Why halting US aid will only escalate fighting in Ukraine
The war between Russia and Ukraine continues unabated. Neither side is in a position to achieve its stated objectives through military force.
But now there is significant diplomatic activity as well.
Ukraine has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, but Russia rejected the ceasefire proposal, instead suggesting (but not implementing) a prohibition on attacking energy infrastructure.
Both sides also indicated a readiness to accept a ceasefire in the Black Sea, but with Russia linking its support to a relaxation of sanctions, it is far from clear when – or even if – such a limited ceasefire would start, much less what it would encompass.
Read more in the column of senior advisor at Centerview Partners Richard Haass - Freezing the Trump factor: how the US leader could pause the war in Ukraine.
The author warns that the Trump administration has used a combination of pressure and incentives to persuade the two sides to stop fighting. But its approach has been skewed toward offering benefits to Russia while bringing heavy pressure to bear on Ukraine.
"More broadly, there is no good reason to introduce final-status considerations at this point. The goal for now should be an open-ended ceasefire agreement, not a permanent peace treaty.
In this instance, excessive ambition is likely to be the enemy of the possible," Haas believes.
According to him, to achieve a cessation of hostilities, the agreement ought to be as clean and simple as possible. Only two elements are essential for a viable ceasefire: a cessation of all hostilities, and a separation of forces, ideally with a peacekeeping contingent between them.
So a senior advisor of Centerview Partners calls on leaving everything else, including the disposition of territory and populations, for final-status negotiations.
He says that nothing should be done to preclude measures that would buttress a ceasefire. Russia should be permitted to retain North Korean troops on its territory; Ukraine could invite forces from European countries.
"What is essential is for the US to continue providing military and intelligence support to Ukraine," the author emphasises. The expert explains that such support is the only way to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that further stalling is not in his interest, and is essential to Ukraine’s ability to deter renewed Russian aggression even if there is a ceasefire agreement.
Richard Haas warns that matters could come to a head by summer, when the pipeline of congressionally-approved arms for Ukraine runs out.
As we attempt to discern what the administration will choose to do, the February 2020 deal that the first Trump administration signed with the Taliban should give us pause.
The agreement was negotiated over the head of America’s Afghan partners through direct talks with the Taliban, paving the way for the Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan a year and a half later.
"One can only hope that the price President Joe Biden paid, both domestically and internationally, for implementing Trump’s deal will lead Trump to think twice before abandoning Ukraine to a similar fate," the author writes.
He points out: far from bringing peace, a US military cutoff of Ukraine could actually bring about an escalation in the fighting.
"The stakes are high, and not just for Ukraine. What plays out with Russia will have a significant effect on the future of Europe, on whether China uses force against Taiwan, or North Korea against South Korea, and on how the US is perceived both by its friends and enemies around the world," Richard Haas concludes.
This article originally appeared on Project Syndicate and is republished with permission from the copyright holder.