Unlock the free US Election Countdown newsletter
The stories that matter about money and politics in the race for the White House
Ukraine enters its third winter of war in a darker mood than ever. In the east, their troops are losing ground to the grinding feed from its Russian adversaries, although at enormous cost to Moscow’s forces. With half of their power generation destroyed, Ukrainians face spending hours a day without light or heat in the coldest months. Meanwhile, in Washington and some Western capitals – and in the halls of Kiev – the the mood is changing: from the determination that the war can only end with the Russian army expelled from Ukraine, to the reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement that leaves most of the country intact may be the best hope. However, kyiv is not receiving the support it needs even to achieve that reduced goal.
Ukraine’s prospects are clouded above all by the danger that Donald Trump will win next month’s US election and seek a quick end to the waras he has promised. Some US and European officials hope that Trump can at least be dissuaded from forcing kyiv to sign an adverse deal with Moscow that would pose serious risks to future European and US security.
However, while simultaneously dealing with an escalation of war in the Middle East, even some Western capitals that previously insisted on the need to militarily defeat Russia’s Vladimir Putin are recalibrating their objectives. Some kyiv officials are also privately concerned that they lack the manpower, firepower and Western support to recapture all of the territory captured by Russia. There is talk behind closed doors of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over about a fifth of Ukraine it has occupied – although Russia’s sovereignty is not recognized – while the rest of the country is allowed to join NATO. or equivalent security is provided. guarantees. Under that umbrella, it could be rebuilt and integrated into the EU, similar to West Germany in the cold war.
This scenario is based, however, on ambitious assumptions. One is that the United States and its allies must be prepared to offer NATO membership or the necessary guarantees, when until now they have been reluctant to grant kyiv a binding path to the alliance. It would require a huge and costly deployment of forces by the United States and its partners, and would leave them in a Cold War-style trap.
A second assumption is that the president of Russia can be induced to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But preventing Ukraine from joining NATO was one of his apparent war goals. It is also doubtful that Putin has an incentive to agree to land-for-peace talks while believing his forces can still expand on their gains.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last month presented a “victory plan” in Washington that sought to persuade kyiv’s allies to strengthen its position, militarily and diplomatically, and force Moscow to the table. He came away empty-handed on two key requests: progress toward NATO and U.S. permission for kyiv to use Western missiles for long-range strikes on Russian territory.
Whether the goal is an outright victory or bringing Russia to the negotiating table, Western allies need to strengthen Ukraine’s position. The Kremlin can only be forced into talks on a deal that would be satisfactory to kyiv and the West if it deems the costs of continuing fighting too high. And any solution to the war that allows all or part of Ukraine to survive and prosper will need guarantees of your safety.
In his remaining three months in office, US President Joe Biden and his European allies should shore up Ukraine as much as possible. The goal should be to put kyiv in the strongest possible position ahead of a Trump presidency, or to provide a foundation on which Kamala Harris can build if she prevails. We still cannot know how the war will end. But it is within the power – and interest – of the West to help Ukraine regain the advantage over its enemy.