War in Ukraine: are we really on the eve of a peace agreement?

Already in difficulty in 2024, the Ukrainian camp is weakened by Trump’s coming to power. In this context, negotiations can last.

For Ukraine, 2024 was a bad year from an operational point of view. After the failure of the offensive in the south of the country in the summer of 2023, it has had to face the Russian push since the winter. Russia thus gained a few hundred km² during the year, particularly in the south of Donbass. In the summer, Ukraine initiated an incursion into the Kursk Oblast, managing to take more than 1,000 km².

Since then, the surface area has greatly decreased and Ukraine must now only cover 400 km². It’s not much, but it’s still enough to have a guarantee in the upcoming negotiations. Indeed, even before the election of Donald Trump, Ukraine noted the weakening of Western support, whether in terms of equipment or munitions. At the same time, electrical infrastructure or demographics are factors that weigh on the general strategy.

The election of Trump therefore comes in a process that is generally unfavorable to Ukraine. President Zelensky thus addressed the question of negotiations throughout the year, organizing a conference in Switzerland in June (without Russia) then announcing a “plan for victory” in October, finally evoking (on November 29) conditions for a negotiation: place the territory “controlled by Ukraine” under the aegis of NATO.

This is an evolution compared to the initial claims (all of Ukraine) and means a de facto abandonment of Crimea and Donbass, which would remain claimed and whose status would be postponed. Seen from Moscow, these two conditions are seen as unacceptable and it is likely that Vladimir Putin will ask for much more: neutralization of Ukraine, at least recognition of Crimea, lifting of part of the sanctions. While it is normal for each party to state its most ambitious objectives at the start of a negotiation, is an agreement possible?

Everything will obviously depend on the American position. Donald Trump is already starting to say that this negotiation will last longer than expected. His statements are already calling on Ukraine to stop fighting. Everything suggests that kyiv will have to cut back. But even if, behind the scenes, discussions have already started, nothing indicates that we are on the eve of an agreement.

Furthermore, given the three years of war, it is highly unlikely that this agreement will be that of peace, that is to say that it will resolve all outstanding problems. Indeed, in addition to the question of disputed territories, one of the issues at stake in the agreement will be the status of Ukraine and beyond that, the overhaul of the current European security architecture.

So, let’s summarize: there will perhaps be an agreement. It is unlikely to arrive quickly since it will take a few weeks to arrive, if the transaction ever goes through. It is almost impossible that this will be a peace treaty that would put a definitive end to the Russian-Ukrainian dispute.

Continuing the war is pointless because Ukraine cannot win it. Zelensky finds himself proposing what was put on the table in 2022.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced that he is ready to give up “temporarily” to the Ukrainian territories lost since the start of the war in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and on the condition that the territories remaining under its sovereignty are admitted to NATO. Why such a reversal now? Keith Kellogg, the man charged by Donald Trump with handling the Ukraine war file, warned that military aid to Ukraine would stop if negotiations were not opened, and if kyiv did not admit the loss of territories.

This situation of occupation of nearly 20% of Ukrainian territory by Russia is obviously illegal. Principles and realities come into contradiction here. Western military leaders have long known that Volodymyr Zelensky’s war goals (restitution of territories lost since the start of the war, Vladimir Putin tried by the ICC) are unachievable. And aid fatigue is beginning to be felt in both the United States and Europe. There will be no just peace since Ukraine would thereby lose effective control of part of its territory, while Russia would be rewarded.

But all means of pressure have been used against Russia, with the exception of a more generalized confrontation, so far prevented by the nuclear weapon at Moscow’s disposal. The alternative is the unnecessary continuation of the war that Ukraine cannot win militarily, an exhaustion of the country, and the further loss of many human lives. It is conceivable to continue the war if victory is in sight. Doing it when we know it is impossible is much more questionable.

We are perhaps heading towards the end of this very deadly war. Volodymyr Zelensky finds himself today proposing what was already on the table in the spring of 2022, which he had refused because Boris Johnson, the former British Prime Minister, had advised him to continue the war, assuring him of support without fault to reconquer all the territories.

Certainly, the strategic credibility of the West – who had made the mistake of unconditionally endorsing Ukraine’s war aims – will be damaged. But those who continue to make the restitution of territories conquered by Russia the condition of a ceasefire have no solution to provide to achieve this without taking the risk of a third world war. There is something immoral in this perspective, since it leads to an acquisition of territories by force by Russia. But it is also immoral to continue a war which will not change any reality on the ground and which will cause more deaths, more wounded and more mutilated people.

If a ceasefire were to occur under these conditions, it would of course not be an ideal situation; the alternative – continuing the war – is even less satisfactory.