“Peace just isn’t possible.” How and why negotiations between Russia and Ukraine broke down
After more than six months, there seems little prospect of an end to hostilities any time soon, as Moscow and Kyiv are no longer willing to agree to any kind of compromise.
By Elizaveta Fokht and Svyatoslav Khomenko
The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than six months now and there seems little prospect of an end to hostilities any time soon. Hopes for a settlement emerged after talks in Istanbul in March, when both sides presented a plan for possible agreements. But since then, negotiations have stalled. As the BBC understands, this is primarily because Moscow and Kyiv are no longer willing to agree to any kind of compromise.
“The talks progressed constructively. We received proposals to consider from the Ukrainian side, articulating their position,” said the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky summing up discussions with Ukraine, in Istanbul on 29 March.
The results of this meeting inspired hope that the war in Ukraine could be resolved diplomatically. At that time, representatives agreed on the approximate content of two documents to be signed by Kyiv and Moscow should the leaders of the countries, Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin, achieve peace.
The first document suggested that Ukraine would agree to neutral status and undertake not to host any foreign military bases, but would receive security assurances from Western states guaranteeing support in the event of aggression towards it (Russia should have been among those guarantors). Another agreement pertained to “mutual respect for cultures”, including the question of language.
Immediately after the talks ended, the Russian Ministry of Defence announced that the Russian army would radically reduce its activity in the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions. Soon, there would be no Russian troops in these areas, but Kyiv later stated that the real reason for the troop withdrawal was because of Russian losses in these areas.
As the BBC reported, after the meeting in Istanbul, the parties continued to work on the documents. At the end of April, the Kremlin announced that it had handed over to Kyiv the “Russian project” of the agreements and was waiting for a response. The Ukrainian authorities, however, said they had not received any documents from Russia that required a meaningful response.
Despite this, sources have told the BBC that work on a communiqué continued almost without interruption: every day the parties exchanged drafts of potential agreements online.
But in mid-June, Vladimir Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov announced that the talks process had ground to a halt. “The project we had worked out, was handed over and is currently our most recent communication because there has been no response to it,” he said. “After that, there may have been some informal telephone contacts, but between individual representatives, not at delegation level. And then the whole thing froze.”
“The subject of negotiations is entirely irrelevant”
A source close to the Russian delegation has told the BBC, there is currently no contact between the negotiating parties. He also played down the importance of the Istanbul talks, saying that there had never been any real attempt to negotiate peace.
“The negotiations were about the documents that would be signed if the leaders agreed on peace,” the source told the BBC. “It is now clear that there can be no peace at all.’
According to him, in the weeks after the meeting in Istanbul, the delegations were able to get the basic treaty concerning Ukrainian security guarantees close “to one-hundred-percent readiness”. “But everyone realised that even if these documents reached two-hundred-percent readiness, this would not bring peace any closer,” he said.
As a result, by the beginning of summer, communications between the negotiating parties had virtually ceased.
Volodymyr Zelensky has stated several times since the beginning of the war that he wants to hold direct talks with Vladimir Putin. “I am still firmly and resolutely determined, whether I like it or not, to hold direct talks with President Putin, if we are ready for serious discussion”, said the Ukrainian leader on 7 June in an interview with the Financial Times.
But now both Moscow and Kyiv recognise that there are currently no prerequisites for such a meeting.
The main reason seems to be that both sides think they can negotiate from a position of strength.
“Today we hear that they want to beat us on the battlefield. What can I say? Let them try… But everyone must know that we have not really initiated anything yet. At the same time, we do not refuse peace talks, but those who refuse must be aware that the longer the wait, the more difficult it will be to negotiate with us,” said Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the leadership and heads of factions of the Duma in early July.
“We are dealing with those with whom we are dealing. Until they get punched in the face, they understand nothing,” said Volodymyr Zelensky in an interview with the Wall Street Journal two weeks later.
