February 24th marks a significant milestone—the fourth anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Just days before this date, negotiations among Ukraine, the United States, and Russia concluded again, but yet again, without a breakthrough on critical issues.
As the urgency grows for a ceasefire, particularly with reports suggesting that Washington aims to achieve one before June, the question looms large: Are we nearing a turning point in this prolonged conflict, or are we headed for an entrenched stalemate?
A Race Against Time for Diplomacy
Experts have weighed in, noting that while both Moscow and Kyiv have modified their strategies over the past four years, the fundamental disparities between them remain stark, making a comprehensive peace agreement seem distant.
Wang Jin, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at Northwest University, highlights that the U.S. timeline for a ceasefire seems largely influenced by domestic political dynamics. “The U.S. objective appears to be more about its electoral calendar,” Wang says, indicating that facilitating a Russia-Ukraine agreement could enhance electoral prospects ahead of midterm elections. However, he cautions, “Key differences still exist between Russia and Ukraine, particularly on crucial details,” suggesting that more mediation is necessary to pave the way for any significant breakthrough.
Cui Zheng, director of the Research Center for Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asian Countries at Liaoning University, echoes these sentiments, emphasizing that the diplomatic window is both limited and delicate. He notes that despite Washington’s eagerness to broker a resolution before the election season heats up, multiple factors indicate that this window may close without meaningful progress. “Even if a June deadline is set, the realities on the battlefield do not favor an immediate ceasefire,” Cui explains. If this opportunity slips away, we could see the conflict descend into a prolonged stalemate as both sides seek to bolster their bargaining power through ongoing conflict.
The Weight of Structural Disagreements
When it comes to peace, experts agree that the most significant hurdles lie in deep-rooted structural disagreements, especially surrounding territorial control and security arrangements. Wang emphasizes the divergent views on disputed territories, with each side considering land as a pillar of political legitimacy. “Resolving the territorial issue in one sweeping dialogue to address all sovereignty questions is highly challenging,” he explains. Instead, he suggests a phased, transitional approach starting with a ceasefire and temporary de-escalation.
Cui further elaborates that the crux of the issue revolves around conflicting claims to territorial sovereignty and different visions of security. Russia demands recognition of its control over Crimea and certain eastern and southern regions, alongside Ukraine’s commitment to refrain from NATO membership and limiting Western military presence. Conversely, Ukraine asserts its claim to full sovereignty and seeks security guarantees from its Western partners. “These positions leave scant room for compromise on key agreement clauses,” Cui warns.
Additionally, political legitimacy, ideological narratives, and the lack of a robust enforcement mechanism compound the challenge of negotiation. Previous agreements, like the Minsk accords, stumbled due to inadequate oversight. Without effective third-party monitoring, any fresh agreement faces high risks of being disregarded.
Adding to the complexity, domestic political factors enhance the difficulty. According to Cui, there’s a strong current of public sentiment in Ukraine against territorial concessions, while divisions within the West, particularly between the U.S. and Europe, restrict policy flexibility.
Shifting Roles of the U.S. and Europe
As the U.S. navigates this conflict under an “America First” approach, experts observe a shift in its objectives. Wang asserts that Washington has transitioned from a posture of unwavering support for Ukraine to a more pragmatic stance aimed at facilitating a deal. “The U.S. has moved from staunchly backing Ukraine and opposing Russia to pressuring Ukraine while engaging Russia for an agreement,” he observes, reflecting a growing urgency from Washington to conclude the conflict.
Cui reinforces this viewpoint, noting that U.S. priorities in the conflict appear to be evolving, highlighting the pressing need for resolution as the situation on the ground continues to unfold.
As the world watches the developments unfold, the coming months will be critical in determining the future trajectory of this conflict, making it essential to stay informed and engaged.