Russia Refuses to Make Meaningful Step on Road to Peace

Executive Summary:

This insistence on a peace arrangement that would fully conform with Russia’s interests, and essentially amount to a victory, clashes with U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on the peace deal (RBC, March 2). In this case, all parties would leave somewhat dissatisfied. Trump’s promise to help Ukraine regain as much territory as possible is particularly disagreeable for Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pre-emptively ruled out any discussion on territorial concessions (Kommersant, February 17; Vedomosti, February 27). To make the demand for full control over four Ukrainian regions annexed in September 2022 more plausible, Moscow has redoubled its military efforts aimed at expelling Ukrainian troops from Kursk oblast (The Insider, March 7). The casualties are devastating, but the Kremlin is firmly set on denying Ukraine the trump card of holding Russian territory during the bargaining on an armistice (Re: Russia, March 4).

This refusal makes it necessary for Trump to reiterate the threat to tighten financial sanctions and tariffs against Russia (BFM.ru, March 7). Putin may be inclined to shrug off this pressure, but among the Russian business elite, the excitement about possible relaxation of sanctions is now mixed with anxiety (RIAC, March 7). Personal sanctions in particular cause much consternation.  Many companies, however, have begun making plans for joint projects with U.S. investors, particularly in exploring the natural riches of the Arctic (Forbes.ru, March 4). This glimmer of hope is crucial for lifting the gloom prevalent among the entrepreneurs who are better informed about the accumulating problems in the Russian economy than Putin, who radiates confidence misinformed by the carefully doctored data (The Moscow Times, March 6). Russia’s full-scale invasion  has certainly hit Ukraine excruciatingly hard, but Russia is affected profoundly as well and can sustain it for much longer (The Insider, March 6).

Another block on the road to peace that Russia refuses to remove is security guarantees to Ukraine. Trump has asserted that security guarantees are the  “easy part” after fighting ends (TASS, March 7). NATO, therefore, would not provide such guarantees without U.S. agreement. European states have therefore agreed to assume responsibility for it. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has suggested granting Ukraine reassurances similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, without bringing it into the Alliance (TopWar.ru, March 7). Keir Starmer, the U.K. Prime Minister, has taken the lead in building a coalition of the willing for deploying a combat-capable peacekeeping force that would constitute a material part of security guarantees (Novaya gazeta Europe, March 6). Moscow is adamant against any such deployment, and Lavrov has declared that there is “no space for compromise” on this matter (Kommersant, March 6).

Russia has been taken by surprise with the fast building resolve in Europe to redouble the collective efforts at strengthening regional security and to invest the necessary resources in modernizing the defense-industrial base (Kommersant, March 5). The EU summit last week established ambitious guidelines for these efforts. While some Moscow commentators appraise the deepening divide between Europe and the United States, others focus on the challenge to Russia from the rearmed Europe (TopWar.ru, March 7; Izvestiya, March 8). European determination to address the long-neglected security problems is typically belittled, and French President Emmanuel Macron is often singled out for sarcastic disparaging (RIAC, March 6).

The new Russian course on confrontation with Europe contravenes Beijing’s attempts to build bridges with the European Union and coordinate responses to the U.S.-initiated trade wars (Republic.ru, March 8). The Kremlin has long cherished hopes for an escalation of the pivotal geopolitical conflict between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the United States, expecting to gain more value from the strategic partnership with Beijing (Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 5). The fast progressing rapprochement with Trump has, however, put Putin into an awkward position of cancelling the habitual stance of denouncing the U.S. “hegemony,” which used to be his main point of agreement with PRC President Xi Jinping (Profile, March 5). This turnaround is registered in Beijing, encouraging the European Union to take the lead in negotiating the arrangements to end Russia’s war against Ukraine (Svoboda.org, March 6).

Moscow probably is accepting an even greater risk by frustrating the desire in Washington D.C. for a swift closure of the senseless war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has emphasized his commitment to peace, and his team of negotiators now have an opportunity in the meeting with U.S. counterparts in Riyadh this week to clarify that a ceasefire is not a peace, but merely a pause. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has become key to ensuring the durability of Putin’s regime, despite the Russian population’s lack of enthusiasm and growing weariness toward the war  (see EDM, September 10, 2024). Moscow’s new rapprochement with Trump is neither sincere nor sufficient for ensuring a benevolent U.S. attitude as material concessions remain incompatible with Putin’s urge to prove Russia’s right to dominate over its neighbors. A ceasefire would constitute proof of the senselessness of Putin’s war and leave him with the burden of consequences of his blunder.

Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

This article appeared originally at The Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor.