The Ukraine War Requires a Negotiated Settlement

There is no doubt that the goal of war is to win. War aims may differ considerably depending on the context, but at the end of the day victory is the ultimate aim. This is why the struggle during conflict is long and arduous, because the aims can lead to great rewards. Yet there comes a time when one side, usually the losing side, must begin to consider realistically its future ability to carry on. Indeed sometimes this applies to both sides, as the cost of continued fighting outweighs the geopolitical benefits. Initially, there may only be private utterances among senior officials, or classified communiques between diplomats, yet they begin to form the basis of a ‘get out’ strategy as prospects decline.

In the medieval period, deals were very common after rebel barons failed to defeat the king in battle. The monarch may take the head of the leading conspirator and attainder his lands, but most of the co-rebels would be free to return to their estates if they reaffirmed their commitment to the king. In the 19th century, British gunboats would bombard relentlessly, yet they didn’t necessarily do this to conquer; instead, they sought to force China or other states to open their ports to trade or acknowledge their status as vassals of the empire. Britain never sought to conquer China during the Opium Wars, because there were other ways of acquiring victory and achieving a lasting peace. This methodology still applies in the present day.

Currently, Ukraine is approaching three years of full-scale war with the world’s largest nation, Russia. Over the last year, they have been pushed back in the southeast, after failing to make a decisive breakthrough in their 2023 summer counter-offensive. Zelensky’s decision to invade the Kursk region, when his troops were badly needed elsewhere, has probably ended any chances of recovering the Donbass and the land bridge to Crimea. Many supporters of Ukraine praised this act of risk; yet it has turned into a quagmire, and now North Korean troops are reportedly fighting there as well. Personally, I cannot understand why such a decision was taken, as countless western forays into Russian territory have throughout history been decisively defeated. Moscow knows its territory is big enough to absorb such offensives without it affecting their economy or major cities, unlike most other nations.

With the election of Donald Trump to his second term as president of the United States, there is a higher chance of the conflict being brought to a more realistic conclusion. This is certainly not popular on social media or in politics, where Ukrainian supporters want the Russians thrown out and Putin overthrown. On the other hand, Russophiles either want all the Russian-speaking and Russian-populated areas annexed, or the downright ridiculous idea of marching all the way to the Polish border. The reality is that neither side has the strength to accomplish what their supporters really want, as they both continue to fight a 21st-century version of the Western Front in 1914-18. Putin committed too few troops in his initial invasion in 2022 and ended up having to retreat from the north of the country. Yet despite Western aid—the most critical factor keeping Zelensky’s troops in the war—Ukraine cannot match Russia’s larger population reserves and military-industrial complex. If things continue the way they are going, we are looking at years of war in which the Russians slowly crawl westwards towards Kiev and the Dnieper river. Considering how slow their progress has been thus far, it would take them a decade to conquer the whole country.

With this in mind, would it not be better for Ukraine to sign an agreement that ends the conflict before they lose even more territory? Would a repeat of the Minsk 2 accords—essentially freezing the conflict and implementing a ceasefire—be a worthy option? Donald Trump, who has claimed he would end the conflict in one day (a boast which is not particularly realistic), has several options he could pursue. The one outlined above is the most likely, because it does not require military force from Washington, and it has already been attempted with partial success. Putin would be able to save face by appeasing his supporters with some new territory, yet Ukraine would be able to (correctly) claim they had managed to thwart him from taking most of the country.

Considering the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have occurred—and the atrocities that always accompany such conflicts—it would give both sides breathing space and some return to normality. The citizens of both countries have endured the threat of conscription for quite a while, and although their governments can only draft a certain amount each year so as to ensure their economies keep functioning, they are both beginning to feel the strain. This is why Putin signed a military pact in Pyongyang which gave weapons to North Korea in return for their soldiers, and why Zelensky was granted clearance by President Biden to use long range missiles for the first time. Although both of these developments have been perceived as an escalation (which they are to some degree), they bear the hallmarks of desperation as well.

The battle of Bakhmut may have grabbed the headlines and shown the public the true nature of 21st century warfare, but it distracted from the reality that this war has been one giant slog. Every Ukrainian or Russian victory has taken months of trench warfare and unprecedented artillery fire, which have levelled towns like Mariupol and Chasov Yar. Entire regions of farmland have been reduced to muddy squalor and will take years to recover. The war could feasibly continue for a decade or more, but Ukraine’s demographics would suffer greatly as its dwindling population of 18-45 year olds is used up. There is currently a huge deficit of teenagers and children in the country, as so many fled with their parents during the initial campaigns, and thus many Ukrainians are growing up in other countries. Zelensky’s administration could sign deals with other nations to bring them back to serve as they mature, but it’s difficult to see how this could be policed over the long term. Meanwhile, Russia has the benefit of a larger population to dip into, as well as central Asian migrants to fill labour shortages whilst soldiers are away. Yet, politically speaking, Putin cannot keep this going on indefinitely, as his people will need to witness results, especially as the casualties continue to mount.

Donald Trump could be a saviour to both of the leaders, allowing both sides to save face whilst ending a war which is eating away at the world’s geopolitical stability. He may just be the right president at the right time, though he will face stiff opposition from Europe. Many nations on the continent, but most specifically Britain and Germany, have spent untold billions keeping Ukraine in the war, and they will not favour a deal that removes the prospect of total victory. For three years, they have viewed the idea of compromise as traitorous, and they have sharply criticised opposition parties for suggesting any form of negotiations. Indeed, even Hungarian President Viktor Orban’s common sense diplomatic ‘peace mission’ earlier this year was greeted with bizarre levels of hostility from London and Brussels.

It will be hard for European governments to change tack and promote a different narrative. Yet Europe’s security relies on NATO and thus the United States, and therefore they will have no choice but to acquiesce to whatever Trump’s White House eventually decides. There is no doubt that the tectonic plates—culturally speaking—have shifted quite significantly over the last few months in regards to woke culture and immigration. Yet in regards to foreign policy, it’s this war more than anything that needs a pragmatic, long-term solution. This will only come with a shift to the political Right as well, and hopefully we are about to experience that transition.

There’s an alternative path that is still possible despite the longevity of this conflict, it will just take willpower to embrace it. The perceived wisdom is to support Ukraine, and I can sympathise with people wanting to help a country that has been invaded. Yet this war, like many others, is vastly more complicated than many realise, and it has the potential to escalate into something very dangerous. Wanting an end to the war does not, as some argue, mean favouring Russia. It simply means understanding the complexity of the conflict, understanding the situation on the ground, and wanting to spare Europe years of further instability. Acknowledging the fact that neither side can win an outright victory is a viewpoint that is steadily gaining traction in diplomatic circles. As realism seeps into the geopolitical narrative, hopefully President Trump can lead the way during his second term and bring the war to a sensible conclusion.