Putin’s peace offer: deal or no deal?

Russian President Vladimir Putin laid out a series of conditions on Friday that he said would bring a “final resolution” to the war in Ukraine.

The conditions, Putin said, “are very simple.” Ukraine must “completely” withdraw from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and renounce any intention to join NATO.

“As soon as kyiv announces that it is ready for such a solution and begins the real withdrawal of troops from these regions,” Putin said, “and also officially notifies us of the refusal of plans for membership in NATO, of our side, immediately, literally at that moment, the order will be given to cease fire and to begin negotiations. I repeat: we will do it immediately.

He continued:

Our principled position is as follows: the neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification, especially since these parameters were generally agreed during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022.

While guaranteeing the “unhindered and safe withdrawal” of Ukrainian troops, Putin also warned that if Ukraine and “Western capitals” rejected the offer, they would then bear the “ultimate political and moral responsibility for continuing of bloodshed.”

As expected, the response to Putin’s ukase was not encouraging.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin responded by saying that Putin “is not in a position to dictate to Ukraine what it must do to achieve peace”, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said described this opening as simple “propaganda”.

That said, if American foreign policy were not run by megalomaniacs, they would at least consider this plan, given that – as I have written before – the question of who governs Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia is not does not concern us. at least.

And given the state of the situation on the ground in Ukraine – the economic ruin, the millions of refugees, the hundreds of thousands of war victims – Ukraine should consider accepting this deal, but it won’t for the simple fact that Zelensky probably wouldn’t survive if he did. The far-right ultras who, let us remember, started this conflagration in February 2014 would seek to obtain his (ultimate?) dismissal. And this is something they could now accomplish with at least a patina of legality since Zelensky overstayed his constitutional term, having refused to hold presidential elections in May.

Putin’s most recent demands seem maximalist: If he is serious, he will likely have to forcibly withdraw Ukrainian forces from the territory he has officially annexed. Before taking full control over them. This will lead to a prolongation, or even – if we are to believe the threats emanating from the Elysée – an extension of the war.

Ideally, Ukrainian neutrality would be enough for Putin; Russia’s view regarding NATO expansion was defended. A key question is whether Putin has the opportunity to moderate his demands?

Indeed, as prominent Russia expert Nicolai N. Petro of the University of Rhode Island told me, “Russia offers something that Ukraine does not: a way to end the bloodshed.” ; just withdraw the troops. Please note that no recognition of territorial concessions is requested.”

Ultimately, it can come down to options, as in: Who has the most? Despite the blistering rhetoric emerging from last weekend’s “peace conference” near Lucerne, Switzerland, Zelensky appears to be strapped for resources, while Putin — with another six years in office, a strong economy, support (implicit) China, a larger army and population, and a military-industrial complex operating at full capacity – has many others.

As Professor Petro points out, “Putin’s proposal belies Western claims that Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine and, from there, conquer all of Europe. It explicitly limited Russia’s territorial objectives to the four partially occupied regions. Period.”

Subscribe today

Receive daily emails in your inbox

To some, Putin’s proposal appears destined to be rejected, with the aim of laying the groundwork for a longer war. But the United States should not dismiss its peace advocates out of hand.

The Biden administration, if it had actual diplomats working for it, could try to use them as a starting point for negotiations.