Why a negotiated settlement might be Ukraine’s best option

A war that was supposed to last a few weeks is entering its second year with no end to the fighting in sight and no clear outcome. 

To the astonishment of military analysts and its own generals, Ukraine not only withstood the Russian onslaught but pushed the invaders back from Kyiv and recaptured the cities of Kharkiv and Kherson.  

Despite this dramatic success and the steady influx of Western military and economic aid, disturbing signs suggest time is not on Ukraine’s side. Negotiating now from a position of strength might be the best course of action. 

After the advance on Kyiv failed and Russia shifted its emphasis to expanding control of the Donbas region, the war settled into a trench stalemate reminiscent of WWI. Each side made limited headway in local offensives but could not achieve a major breakthrough. 

The anticipated spring offensives will probably not end the deadlock. Western analysts expect the Russians to intensify their push to capture Bakhmut and advance on Lyman to consolidate control over the entire Donbas region.  

The offensive might achieve a local breakthrough and perhaps even encircle some Ukrainian forces, but, given the Russian army’s lack of logistical ability to sustain deep advances, a more extensive incursion seems unlikely. 

Ukraine will probably attack in the direction of Melitopol. Capturing the city and perhaps reaching the Sea of Azov would be a game changer as it would sever Russia’s land bridge to Crimea. However, Ukraine will need to bolster its defenses in the east to counter the Russian offensive there, and Putin will defend Crimea at all costs. 

The much-anticipated spring offensives may move the frontlines locally but will probably not alter the status quo. 

The war of attrition will continue, and that does not bode well for Ukraine. Victory in such a conflict depends on three things: logistics, personnel and political will. 

So far Kyiv is winning what the Germans in WWI called the Materialschlacht (the battle of supply), thanks to a massive influx of military aid from the United States and its NATO allies, but that could change. 

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warns that the Pentagon is seriously depleting stockpiles of crucial munitions, including Javelin antitank and Stinger antiaircraft missiles. 

The shortage of 155 mm artillery shells is particularly acute. The U.S. manufactures 30,000 rounds a year, the approximate number fired by the Ukrainian Army in just two weeks. CSIS estimates that at the current procurement and manufacturing rate it will take at least four years to replenish supplies.  

The Russian Army is also suffering from a shortage of munitions, leading it to reduce artillery fire by 75 percent. However, Washington has credible evidence that China is seriously considering supplying Moscow with weapons and munitions. Such a move could offset Western aid to Ukraine. 

Russia has a considerable personnel advantage. From its estimated population of 146,099,047, it boasts a military strength of 1,330,900. With a population of 43,053,390, Ukraine has a military establishment of 500,000. 

Many Russian soldiers are poorly trained conscripts suffering from low morale, but that weakness matters less in a positional conflict than it would in a high-tech maneuver war. Putin and his generals have no qualms about using soldiers as cannon fodder to wear down the Ukrainians. 

The best estimates put Russian casualties at 180,000-188,000 and Ukrainian at 100,000. As in most wars, the ratio of killed to wounded is about 1 to 3. Russia can afford these losses more than Ukraine. 

So far, the invaders have killed at least 7,199 civilians and wounded 11,756, many of them deliberately. 

In addition to the terrible loss of life, Ukraine has suffered widespread physical destruction estimated at $138 billion, mostly residential buildings and infrastructure that Russia deliberately targeted.  

Russia has suffered virtually no civilian casualties or property damage. 

Political will is difficult to determine. President Zelensky and his people have shown a grim determination to resist. The invaders found themselves facing not only a formidable army but a nation in arms. Russian efforts to break the Ukrainians through attacks on their infrastructure have failed miserably. 

Although the Russian people do not enthusiastically support the war, the majority accept it. Any notion that they will oust their leader is wishful thinking. 

Putin has cleverly scripted the conflict into a powerful historic narrative. He presents it as a defensive struggle for the survival of the country akin to the German invasion of 1941. NATO’s refusal to rule out Ukrainian membership and the planned accession of Sweden and Finland are grist for his propaganda mill. 

Ukraine’s survival also depends on the political will of its allies. In his recent visit to Kyiv, President Biden told President Zelensky, “The Americans stand with you, and the world stands with you.”  

That promise may be hard to keep. According to a recent poll, 65 percent of Americans favor continuing to supply Ukraine with arms, but only 48 percent agree with supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes,” and 47 percent believe Washington should urge Ukraine to negotiate peace as soon as possible. 

Among the NATO allies, support for further aid has also declined. A poll conducted in September revealed that 50 percent of respondents across the European Union supported weapons deliveries to Ukraine, down from 56 percent in March. 

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives may not agree to more aid. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the American people are not going to “write a blank check to Ukraine.” 

In an ideal world, Crimea and the entire Donbas region would be returned to Ukraine and Putin would spend the rest of his days in a cell at the Hague. That will not happen in the real world.  

Negotiating an end to the war will not be easy. Heated rhetoric from Washington and Moscow has increased the stakes, making the war a contest between political systems. Putin will not negotiate if he thinks he can win, but more failures on the battlefield this spring might change his mind. 

For Ukrainians who suffered and sacrificed so much, anything less than the recovery of all lost territory will be a bitter pill to swallow. No matter what a settlement entails, however, the fact that Ukraine survived will be seen as a tremendous victory against great odds. 

Tom Mockaitis is a professor of history at DePaul University and the author of “Conventional and Unconventional War: A History of Conflict in the Modern World.”