The Winds of Change, finally?

4 min read

It seems that there was a significant development in Ukrainian-Russian relations over the past weeks. While peace is still mostly a dream, the outlooks might have changed a little and peace talks might happen soon(er).

On the other hand, it seems that the shift in Ukrainian positions unfolded unnoticed by the the EU’s old-new leaders, who are still on the same track, talking about the approaching great war. Or are furiously fighting against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who happened to say after his “peace road trip”, that the tide was changing, and it was time to reopen the diplomatic channels to support a fast peace solution and that Europe should create (finally) a real, independent European foreign policy strategy. Would Donald Trump win the presidential elections in the United Sates and would keep his promise and take a step back from the conflict in Ukraine, then maintaining the same European position will be extremely costly.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent phone call with Donald Trump appears to have influenced his stance on peace talks with Russia.

During the call, the Republican nominee pledged to end the war between Russia and Ukraine if elected. He promised to bring both sides together to negotiate a peace deal that would halt the violence and pave a path to prosperity.

Zelensky confirmed the call and noted their agreement to discuss potential steps for a fair and lasting peace at a future personal meeting. This discussion has been seen as an effort by Zelensky to navigate the changing political landscape in the U.S. and to potentially explore new avenues for ending the conflict.

Zelensky’s new approach signals a notable shift: it was clearly a novelty that the Ukrainian president expressed openness to include Russian representatives in a peace summit scheduled for November. In fact, it is a radical change compared to his previous stance, which required the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory before any negotiations could begin.

The Ukrainian president declared that he aimed to discuss a “plan for a just peace”, focusing on issues like Ukraine’s energy security, Black Sea shipping routes, and prisoner exchanges. This move probably reflects Kyiv’s attempt to regain the diplomatic initiative amid ongoing military challenges.

The U.S. has indicated its support for Ukraine’s decisions regarding the timing and nature of peace talks, emphasizing that any negotiation framework should be led by Kyiv. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller acknowledged the discussions with Ukraine about potential negotiations but expressed his skepticism about the Kremlin’s commitment to a diplomatic resolution.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba’s visit to Beijing suggests that Ukraine is exploring broader international involvement in peace efforts. The trip, the first since the start of the war, aims to discuss how China might contribute to ending the conflict. This is a strategic move, considering China’s close ties with Russia.

Overall, these developments indicate a more flexible Ukrainian approach towards peace talks, supported cautiously by the U.S., while also seeking to involve other international players like China. This multifaceted strategy reflects the complexities and high stakes involved in seeking a resolution to the conflict.

A few other events also signal a changing approach to the conflict.

It happened on the same week that, on July 17, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in New York.

Apparently, Cassis briefed Lavrov about the results of the Ukrainian peace summit held at the Bürgenstock resort in central Switzerland.

Russia was not invited to that summit, while China decided not to participate, declaring that the summit did not meet the standards for an international peace conference, especially as it didn’t meet the principle of “equal participation” (attendance of all interested parties and fair discussion of all options for peace). Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Mao Ning, confirmed on May 31, that Beijing would “continue to promote talks for peace in our own way”.

Still on the same week, Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kiev, said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may ultimately have to hold a referendum on any plan to end the war.

“The next few months will be very difficult for Volodymyr Zelensky. Should he continue the war with new deaths and destruction, or consider a territorial compromise with Putin? (…) And in this case, what pressure will come from America if [Donald] Trump wins? (…) And how do we explain to the country that we need to give up pieces of our territory that cost the lives of thousands of our heroes? (…) Whatever step he takes, our president risks committing political suicide.”

Eventually, the Ukrainian population might also be ready to stop the war. A report published by DW on July 18 (based on a survey by Razumkov Center, an Ukrainian think tank, on behalf of the Ukrainian online newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia), states that 44 percent of Ukrainians in areas behind the frontline believed that it was time to start official talks between Kyiv and Moscow; 35 percent believed that there was no reason to start peace talks and 21 percent were undecided. And while the majority of Ukrainians wanted peace to happen without any territorial concession, but at the same time, nearly half of them thought that it was not a shame to try to avoid conscription.

Most European leaders might have been on a holiday during the last few weeks, missing the latest development as they seem to continue politics with a “business as usual approach”.

While Zelensky and the other Ukrainian leaders are seemingly preparing for a next step, Europe’s leaders are currently waging a childish war against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Orbán has been heavily criticized for his recent diplomatic moves, particularly his visit to Moscow and Beijing (after heading to Kyiv first). This visit took place shortly after Hungary assumed the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. Hence Orbán is accused of using this position to push his own agenda rather than the EU’s collective stance. Politicians have responded by distancing themselves from Orbán and Hungary using various methods, for example by deciding not to participate on high level meetings organized by Hungary in the framework of its EU presidency.

From a neutral observation point, it is difficult to decide which was the Hungarian prime minister’s bigger “sin”: starting the international “peace road trip” without the consent of the other EU leaders or the fact that his acts drew attention to the EU’s (basically ineffective) security and defense strategy that has been merely following to the direction of Washington for the last two years, or simply the fact that he started to talk about peace earlier than the others.

Because the real problem seems to be that there is still no clear European strategy or perspective on how to finish this conflict in a way that would serve not just Ukrainian, but also European interests the best. In this moment, communication is mainly focused on going deeper in this conflict. Something European citizens mostly disagree with, as proven by the results of the European parliamentary elections. (The exception being Poland and the Baltic states which are still mostly fully committed to continue the war, being convinced that this was in their own security interest.)

Hopefully during their next meeting (if they manage to decide in which city to meet, after all), Europe’s foreign and defense ministers will be able to come up with plans that serve Europe’s interests.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies to provide user authentication. Please indicate whether you consent to our site placing cookies on your device and agree with our Privacy Policy. To find out more, please read our Privacy and Cookie Policy