“President [Zelensky] realises that until Russia experiences some significant tactical defeats on the battlefield, it will not take the negotiations process seriously.” says Mykhailo Podolyak, who is a member of the negotiating delegation and an adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. In his words, the issue of negotiations and a meeting between the two leaders is now “entirely irrelevant”.
“The special military operation will continue until the objectives are achieved. I can only state that there are currently no negotiations or prerequisites for them,” said Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s press secretary. According to him, the Ukrainian delegation “went off the grid” and “there is no negotiation process.”
“Sense of futility”
So why are Kyiv and Moscow no longer willing to get involved in peace efforts? According to a BBC source in Moscow, there are several specific factors at play.
“Firstly, we have many reasons to be offended,” the source said. “We have emotions too.”
It’s clear that the sinking of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s flagship, the Moskva, and the publication of evidence of alleged Russian war crimes in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, have both seriously complicated the negotiations process.
“It was actually a couple of weeks after the sinking of the ‘Moskva’ that things really began to fall apart,” the Moscow source told the BBC.
But the Moskva wasn’t the only turning point,
If the Ukrainian side at the Istanbul talks in March had known more about how the Russian army had behaved in the occupied areas of Kyiv region, they would have taken a far tougher approach, Mykhailo Podolyak told the BBC back in April.
Podolyak says he is sure that a return to the “Istanbul communiqué” is now no longer possible:
“The emotional background in Ukraine has changed a lot,” he said. “We have witnessed too many war crimes.”
Against the backdrop of ongoing hostilities, the Ukrainian delegation was no longer willing to implement provisions directly prescribed in the Istanbul communiqué, such as accepting neutrality, continues the BBC source close to the Russian delegation.
“It is no longer possible to ‘sell’ neutrality to the Ukrainians,” the source said, referring to assumptions that this could be achieved via an all-Ukrainian referendum. “It seems that they will not go for it. And Putin does not seem to expect it anymore. At least not today.”
Surveys of public opinion in Ukraine seem to concur with this assessment.
A recent poll conducted by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology showed an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (over 70%) would now vote to join NATO if Ukraine held a referendum.
Andrii Yermak, Chief of Staff of the Office of the President of Ukraine, recently stated that NATO membership remains the country’s “long-term goal”, although even before that, Kyiv hopes to receive guarantees from its allies to provide arms, share intelligence, and support the defence industry and economy.
Nor will the Ukrainian side agree to the withdrawal of Russian troops to the line of contact as of February 23, says Mykhailo Podolyak. Ukraine will only discuss the terms of peace when Russia leaves the territory of the country entirely.
“If there remains at least a fraction of [Russia’s] occupied territory in Ukraine, it will be a permanent place of provocation”, explains Podolyak. “It cannot be that we sign some, tentatively speaking, Minsk III, because then we will have to recognise that a year from now, we will be at war again.”
Kyiv is no longer prepared to see Russia as one the guarantors of its security, as the Istanbul communiqué suggested. Although briefings by the Ukrainian President’s Chief of Staff, Andrii Yermak, show that, despite the stalemate in negotiations with Moscow, the Ukrainian authorities are still discussing the terms of security guarantees with other states. The Ukrainian authorities have not reported any breakthroughs in these discussions.
The Russian authorities also say directly that if dialogue resumes, they will move away from the “Istanbul communiqué”. “If the talks are resumed now, the conditions are completely different,” Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s aide, promised in July.
“Russia does not need negotiations. Russia needs an operational pause”
As the BBC source close to the Russian delegation explains, the talks also stopped because it became clear to both sides that “no-one is going to cease hostilities, and there was a general sense of futility”.
Since the April negotiations, the Russian army has been actively advancing in Eastern Ukraine. It finally took Mariupol (including the capture of the “Azovstal defenders”), and completely occupied the territory of the Luhansk region, capturing Severodonetsk and Lysychansk.
In turn, the Ukrainian army has successfully destroyed Russian stockpiles of weaponry, partially thanks to the US-provided HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) and is preparing for a potential operation to liberate occupied Kherson.
