Since the start of the Russian full-scale invasion, Kherson has been the only regional center conquered by Russia, and its residents have been celebrating their freedom from occupation for a few days after the liberation by the Ukrainian army. President Zelensky claims that this victory of Ukraine was a turning point in the war that ultimately determined its outcome, The Economist analysis says.
Ukraine will not give up territory
At the G20 meeting, President Zelenskyy emphasized that Russia must accept Ukraine’s recognized territorial borders to put an end to the war and that Ukraine would not cede territory to reach a deal with the Russian invaders.
In his “Formula for Peace”, which Volodymyr Zelensky put forward at the G20 summit, he emphasized the need for radiation and nuclear safety as well as the necessity of Russia leaving the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear power plant first. The “grain initiative”, which ensures global food stability, should continue regardless of when the war ends.
“Ukraine should not be offered compromises with its conscience, sovereignty, and independence. The world has traditionally recognized Ukraine as a leader in efforts to maintain peace. And if Russia claims it wants to put a stop to the war, let it show it by deeds. We will not let Russia wait, build up its forces, and then start a new series of terror and global destabilization”, the President of Ukraine said at the G20 summit on November 15.
Read also: Why are talks with Russia impossible, and more support for Ukraine is needed?
How does the West view the war’s end?
US President Joe Biden defined his goals most clearly in a guest article in the New York Times in May: a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend against further aggression. The subject of Ukraine’s borders was specifically omitted. Leaders in the West claim that it’s only up to Ukraine to decide this.
More fervent Western supporters of Ukraine think that Russia will weaken and Ukraine will grow stronger over time. The G7 leaders pledged their “full support” for Ukraine’s independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders in a statement released on October 11. They requested that all occupied areas be “fully and completely withdrawn” by Russia. They promised, among other things, to figure out how to use seized Russian assets to aid in financing Ukraine’s reconstruction.
The G7 declaration essentially calls for Russia’s complete surrender, which is not a diplomatic solution that can be expected. By definition, diplomacy includes giving and receiving. “Another Treaty of Versailles should not be expected”, said Samuel Charap of the Rand Corporation, a US think tank.
He continued, saying that “Talking and fighting at the same time should be the norm,” and that the West, Ukraine, and Russia should start talking if only to create a platform for future talks on a more meaningful basis.
Bringing back Crimea
Few politicians in the West contest Ukraine’s ambition to reclaim land lost following Russia’s invasion in February. Many people would support efforts to return Donbas regions that were taken in 2014. However, views on regaining Crimea are more polarized. Many Western politicians are concerned that Putin may escalate the situation dangerously if the annexed 2014 peninsula is lost by Russia.
Some members of the Biden administration view the war as a question of principle, believing that as territory should never be seized by force, any advances made by Russia must be reversed. Others think the time for diplomacy will soon arrive since they don’t think Ukraine can win much more. In any case, America is not in a rush to state diplomatic stances that would lead to disagreements among the pro-Ukrainian group.
Security guarantees for Ukraine
Future Western security guarantees for Ukraine are a crucial concern as well. Given that Russia will probably continue to pose a threat to Ukraine for at least as long as Putin is in office, if not longer, they must be strong. According to several Central and Eastern European nations, Russia will be effectively deterred by NATO’s pledge to mutual defense, hence Ukraine should join the alliance as soon as possible. It has thus far held back from openly striking NATO territory despite its nuclear threat.
But the Biden administration is reluctant to give its nuclear protection to a nation that is engaged in a real or perceived battle with Russia. Due to concerns that it may trigger “World War III,” the US President is attempting to reduce the likelihood of a confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Therefore, attention is drawn to temporary or alternative arrangements. The previous NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and Mr. Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, suggested a “Kyiv Security Treaty” in September that would provide security assistance beyond a mutual defense pact. The agreement would enhance Ukraine’s armed forces and be modeled after the Western backing for Israel that President Zelensky has mentioned. This would effectively transform the current ad hoc help into a systematic, long-term commitment.
Read also: Russia collapse or coup against Putin: what scenario is more likely?
The allies of Ukraine pledge to make “multi-decade” investments in the nation’s defense industry as well as significant arms deliveries, training, joint drills, and intelligence assistance. Neither Russia’s approval nor Ukraine’s neutrality will be required for the agreement. It does not prohibit membership in NATO.
It foresees that in case of a military intervention allies will help Ukraine. Those who sign the agreement promise to “use all of their national and collective power and take appropriate actions, which may include diplomatic, economic, and military means” in the case of an attack. With sanctions on Russia, including a clause to “lift” any existing sanctions that may be eased as part of the accord, a larger range of nations, including Asian allies, would support such military assistance.
Even this could be too much for the Biden camp to handle. Some people inquire, for instance, about the pledges Ukraine would make, say, in the shape of changes to strengthen democracy or combat corruption.
Potential with no limits
Whatever the diplomatic blueprint, the Russian aggressor’s actions demonstrated that the West will need to assist Ukraine in developing an air defense system that combines fighter jets, surface-to-air batteries, and shoulder-fired weapons and is properly integrated and layered. At the moment, weapons are fragmented and frequently unable to exchange data. Additionally, there are worries that Ukraine will run out of specific kinds of air defense ammunition. In that case, Russia may send out a lot more air force to assist ground forces.
A break would play into Russia’s hands
For a while, Putin would benefit from pausing to engage in diplomacy, especially if it enables him to solidify some territorial gains in Ukraine. It could explain why he recently toned down his stance on nuclear weapons and blamed the West.
In all of this, Putin aims to win over doubters, particularly in the developing world. He also wants to reassure friends like China and India who have made it clear they don’t like his irresponsible use of nuclear weapons. Above all, Putin wants to connect with Donald Trump, whose congressional allies are debating American assistance to Ukraine and who may soon launch another presidential run.
Many people in the West are alarmed by the idea of defeating the Russian army because it could lead Putin to consider using nuclear weapons. One of the reasons the Biden campaign has long since ceased discussing “helping Ukraine win” is because of this.
Read also: Russia is running out of weapon in Ukraine
By helping Ukraine, the West has protected itself
Ukraine’s fate depends not only on the courage of its military men or the tenacity of its people but also on external factors beyond its control: the inscrutable calculations of Russia’s despotic ruler and the resilience of Ukraine’s allies. It is already clear how the war will benefit the West. Russia has suffered severe blows, making it much simpler to defend Europe’s flank. For Ukraine, which has suffered terrible losses, the outcome looks far less certain.
Payment of reparations
Zelensky also mentioned two crucial resolutions during his speech at the G20 summit. The first, which calls on Russia to compensate Ukraine, has already received backing. The second, which concerns the creation of a special court to investigate Russian aggression against Ukraine, is still subject to debate.
The second, which concerns the creation of a special court to investigate Russian aggression against Ukraine, is still subject to debate.
The resolution, which is supported by Ukraine and more than fifty other nations, is for everyone who might one day be in danger from assault. This document will serve as the foundation for the development of a global reparation mechanism that might result in the seizure of up to $300 billion in foreign assets owned by the Russian state.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy identified the rough figure for Ukraine’s recovery in August. About 600 to 800 billion dollars.
