has demanded that former give up the areas that the Kremlin troops occupy: Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea, as a condition for peace talks. Zelensky, on the other hand, has been just as insistent on the complete withdrawal of Russian forces and the reestablishment of the internationally recognized borders established in 1991. In light of current battlefield realities, neither of these is a plausible outcome of any negotiations. Ukraine will be unwilling to give up all of the Donbass region, with its defensible western bulwark that Russia has been unable to capture since the beginning of the conflict. Russia sees its occupation of portions of Donbass, Luhansk, and Crimea as settled and is not willing to give them back. Additionally, as The Wall Street Journal observed, “Negotiating directly with Zelensky would run sharply counter to the narrative Putin has carefully constructed and sold to Russians in an effort to justify his 2022 invasion of Ukraine: that the war is part of a broader conflict with the West in which Zelensky and his country are mere pawns.”
The gap between the Ukrainian and Russian positions needs to be narrowed before a substantive peace agreement can be achieved. It is most likely President Trump’s rationale for pushing the one-on-one meeting between Zelensky and Putin as an overture to the more detailed meeting, including Trump. Let the acrimonious bickering get settled, if possible, before the tri-lateral discussions. Trump wants to be a facilitator for success, not a referee.
Many see Zelensky’s position requiring compromise, even with the real threat of US secondary tariffs on Russian foreign customers. Victor Davis Hanson recounted in The Daily Signal the history of Finland and Russia. It was through negotiations and deterrence that Finland survived with its independence. Finland agreed to give up 10% of its territory for peace in 1939. Hanson explained, “What was the result? There was an independent Finland. It agreed not to join, in further years, the enemies of Russia and not to be an ally of Russia. It was like Austria or Switzerland.” Additionally, speaking to the need for compromise, Alesander Stubb referred to this historical precedent in his remarks at the White House meeting of European leaders.
And, if there is a peace negotiation agreement, then what? How does Ukraine prevent another Russian invasion? Zelensky has been adamant that any peace settlement must come with security guarantees. Now that any hope of joining NATO has faded, how does ensuring Ukraine’s safety look? European leaders have agreed in principle to a Europe-led peacekeeping force stationed in Ukraine. Trump has called the security arrangements a NATO Title 5-like situation. The Associated Press reported, “Kyiv’s European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement, and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan, and Australia, has signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work.”
Security for Kyiv
However, at the same time, Trump has categorically ruled out US troops deployed to Ukraine. What President Trump has not ruled out, however, is the use of US airpower to secure the skies over Ukraine. Additionally, there is a $90 billion military arms deal between the US and Ukraine on the table. President Putin opened the door to security guarantees for Ukraine at the Alaska meeting with Donald Trump. What Putin’s idea of security guarantees and what Zelensky’s understanding is may not be the same.
There are many speed bumps to overcome before any of the meetings take place. The fact that Putin clearly wants negotiations while the fighting continues is evidence that he believes he can gain momentum on the battlefield to help his position. However, Moscow’s forces’ yard-by-yard acquisition of territory is exacting a terrible toll on Russian forces. So, for Putin protracting the negotiations in hopes of using battlefield success as leverage may be very expensive. Furthermore, Putin’s legacy of reneging on agreements and the Kremlin’s reluctance to get on board with the talks publicly casts a shadow on the potential for success. Nonetheless, the Trump factor in bringing closure to international negotiations of any kind is formidable and cannot be discounted.
~
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.
