By Ranjan Solomon
Ukraine and the US recently proposed a ceasefire agreement, but Russia has rejected it and offered an alternative proposal. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that while he agrees with the idea of a temporary ceasefire, it should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of the war. Putin’s alternative proposal undermines the US and Ukraine’s goals, as it would grant Russia significant advantages. Russia would be allowed to continue military recruitment, production of military equipment, and receipt of military aid, while Ukraine would be restricted from doing so.
Russia’s rejection of the ceasefire proposal and its counteroffer suggest that Putin is holding the proposal hostage and attempting to extract concessions before formal negotiations begin. This move is consistent with Russia’s previous actions, as it has been accused of using negotiations as a delaying tactic to continue its military advances. The situation on the ground remains tense, with Russian forces continuing their offensive operations in eastern Ukraine. Despite some Ukrainian counterattacks, Russian forces have made marginal gains in the Kupyansk direction.
Russia’s demands in the Ukraine conflict are multifaceted and have evolved over time. At its core, Russia seeks to halt Ukraine’s integration with Western institutions, particularly NATO. Russia will not stop shot at demanding halting NATO expansion. Russia wants to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and has called for a ban on NATO military exercises in Ukraine.
As far as territorial control goes, Russia demands recognition of its annexation of Crimea and control over the Donbas region. Russia seeks to limit Ukraine’s sovereignty by designating it as a “neutral, non-aligned, and non-nuclear” state. Russia demands protection for Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine, which could be used as a pretext for future interference.
As yet another pre-condition, Russia wants to demilitarize Ukraine, which would significantly weaken its ability to defend itself. These demands are non-negotiable for Russia, and it has shown willingness to use military force to achieve its objectives.
Ukraine’s stance on negotiations with Russia has been shaped by the ongoing conflict and the country’s commitment to sovereignty. Ukraine’s non-negotiable dimensions are in sharp contrast in multiple ways. Ukraine insists on the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from its territory. Ukraine declines to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea or the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Ukraine is stubbornly committed to its goal of joining NATO and will not abandon its bid for membership. This factor alone makes the entire peace process a non-starter although even NATO countries and some European countries do not want Ukraine in NATO. Of these Hungary and Germany are votaries against Ukraine being in NATO. The USA has also asserted this position. These alone make a NATO membership complicated for Ukraine.
Hungary Hungary’s Concerns has expressed concerns about the treatment of the ethnic Hungarian minority in Ukraine, particularly in the Zakarpattia Oblast. Hungary wants to ensure that the rights of the Hungarian minority, including language and cultural rights are protected. There are also historical border disputes between Hungary and Ukraine, which have contributed to tensions between the two countries.
Germany has traditionally had close economic and energy ties with Russia, and has been cautious not to antagonize Russia further. Germany has emphasized the need for a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine, rather than a military one. Some in Germany have also expressed concerns about NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, and the potential for it to be seen as provocative by Russia. These concerns highlight the complexities of European politics and the need for careful diplomacy in addressing the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Russia views NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, particularly in Ukraine, as a direct threat to its national security. Russia has historically sought to maintain a buffer zone between itself and NATO, and sees Ukraine as part of this buffer. On the flip side, Russia has also been accused of seeking to maintain its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, and views Ukraine’s NATO membership as a challenge to this influence.
Ukraine and its Western allies argue that Ukraine’s NATO membership is a matter of sovereignty, and that Russia has no right to dictate Ukraine’s foreign policy choices.
Ukraine and its allies also argue that NATO membership is necessary for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, particularly in the wake of the 2014 annexation of Crimea. NATO membership is seen as a way to bring stability and security to the region, and to counter Russian efforts to destabilize Ukraine.
Some argue that Ukraine’s NATO membership is part of a broader containment strategy aimed at reigning in Russian aggression and expansionism. NATO membership is seen as a way to deter Russian aggression, by making it clear that any attack on Ukraine would be met with a collective response from the alliance. By promoting stability and security in Ukraine, NATO membership is seen as a way to promote stability in the broader region, and to reduce the risk of Russian aggression.
Russia has consistently demanded that Ukraine must not join NATO and has sought guarantees that the alliance will not expand further eastward. Ukraine, on the other hand, has been adamant about its right to join NATO and has received support from several Western countries.
