7 Strategies That Could Prolong the War in Ukraine: What to Avoid for Lasting Peace

On February 18, U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia to start discussions aimed at ending the ongoing war in Ukraine. This was the first significant dialogue since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, but notably, Ukrainian representatives were not included. Leading up to this meeting, former U.S. President Donald Trump made some concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin and advised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, warning him that he was playing with fire, potentially risking World War III. While negotiating with Russia could be a strategic move, it only makes sense if Trump holds firm on demanding certain conditions during talks.

So far, Trump’s approach resembles the Minsk agreements from 2014, which followed Russia’s annexation of Crimea. These agreements, made by leaders from France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, aimed to create a cease-fire and a political resolution in the conflict areas of Donbas. However, these agreements failed to bring lasting peace, as Putin later ignored them during his 2022 invasion. The current talks risk repeating past mistakes by excluding key parties and rushing toward a cease-fire without proper guarantees.

The Minsk agreements were flawed from the start. They didn’t ensure effective consequences for violations, and both agreements were signed after significant military defeats for Ukraine. Many Ukrainians viewed these agreements as imposed on them, leading to widespread resentment. A 2019 movement called “No to Capitulation!” protested against any political compromises to Russia, demonstrating the deep mistrust of these agreements among the Ukrainian people.

Beyond this, the agreements asked for Russian troop withdrawal conditioned on local elections in occupied territories, which many saw as a way for Russia to maintain influence in Ukraine. Even after these flawed agreements, Russia unilaterally conducted local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, ignoring the terms of the Minsk framework. This pattern of manipulation highlights the need for stronger oversight and accountability in current negotiations.

Today, if Russia seeks to meddle again, it’s essential that Ukrainian leaders and civil society stay vigilant. They recognize that rushing into negotiations will not protect Ukraine’s interests. A proper agreement must have clear definitions, obligations, and include consequences for violations. Trust needs to be built through transparent processes and strict enforcement mechanisms. The size and complexity of the current conflict, with a vast frontline and modern warfare tactics, demand a robust approach that past agreements lack.

Moreover, Europe must take a more active role in these negotiations. The lessons learned from the Minsk agreements show the dangers of excluding crucial stakeholders. Europe has a vested interest in Ukraine’s security, recognizing that stability there affects the entire continent. Ensuring a unified front in supporting Ukraine’s position in negotiations will be key to finding a viable path forward.

Trump has suggested a quick timeline for a cease-fire, but such haste could allow Russia to manipulate the process. It’s crucial to stabilize the frontlines before any talks can begin to ensure that issues don’t complicate negotiations. The mistakes of the past should guide current efforts to form a lasting peace that truly considers the interests of all parties involved. Leveraging these lessons will be vital to forming a legitimate agreement that can ultimately help end the conflict and protect U.S. interests.

Source link