Russia’s seizure of Luhansk Oblast has prompted some to argue that now may be the time for Russia and Ukraine to negotiate, given the enormous costs on both sides of the conflict. Russia’s stated goals at the beginning of this war were to capture the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. There was no stated need for a land bridge to Crimea, including securing access to fresh water for the Crimean peninsula to sustain their military campaign. These have just been achieved. However, the options for negotiation look overwhelmingly bleak. The best case scenario would be what the Ukrainian people are hoping for, to expel Russia from all the territories seized from 2014 onwards. However, without direct NATO involvement, this seems unlikely unless Russia somehow collapses internally and withdraws. The worst outcome would be for Putin to retain the gains he made from his invasion and for the world to return to its relations with Russia before February. This would show Putin that he can pursue his revanchist goals without fear of long-term retribution, which was precisely the cynical gamble that got him into this war in the first place. A compromise option would be what President Zelensky proposed, that Ukraine regains the territory it lost since February (while guaranteeing fresh water to Crimea), but rejects NATO membership (a casus belli for Putin) while accepting the candidate EU membership. Since this war is for Ukraine to fight, it is up to them to decide when and how to negotiate. If this is acceptable to President Zelensky, then we should support him in this goal. It seems very unlikely to me that Russia will agree to return to the occupation lines before February 24th. Attitudes on both sides of this conflict have hardened as blood and treasure have been spilled. Indeed, Putin urged his troops to prepare to continue the war. Earlier today, Putin’s spokesman called for the destruction of all of Ukraine. Therefore, if we want to support Ukraine in its negotiating objective, we need to look at the support we provide and ask whether it is enough. The West must step up its support for Ukraine or face the prospect of an unstoppable Russian victory. Western support for Ukraine is superficially united but in reality quite fragmented. While Britain leads the way in supporting Ukraine, Germany, France and Italy are losing resolve. Inevitably, the key player is the US. And it is vital that they reconsider their ambivalent stance if the West is to achieve its goals. They must determine how the war is developing on the ground and provide further military support to create the conditions for a decent political outcome in the negotiations. Russia is gaining ground in Luhansk through heavy artillery bombardment of tactical targets and long-range missile bombardment for psychological purposes against deep targets, to which the Ukrainians are struggling to respond adequately. In military parlance, Ukraine must be able to win the fire war. For this, their forces need much more than the long-range missile and artillery systems that the US and UK have supplied. If Ukraine can disrupt Russian logistics enough to degrade its firepower, it will be better able to rally and launch counterattacks to exploit its maneuver advantages and drive Russia from the territory it now holds. Without it, Russia is unlikely to be interested in a negotiated settlement. Instead, an ongoing Russian attrition attack should be expected to continue, with the caveat that Russia is also using up ammunition stocks faster than it can replenish them. But as long as they see themselves winning, they can control the pace, pause to regroup, and then resume their attacks when they refill. The West must now do two things. It must provide Ukraine with the means to counter Russia’s artillery/missile warfare. And she must brace herself for a long, if not permanent, hardening of relations with Russia without a return to normalcy before February. As Robert Habeck, Germany’s vice chancellor and minister of finance and climate action, said last week, this is the price of freedom.