The BBC’s Moscow source admits that the most Moscow might agree to under these conditions is a temporary truce. For example, should the Russian army reach the borders of the Donetsk region, its total “liberation” was declared as one of the goals of the “military operation”.
However, according to British intelligence, so far Russia has been unable to ensure any substantial advance of troops in the Donbas, and now is focused on strengthening the defence of its positions in southern Ukraine.
In addition, the BBC source close to the Russian delegation is certain that Vladimir Putin does not intend to return control over occupied territories in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions to Ukraine. Back in the spring Russian officials like Andrei Turchak were promising the inhabitants of the occupied regions that Russia was there for good. This coming autumn the occupying authorities of those regions may attempt to hold “referendums” on “reunification with Russia”.
According to Mykhailo Podolyak, Kyiv will never agree to this. “It is impossible for us to imagine that Kherson will remain occupied. That is fundamental”, he told the BBC. And Volodymyr Zelensky stated directly in early August that Russia “will ruin any chances for negotiations” if it tries to organise referendums in the occupied territories.
Russia really needs a truce, if only to continue the war for longer, says Podolyak. “Russia does not need negotiations. Russia needs to pause the operation to adjust its military strategy,” he says.
Podolyak believes that during such a pause Russia could “accumulate additional shells, rockets” and stockpile the microchips necessary for many types of weaponry, which have become more difficult to acquire because of the sanctions.
“All this takes time. And that is why they need negotiations. But why should Ukraine need them? Should we fix a new line of demarcation? That would be Minsk III. Tell me, please, Minsk II was not enough for us to understand that there can be no peace if you surrender even a fragment of your territory?” argues Podolyak.
Podolyak concludes that the war in Ukraine may only end in the defeat of one of the sides. “Knowing both Ukraine and its society, there will be enough people who will protect Ukraine’s right to exist as a great state until the very end,” he believes.
What Russia and Ukraine are currently discussing
Presently, practically the only topic on which Moscow and Kyiv continue to communicate is the exchange of prisoners of war and the bodies of fallen soldiers.
According to Podolyak, the operational headquarters, which deals with these issues, from the Ukrainian side includes representatives of military intelligence and the Security Service of Ukraine; from the Russian side – “representatives of the Ministry of Defence and other security agencies.”
A BBC source, who is aware of the progress of such negotiations, says that they are progressing with difficulty, due to mutual lack of trust between the parties. For example, he says, plans for one prisoner exchange broke down because of the explosion in the Olenivka prison colony in Donetsk region in July. Russia and Ukraine accused each other being responsible for the blast which killed 53 captured Ukrainian “Azov” fighters, who were being held there.
On 9 August, the Ukrainian Ministry of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories reported that the bodies of soldiers killed in action had been exchanged five times since the beginning of the war.
One recent breakthrough between Moscow and Kyiv was the deal signed on 22 July, which unblocked the export of Ukrainian grain. Russia and Ukraine were able to reach an accord brokered by Turkey. This gave some observers reason to hope that if Russia and Ukraine could agree over grain, then perhaps they could achieve peace if they so desired.
But Mykhailo Podolyak considers this impossible: “These are two completely different processes. Questions of peace and war are principled, ideological questions for Putin. The issue of transport corridors in this case did not significantly alter his disposition.”
Moreover, Ukrainian spokespersons strongly emphasise that in the framework of the “grain compromise” Kyiv did not sign any documents directly with Moscow. Indeed, the “grain deal” is a set of two agreements: Ukraine signed one with Ankara and the UN, and Russia signed the other.
Since the beginning of the war, foreign politicians have repeatedly and unsuccessfully offered their services as intermediaries in talks not only on such individual issues as grain exports, but on peace in general. Among them are Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Turkish leader Recep Erdoğan, French President Emmanuel Macron, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and even Pope Francis.
In June, Indonesian President Joko Widodo, after meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow, said that he had given the Russian leader a message from Volodymyr Zelensky, and expressed his readiness to establish contacts between the presidents.
