The issue of imminent territorial concessions that Ukraine will be forced to make as part of potential peace talks has been firmly established in the media recently. Insiders are increasingly reporting that a consensus position is gradually forming in the US regarding the unrealistic nature of Kyiv’s plans for the full or at least partial return of territories. Although this issue is not of primary importance for any of the parties to the conflict, except perhaps for Ukraine itself, it will have an extraordinary impact on all other topics of the negotiation process, as well as on global security issues.
The teams of Joe Biden and Donald Trump are leaning towards Russia retaining the 20 per cent of Ukraine’s territory that is now under Russian control, The New York Times reported.
The Financial Times previously reported that pro-Ukrainian coalition countries are increasingly discussing a plan that would require Ukraine to give up its claim to some of the territories.
Trump recognises the unrealistic idea of “forcing” Russia out of Ukraine’s former territories and others are beginning to understand this, Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz said on ABC television.
Ukraine’s position on the issue remains inconsistent and chaotic. After the collapse of the Istanbul agreements, Kyiv broadcast a hardline stance of returning to the 1991 borders. Then the Office of the President gradually began to soften its comments and talk about a possible return to the 2022 borders, and Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged the lack of forces of the AFU to return the territories by force. However, when the public began to float ideas that Ukraine could sacrifice some of the territories for the sake of joining NATO, Zelensky again said that Kyiv “does not trade territories.”
Judging by the statements of officials from the US, Germany and a number of other countries, Ukraine is not expected to join NATO, the issue of “trading territories” is closed, and Ukraine will have to make concessions not for the sake of membership in the Alliance, but for the sake of ending the conflict. Such a “deal” will have the most serious impact on Ukraine itself, but the revision of the border will also affect other issues of global politics.
What will Kyiv face
The end of the conflict will oblige the Ukrainian authorities to end martial law, which will automatically start the procedure of preparation for the next elections. The law on martial law sets out a clear time frame.
The current authorities, of course, can abandon their earlier theses about the impossibility of holding elections during martial law and, realising the outcome of the failed peace treaty, hold elections before it is signed to try to maintain their position for the next five years.
However, the basic scenario remains the holding of elections after the signing of the peace treaty, in which case Zelensky’s team will face a mobilisation crisis and criticism of the senselessness of military action and the sacrifices made by the Ukrainian authorities in rejecting the Istanbul agreements.
Given the peculiarities of Ukraine’s political culture, the presence of an impressive repressive apparatus in the current authorities, as well as a significant number of citizens with combat experience, Ukraine risks a full-scale and protracted internal political crisis with vital threats to Ukrainian statehood at the end of the negotiations.
In any scenario of the conflict’s end, Ukraine would face the political consequences of the public demobilisation effect. The authorities purposefully postponed the resolution of a large number of problems, pointing to wartime priorities.
However, territorial losses and likely concessions on other issues would act as a catalyst for ideological breakdown. The collapse of the goals that have been declared by the Ukrainian government for three years will lead to a crisis of the national idea.
It could be the idea of post-war reconstruction, but in the context of population outflow and significant territorial losses, the new Ukrainian authorities will face the challenges of reinventing the state myth.
The discussion of Ukraine’s territorial concessions also touches on the loss of resources crucial to Kyiv. Much of Ukraine’s energy mix was previously based on the use of coal from Donbas: metallurgical, power and chemical industries. The loss of coal mines will lead to a reduction in production, affecting both industry and export potential.
Implications for Russia
The process of political, legal and infrastructural integration of the new regions began from the moment they joined Russia. The new regions have long since established power institutions, adopted the legal acts necessary for the formation of a regulatory framework, and the new regions are joining national projects.
However, the process of integration and restoration of the new regions is hampered by active hostilities, as well as the constant expansion of the controlled territories due to the advance of the Russian Armed Forces. The end of the hot phase of the conflict and the consolidation of internationally recognised state borders would speed up these processes.
The authorities send optimistic signals, noting that the experience of integration of Crimea and Sevastopol can be widely used in the new regions. The new regions have been affected by the fighting and require the restoration of industrial enterprises, transport and communal infrastructure. At the moment, due to the lack of necessary information, it is impossible to estimate even approximate costs.
In addition, the authorities will have to make difficult decisions regarding the prioritisation and feasibility of rebuilding various facilities.
Global security issues
Recognition of new territorial borders will exacerbate global security issues in Europe. Poland, the Baltics and a number of other countries will demand some kind of “guarantees” and “compensations” from their NATO partners.
The drawing of new borders is likely to trigger a debate on security architecture and mechanisms. The large number of mutually exclusive demands of the parties to this process could lead to the process dragging on for several years after the end of the hot phase of the conflict in Ukraine.
International recognition of Russia’s territorial acquisitions, achieved militarily, could exacerbate other disputes and conflicts. We can already see that Trump does not rule out a forceful scenario of annexing Greenland. Which, on the one hand, may be part of bargaining, and on the other hand, a real option for the realisation of US national interests.
At the same time, there are a significant number of smouldering conflicts and territorial disputes in the world, the participants of which may perceive the case of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as one of the possible scenarios for their resolution.
International recognition of Russia’s control over Crimea and Donbas theoretically opens a window of opportunity to revise not only those sanctions imposed after February 2022, but also the entire sanctions regime in place since 2014.
The scenario of a complete lifting of sanctions seems unrealistic, but a partial easing is possible, as players interested in restoring economic ties with Russia have additional arguments in favour of returning to previous practices.
Of course, the final configuration will be influenced by various parameters: how much territory Ukraine will lose, with what wording the new border will be fixed, how the border will be controlled, and much more. However, the intrigues described above can already be traced now, and their intensity will be determined by the outcome of the peace talks.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Emma Robichaud for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