The issue of NATO membership is closely tied to the broader conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and any resolution to the conflict will likely need to address this issue. However, it’s unclear what compromises might be possible, as both sides have taken firm stances on the matter.
Russia will not likely accept the very light and vague “readiness to accept” a ceasefire unless the promise to “immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security” also addresses some of Russia’s key concerns about their long-term security. Russia is unlikely to accept a 30-day ceasefire that could just end with resumption of fighting with rested and resupplied Ukrainian armed forces. And they are unlikely to accept the possibility of endless extensions that the agreement offers that would freeze the situation in a manner that addresses none of the concerns that Russia went to war for.
Russia might be willing to accept a ceasefire agreement that includes promises of relief from some sanctions. They will likely insist on possession of all or some of the Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as constitutional guarantees of protection of the ethnic Russians in the regions that remain part of Ukraine and of permanent Ukrainian neutrality, including no membership in NATO.
In return, Russia might we willing to negotiate the return of some of the annexed territory, to use unfrozen Russian assets to help rebuild Ukraine, and to abandon their demand for the demilitarization of Ukraine on condition that weapons supplied by the West be restricted to defensive weapons with no long range capacity to strike inside Russian territory. Much of this is possible, since the U.S. and Russia have said that the “Istanbul protocol agreement” will be used as a “framework” and “guidepost” in the negotiations.
And there is some evidence that the ceasefire is coming with some preconditions. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed, for example, that the Saudi Arabia talks with Ukraine included discussions about “territorial concessions.” Zelensky said the same day that Ukraine “will not recognize any occupied territories as Russia’s.” But the refusal to formally and legally “recognize” the loss of the territory does not preclude the de facto recognition of the reality that those territories will remain under Russian control unless they can be won back through diplomacy at a later date. Zelensky has previously conceded that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back,” while still insisting that Ukraine “cannot legally acknowledge any occupied territory of Ukraine as Russian.” The conundrum is that negotiations without those conditions could be unbearable for Putin, while negotiations with those conditions could be politically and domestically unbearable for Zelensky.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has baptized Putin as “manipulative” and said the Russian leader would either stall or try to kill the deal. US President Donald Trump once again signaled that Ukraine would have to make territorial concessions to Russia and that its desire to join the NATO alliance was a non-starter.
Trump described the negotiations as a “complicated” process of redrawing international boundaries: “You’re sort of creating the edge of a country.” A poll released from Reuters and Ipsos found that 56 percent of Americans felt Trump was “too closely aligned” with Russia. Peter Zalmayev, a political scientist in Kyiv and the executive director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, has told Al Jazeera he would be wary of any peace deal that would sacrifice Ukrainian territory. Russia currently occupies 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, and Zalmayev said surrendering that area would have a “severe impact on international law”. But then? What exactly constitutes the 20 percent? And will that 20 percent all of a sudden balloon to, let’s say, 25 percent?”
Zalmayev observes: “Ukraine might actually be at peace with the idea of exchanging that loss for a promise of solid guarantees of security, investment, economic development. Russia may push to retain control of those areas as well, if territorial concessions are on the table. Ukraine would have to cede those cities like Kherson, which fought back and was recaptured from the Russians at the cost of thousands of lives of soldiers… “It could create significant discontent on the part of the returning soldiers, veterans, et cetera. And that in itself, I think, Vladimir Putin is very cognizant of and actually would not mind chaos in Ukraine.”
Occupied territory is a ‘bargaining chip’ for Putinaccording to experts.Territorial concessions are not the main goal of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.“For Vladimir Putin, territory is not the main issue. The war is not for territory. The war is for the future security architecture in Russia, and I think Putin quite genuinely sees this war as existential for Russia.” The longer the war stretches on, the more Russia will gain the upper hand. TheRussians have been continuing their slow advance in Ukraine for many months – for over a year. This seems to be what is probably going to continue if no peace deal is achieved at the moment.
Putin figures that with every month of fighting continuing, Ukraine is losing, and the deal that is feasibly attainable by Ukraine is getting worse with each month Ukraine continues to remain in the battle. Putin is just waiting for Kyiv to admit that there is no way out from this war except negotiations.”
