RIGA - Peace negotiations leading to the legitimization of Russia's control over the occupied territories of Ukraine would significantly undermine the current international system, including the credibility and prestige of Western countries as the main rule-keepers, the Constitutional Protection Bureau (SAB) has concluded in its latest article.
The SAB reminds that since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, several rounds of negotiations have taken place between Russia and Ukraine through several mediators, but so far these have not yielded results that go beyond the exchange of prisoners of war.
The SAB explains that a number of factors influence the likelihood of peace talks and their potential outcome.
While two countries are directly involved in the hostilities, the indirect effects of the war have repercussions on a much larger number of countries. This means that the course of the war, and therefore the opening of peace talks, can also be directly or indirectly influenced by other countries, the SAB explains.
The primary factor directly influencing the willingness and interest of the parties involved to start negotiations is the situation on the front, the SAB notes. In the context of war, the warring sides make a calculation as to which instruments are better suited to achieve the desired objectives in a given situation.
The SAB notes that confidence in one's ability to achieve political objectives militarily undermines the interest in entering into negotiations and risks reducing the maximum gains that can be achieved through initiative on the battlefield. Moreover, superiority and initiative on the front line mean a greater ability to impose terms that are favorable to that side, as the weaker side is more inclined to stop hostilities, experts explain.
Starting and developing peace talks therefore requires the parties to understand that it is an acceptable tool to protect their interests and achieve their objectives, the SAB points out.
In the context of peace talks, the SAB believes it is important to highlight the Istanbul peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, which took place in April 2022 and were mediated by Turkey. During the talks, the parties reached an initial agreement on Ukraine's future status - military neutrality, reduced armed forces, but with the possibility to join the European Union (EU), while the status of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk would be addressed during further negotiations.
The so-called Istanbul Communique is a draft agreement to which Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin, regularly refer in their statements, the SAB reminds. In this way, Russia argues its readiness to negotiate, while at the same time referring to a negotiation process that no longer reflects the current situation, the SAB said.
The SAB also explains that Ukraine's actual concessions in this case were influenced by the domestic and international context: just one and a half months after the start of the full-scale invasion, there was uncertainty about Ukraine's ability to successfully defend itself, as well as about the willingness and ability of Western countries to provide Ukraine with the necessary military and economic support. This was also influenced by the public disclosure of crimes committed by Russian forces in the occupied territories, which had repercussions for both Ukrainian and Western societies: it became clear what the population in other occupied territories would be subjected to.
The second factor influencing the start, progress and eventual implementation of the peace talks is the support of the societies involved, the SAB stresses. Public attitudes towards the peace talks confer legitimacy on the officials participating in the negotiation process on behalf of the state, and public support, or lack of it, reflects not only on the domestic political situation, but also on the state's ability to implement what is decided in the talks.
Sociological data from March this year illustrate a complex situation, with 43 percent of the Ukrainian public in favor of peace negotiations with Russia. However, a majority of the public opposes the idea of renouncing membership of the European Union (EU) or NATO, and categorically opposes the proposal to reduce the size and capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces, the SAB notes.
The data also show that the Ukrainian public would not be prepared to accept what they see as an unjust peace, with a majority of the population acknowledging their willingness to demand a change of government in such a situation, the SAB publication says.
"The peace negotiation process thus carries with it a complex domestic political dimension, in which the public participates as one of the stakeholders in the debate on what constitutes a just peace. A negotiated settlement without public support can contribute to feelings of grievance and resentment, which in turn can manifest themselves not only domestically but also in foreign policy settings, for example by calling for an aggressive or revanchist foreign policy," the SAB concludes.
In this context, the SAB explains that the depoliticization of Russian society, combined with the state's monopoly on the information space, means that the public is potentially more willing to accept the Kremlin's position. Ending the war without Ukraine's full capitulation would provoke resistance in some quarters, but the general tendency of Russian society to adapt to the Kremlin's positions would prevail, the SAB predicts.
The SAB also underlines that a freeze or termination of the war poses significant long-term domestic political challenges for Russia, such as demobilization of soldiers or state budget planning.
At the same time, the SAB stresses that Ukraine's position in the war is closely linked to the political resources of its international partners, and that the mood of Western publics, including the elite, towards Ukraine may directly exert pressure in favor of an early start of peace talks and a quicker compromise.
"Ukraine is clearly aware of its uncomfortable position, and part of Ukraine's public diplomacy since February 2022 has been aimed directly at Western societies with the aim of explaining to them why Ukraine needs to be supported. One of Ukraine's objectives in invading the Kursk region in the summer of 2024 was to demonstrate directly its offensive capabilities in order to prevent the perception that Ukraine was losing from taking root," the SAB notes.
Western public opinion points to a potential vulnerability - risk tolerance, the SAB argues, noting that Russia has a higher risk tolerance, i.e. a willingness to take escalation risks stemming from Russia's foreign policy preferences. Russia has demonstrated this, for example, by threatening nuclear weapons, the SAB notes.
In contrast, the logic of Western countries' actions is focused on escalation control and the need to avoid unplanned escalation.
"Russia has a long history of trying to use this asymmetry against Western societies, and there is no reason to believe that Russia will stop it any time soon, even though it has so far brought no clear benefits," the SAB notes.
Analyzing the far-reaching consequences, the SAB noted that peace talks leading to the legitimization of Russia's control over occupied Ukrainian territories would set a dangerous precedent that unprovoked aggression by a nuclear power, which includes war crimes against another state, would not be stopped or clearly punished.
"Such a precedent would not mean an immediate repetition of the scenario elsewhere in the world, but it would significantly undermine the credibility and prestige of the current international system, including the Western powers as the main enforcers of the rules," the SAB concludes.
The most important problem would be precisely to make concessions to an aggressor state that has committed crimes against the Ukrainian people, and such concessions would have to be accepted not only by Ukraine but also by the Western community, the article stresses.
Finally, the final problem that forms the basis for any settlement is mutual mistrust, the SAB notes. The parties to the negotiations, and especially the warring parties, must be able to trust the other side that the agreement will be honored in the long term and lead to changes in policy and behavior.
"Despite Russia's varying and conflicting rhetoric on the reasons and objectives of the invasion, peace in Ukraine requires confidence that Russia will not use it to buy time and prepare for a new invasion. Similarly, Russia should have confidence that sanctions against it would be eased over time and that Ukraine's relations with Western countries, especially in the area of security policy, would not be deepened," the SAB stressed.
The SAB adds that the possibility of building mutual trust is made more difficult by the fact that this conflict of interest exists at a strategic level. Specifically, Western countries want their neighbors to be stable and highly developed, while Russia wants its neighbors to be weak and therefore easily influenced.
The SAB reminds that the war was caused by Russia's foreign policy interests and that long-term peace inherently requires a change in Russia's political orientation, which is currently out of the question and is also viewed with skepticism by the Ukrainian public.
Accordingly, the SAB concludes that the overall situation is dynamic and that it is inherently impossible to clearly predict the start, progress and successful conclusion of the negotiation process.
The SAB also stresses that negotiation and hostilities are not mutually exclusive - they can take place simultaneously, thus influencing the negotiating positions. The negotiation process can be influenced, including initiated, by third parties, but the final say on the outcome and implementation of the outcome belongs to Russia and Ukraine.
Please enter your username and password.
2024 © The Baltic Times /Cookies Policy Privacy Policy
