Irrespective of what it would look like, a cease-fire in Ukraine would help to take down international tensions, and as such should be welcome.
Both sides in the Ukraine war are busy lobbying the incoming Trump administration while trying to position themselves in an optimal way in the battlefield. We have also entered a period where everybody is signalling their intentions in ways that can always be dismissed as wrong or just a rumour.
Russia, which so far has been entirely unwilling to negotiate, has added more details to their demands.
While admitting that some land swap will be part of a deal, Russia signals that it wants the 4 Russian-speaking provinces in the east of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) with some wiggle room for the precise carving up of the territories and a land bridge to Crimea. Zaporizhzhia is home to Europe’s largest nuclear power station.
Russia further demands that Ukraine give up on the ambition to become a member of NATO and that NATO weapons or personnel cannot be stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine would then be given a security guarantee by the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. Notably, it appears there is no demand for the demilitarisation of Ukraine.
Finally, Ukraine would be obliged to repeal the laws from 2014 banning the use of the Russian language in Ukraine.
Against this stands Ukraine’s unchanged position. Ukraine’s position on ceasefire conditions remains firm. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently rejected proposals requiring Ukraine to cede territory or abandon its aspirations for NATO membership. He has emphasized that any ceasefire without comprehensive peace talks and security guarantees would be unacceptable and potentially detrimental to both Ukraine and Europe.
Our first guess is that the Trump administration will at least try to make good on the president-elect’s promise to “end the conflict in 24 hours”.
There may be something positive in the Russian signalling: there is an acceptance that some land swaps will have to take place and that there is no attempt at depriving Ukraine of a deep-water port in the Black Sea (Odesa), a vital facility for grain exports.
On the other hand, If Russia were to gain control over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia province, it would acquire significant strategic assets, notably the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). As Europe’s largest nuclear facility, the ZNPP has a substantial electricity generation capacity, which could bolster Russia’s energy resources and influence in the region. However, the plant’s current operational status is uncertain, with reports indicating that all six reactors are in cold shutdown as of September 2023.
Beyond energy infrastructure, eastern Ukraine is rich in mineral resources. The region holds approximately 80% of Ukraine’s oil, natural gas, and coal production reserves, primarily located in the Dnieper-Donetsk region. Additionally, Ukraine possesses significant deposits of critical minerals, including titanium, lithium, and manganese, many of which are situated in the eastern territories. Control over these resources would enhance Russia’s access to valuable raw materials, potentially impacting global markets and supply chains.
As a believer in a rules-based international system, one would argue that this would be to reward Russia for the aggression.
However, Russia has stretched its resources to a maximum, its army has been proven to be at best a medium-quality entity and its dependence on China has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. For all its bluster, Russia is a weakened country that – with the exception of its nuclear arsenal – is not an existential threat to Europe.
Under one condition: Europe must continue to invest in its military security and strengthen its infrastructure significantly against sabotage. There is no room to revert to a pacifist position. It is time for Germany to shake the post-war trauma off and forget the illusion that peace is guaranteed in Europe as long as Germany is de facto disarmed. Trump may not cause the USA to leave NATO. But the musketeer oath (Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which embodies the principle of collective defence) is likely to be de facto voided once Trump takes office.
Recent Comments