Kyiv reacted nervously to Widodo’s revelations. Sergei Nikiforov, Zelensky’s spokesman, said that if the Ukrainian president wanted to convey something to the Russian president, he would do so in his daily televised address.
In November this year, Indonesia will host the G20 summit. Both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky have been invited to participate.
According to Mykhailo Podolyak, if Kyiv becomes aware that Putin himself will take part in this summit, this may become an additional factor motivating Volodymyr Zelensky, who has not left Ukraine since the beginning of the war, to visit Indonesia. However, he acknowledged that a specific decision would be taken closer to the start of the summit.
The Kremlin reported that Putin had accepted the invitation to the summit but has not yet decided in what format he will participate.
“There’s an idea that the West will blink”
“Since April, the Ukrainian side has stopped all communication about negotiations,” said Dmitri Peskov in early June. “It would be great if European leaders could influence the Ukrainian leadership to take a realistic look at the situation.”
According to the BBC source, close to the Russian delegation, the Kremlin is hoping that Kyiv will be pushed towards peace not through negotiations, but because of war fatigue in Europe.
“There’s an idea that the West will blink and attitudes to Russia will change once they start having to explain to their citizens why energy prices are so high, the source told the BBC, adding that he himself considers such an outcome unlikely.
It’s a popular theme in state-controlled Russian media outlets which often carry reports about European “fatigue” over problems related to sanctions, restrictions on energy exports and the large number of Ukrainian refugees.
One thing everyone seems to agree on is that there is no prospect of Russia reaching out to other European countries to hold talks on Ukraine.
The BBC source, close to the Russian delegation, said he was not aware of any such initiatives.
On the Ukrainian side Mykhailo Podolyak said Europe would never take such a step: “Ukraine today is the subject of a global political process. And the reputation of President Zelensky is such that it is impossible to conduct any such negotiations behind his back, without his presence.”
According to Podolyak, Kyiv understands that Russia is reliant upon European “fatigue” from the war and Kyiv also sees Russian attempts to “destabilize” the situation in some EU countries. “Europe understands that certain crises will manifest. That there will be a different price for fuel, for other goods”, he says. “But Europe is preparing itself and preparing public opinion [in its countries]. It is working.”
At the same time, several European politicians have said over the past month that the prerequisites for resuming of the negotiating process exist. For example, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that he met with Vladimir Putin and concluded that Russia is ready for negotiations, but that both sides should make “concessions”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban urged the EU to change its strategy regarding the war in Ukraine and start peace negotiations with Russia.
But, according to Mykhailo Podolyak, any peace concluded under current conditions will in any case result in Russia “re-equipping its army”, adapting to sanctions and continuing to seize new territories. At the same time, in the event of a new war, Ukraine may lose the large-scale support of the West:
“Because they will tell us: “You did not finish the job. You were so powerful then because we helped you, but you did not follow through right to the end. And today we can no longer help you, we cannot tell societies in Germany, France, Italy, Spain every year that Ukraine will fight Russia again, give them a few hundred billion euros, and accept refugees from Ukraine once more.”
At the same time, according to Podolyak, it is more profitable for Europe that the war “be concluded precisely here and now” and done so with a victory for Ukraine: “If Russia gets the opportunity to retain even its current acquisitions, it will pump even more money into fuelling chaos. There will be conflicts akin to Syria all over the world. Ultra-right groups will dominate Europe, migration crises will be permanent. And Europe will spend much more money than it currently does for this specific war.”
Thus far, this is the position expressed by the leaders of Ukraine’s foremost partner countries. At the end of June, the leaders of the G7 countries at the summit in Germany said that “they will continue to provide as much financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support to Ukraine as is needed.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a similar statement at the June NATO Summit in Madrid. And the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, said this week that military assistance to Ukraine will be provided “as long as is necessary.”
This means that it is very likely that the outcome of the war will be decided on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table.
AFP/Getty Images are used in collages.
Read this story in Russian here.