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a significant asset in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Specifically, it has become a key data analysis tool that helps operators and war fighters make sense of the growing volume and amount of information generated by numerous systems, weapons and soldiers in the field. As AI use continues to evolve, its application on the current Ukrainian and future battlefields will translate into more precise and capable responses to adversary forces, movements and actions. Ukraine’s application of this technology in combat is made possible by both government and private sector efforts. On balance, Ukraine seems to be gaining more from using this technology, although it’s too early to predict whether such a technological edge will translate into significant gains against entrenched Russian positions. So far, Ukraine has managed to maintain a human-centric approach toward AI use, with operators making the final decisions. In my view, Ukraine’s Western partners are embracing that approach, but their militaries still need to agree on how to use AI after its debut in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
An absolutely crucial aspect of this war is the rapid evolution of combat technologies and the adaptation of key tactics and concepts by both sides. In this war, Ukraine has benefited from allies and partners offering their artificial intelligence technologies and concepts, which are used in several key roles. A key role of AI in Ukraine’s service is the integration of target and object recognition with satellite imagery, prompting Western commentators to note that Ukraine has an edge in geospatial intelligence. According to public sources, neural networks are used to combine ground-level photos, video footage from numerous drones and UAVs, and satellite imagery to provide faster intelligence analysis and assessment to produce strategic and tactical intelligence advantages.
Putin gave a ‘sensible’ reply to ceasefire deal
An eminent political science academic Nicolai Petro, has praised Putin’s guarded response to the 30-day ceasefire proposal as a smart one in Al Jazeera. He warned that the devil is always in the details, and that’s what Moscow is waiting to see,” Petro told Al Jazeera. Putin is nobody’s fool. Putin asserted he agreed in general to the prospect of peace, but not without factoring “the root causes of the crisis”. These include the the oppression of the Russian-speaking minority within Ukraine and the unbridled expansion of NATO eastward. The latter was in violation of the Minsk agreements. It was the notorious Clinton who cheekily and stealthily led the expansion into Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Then came more countries: Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, and Poland. Finally, in came Finland with citizens lying to themselves that they were at risk of nuclear war. Finland imagines that because its borders stretch nearly 1340 kilometers. It has its significance because of a complex history and diplomatic relations.
Western policymakers should study the lessons of the Minsk agreements – and drop any illusions about the ways in which Russia supposedly acts. As Marie Dumoulin, director of the Wider Europe programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations notes, “Russia has acted in and around past negotiations about Ukraine – the most prominent results of which were the Minsk agreements. These have long since become a byword for the West’s failure to deal with the post-2014 conflict in eastern Ukraine. In the debate relating to the Minsk agreements, they tend to either be branded a de facto capitulation to Russia or made out to be the main reason for Russia’s full-scale invasion of 2022, because of a supposed failure by Ukraine to implement these agreements (a view which echoes the Russian narrative, whether knowingly or not).
Gorbachev undid the Cold War under the condition that WARSAW would be wound up, and, in return, East and West Germany could be integrated. But, NATO held on claiming it was a mere defense alliance. It is now interventionist. It bombed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and now Ukraine. It had no UN mandate for these wars and could be termed as a terrorist organization with a huge Military-Industrial Complex from which its host nations also gain. This is the hypocritical West. It has supported authoritarian regimes and enabled repression against Russia has its options. Alliances with China, Iran, Syria, will stave off threats from the post-colonial/still-colonial western bloc. It should work with allies in the Eastern bloc including Ukraine, Belarus, and Caucasus. At the economic level it must diversify so it becomes an economic power and overpower a compromised Europe devoid, as it is , of sterner stuff than some hand outs and no principles.
A robust BRICS can enable Russia to stave off western sanctions- in which area they are already cheating. Its exports must be prioritized to BRICS members like China and India. The New Development Bank (NDB) and the contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) are ways in BRICS can alter the dynamics of the way in which neo-colonial Europe plays its sullied political playoffs.
NATO can claim no credibility when it comes to democracy. Russia is right to reject any NATO presence in its borders. NATO leaders have lacked honesty and principle and are a violent militaristic bunch of allies.
Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator
14 March 2025
Source: countercurrents.org