Russian President Vladimir Putin abruptly redeployed troops to the Ukrainian Eastern Front shortly after a failed plan to occupy the Ukrainian capital Kiiu. What is his intention?
According to a recent estimate by the US-led NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), Russia lost between 7,000 and 15,000 soldiers in the month since the start of the war. The number of casualties is estimated to be twice that number. Considering that Russia lost 14,400 soldiers during the 10 years of its invasion of Afghanistan, the amount of damage is enormous. At this point, it is right to admit the failure of the operation and defeat the army. However, Putin relocated the Russian troops to the east and launched a general offensive.
Some are trying to understand the deployment of Russian troops on the Eastern Front because of Putin’s pressure on this situation. It is said that among the Russian people, dissatisfaction with the severe economic sanctions from the US and the European Union as well as the massive damage from the military is being revealed. In response, it is observed that Putin is likely to lean toward lifting sanctions from the West while leading the peace negotiations to an advantage with a general offensive. In fact, the dominant observation of Washington diplomats is that if the pace of peace negotiations accelerates, Putin will definitely demand the full lifting of sanctions as a precondition for the conclusion of the negotiations.
Ukraine wants to end the war as soon as possible by ending the negotiations quickly. According to the World Bank, Ukraine’s gross domestic product (GDP) this year is expected to fall to half that of last year due to war damage until recently. Ukraine’s government budget is also running a deficit of about $7 billion per month. Moreover, until recently, more than 3.7 million Ukrainians had fled to neighboring countries. According to a recent tally by the Kiiu Graduate School of Economics, the Russian invasion destroyed at least 4,431 houses and apartment buildings, 92 factories and warehouses, 378 secondary and high school buildings, 138 hospitals, 12 airports, and 7 thermal and hydroelectric power plants. done. According to Ukraine’s Prime Minister Dennis Shmidhal, it will cost about $565 billion to restore the facilities that have been destroyed so far. If the war, which has entered the eighth week, continues, the cost of restoration is sure to increase significantly. This is why Ukraine desperately needs to end the peace negotiations as soon as possible.
Although the peace negotiations between the two sides have made progress recently, they are still thorny. That is why Mikhail Podolyak, aide to Ukraine’s president and negotiator, expressed his feelings in a written comment on April 12 that “negotiations are extremely difficult due to Russia’s pressure tactics.” Negotiations between the two sides, which began on February 28, four days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were held five times with Turkish arbitration until late March. However, negotiations were halted in early April as the massacre of civilians by the Russian army in various places, including the city of Bucha near Kiiu, came to light. In this situation, the Russian side has regrouped its troops to the eastern region and launched a general offensive, and Ukraine is also vowing fierce resistance by appealing to the West for emergency weapons assistance. As the war plunges into a long-term war, it is urgent to resume negotiations.
What is the biggest issue in the peace negotiations?
At the beginning of the negotiations, Ukraine demanded an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops from Russia. However, Putin, who decided to invade on the pretext of the so-called ‘de-Naziization of Ukraine’ and ‘demilitarization’, could not accept such a request. ‘De-Naziization’ meant ‘regime change’ to oust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and replace him with a pro-Russian one. The ‘demilitarization’ meant literally depriving the Ukrainian army of war capabilities. However, as the goal of a quick move to occupy the capital and replace Zelensky within a few days of the start of the war failed, Putin practically abandoned his goal of ‘de-Naziization’. On the other hand, the goal of ‘demilitarization’ remains the same. Even if Ukraine becomes a neutral country like Austria after the end of the peace negotiations in the future, it will have only powerful weapons to defend itself. However, Russia demands the exclusion of offensive weapons, saying it is difficult for Ukraine to have weapons that can pose a military threat to Russia.
The turning point in the sluggish negotiations came after President Zelensky declared that he would positively review some of Russia’s key requirements. He said he could consider Russia’s demands that Ukraine not join NATO and that it should move away from the pro-Western camp and become permanently neutral. He said that if Ukraine chooses to be neutral, the proposal will be put to a referendum for ratification. Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 and promised neutral status, but changed its diplomatic course to pursue NATO membership after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. The problem is when the neutralization agenda is rejected in the referendum. Russia has taken a hardline stance that if the plan to neutralize Ukraine is rejected, it will return to a state of war again or renegotiations will be inevitable. Russia also demanded that the phrase ‘abandonment of NATO membership’ in Ukraine’s constitution be replaced with ‘renunciation of membership’.
Zelensky said he would have to pay a price to accommodate Russia’s demands, such as neutralization and abandonment of NATO membership. That’s the ‘perfect system guarantee’. Specifically, Zelensky wants not only the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but also Germany, Canada, Israel, and Turkey to act as ‘regime-guaranteed countries’. In case of emergency, if Russia invades Ukraine, these regime guarantee states should automatically intervene to prevent Russian aggression. In the treaty, NATO guarantees automatic military intervention by other member states in the event of external aggression. Russia resisted Zelensky’s demands for regime guarantees. Relevant countries, such as the United States, also expressed reluctance for fear of a military clash with Russia in case of an emergency. According to Turkey, the negotiating arbitrator, this is the biggest issue in the negotiations.
To make matters worse, Russia is demanding that Ukraine recognize the Crimean Peninsula, which it forcibly annexed in 2014, as Russian territory. In addition, the pro-Russian separatists’ strongholds in the east, Donbas and Luhansk, are also seeking international approval for independence from Ukraine. In response, President Zelensky made it clear on April 10th in the US CBS current affairs program ’60 Minutes’ that he would reject it. “One of Russia’s requirements is to recognize Crimea as Russian territory,” he asserted. However, his position may change depending on the progress of negotiations. Zelensky refused even the Russian side’s request of not joining NATO, saying that he was willing to accept it as a condition of guaranteeing the regime. The Ukrainian negotiator also proposed that the status of Crimea be resolved gradually over the next 15 years, and that the two leaders meet to discuss the independence issues of Donbas and Luhansk.
Meanwhile, the United States is of the opinion that Ukraine’s future is basically a matter for the Ukrainian government to decide in relation to the ongoing peace negotiations. White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said: “We intend to help Ukraine reach a deal, but we will not order specific results. It belongs to the Ukrainian people,” he said. However, Eastern European countries, which were republics belonging to the former Soviet Union (Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics) and joined NATO after the fall of socialism, are watching the progress of the negotiations and paying close attention to the final result. This is because of the possibility that Ukraine will recognize Crimea and the eastern Donbas and Luhansk regions as Russian territory. As such, there is no guarantee that Putin’s borders with Russia will not repeat acts of aggression like Ukraine did. Alexander Vershbau, former US ambassador to NATO and former deputy secretary-general of NATO, told The Washington Post, “If Ukraine compromises by conceding its disputed territory to Russia, it is desirable for neighboring countries in that it leaves a bad precedent justifying the invasion of its borders by force. not,” he pointed out.
© EPN