The Responsible Statecraft website presented an analysis of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict settlement negotiation process by Anatoly Lieven, director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Governance, on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict settlement process.
The memorandums submitted by Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul on Monday show that a peaceful solution in Ukraine is impossible without decisive US intervention and a detailed American peace plan.
The problem is that some parties' positions are contradictory and completely incompatible. The memorandums show neither side is interested in establishing peace as soon as possible.
The Ukrainian position
The memorandum submitted by Ukraine states: "A complete and unconditional cessation of hostilities on land, in the air and at sea is a necessary prerequisite and condition for peace negotiations." Russia has rejected this demand and will likely continue denying it since it would mean giving up its main leverage without compensation. Moreover, an unstable and fragile ceasefire is not in the interests of Ukraine or the West. If Ukraine wants to begin complex economic reconstruction and democratic reforms, it needs a stable and lasting peace.
The Ukrainian memorandum also states that "no restrictions should be imposed on the number, deployment, or other parameters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as on the presence of friendly foreign forces on the territory of Ukraine." Russia has previously stated that it will never accept the presence of Western troops in Ukraine, as it sees it as NATO membership without an official name. European leaders, in turn, have noted that European forces can be deployed only if the US guarantees support, but the Trump administration has rejected this condition.
In another provision, Ukraine acknowledges that "some sanctions imposed on Russia can be gradually lifted, provided that a mechanism is in place in case of the possibility of reinstatement of sanctions. Frozen Russian state assets will be used for reconstruction or remain frozen until reparations are paid." Moscow will not agree to a peace treaty without lifting sanctions or explicit guarantees.
European integration: the only flexible point
The only point where the Ukrainian side leaves room for a possible compromise is the following: "Ukraine is not obliged to maintain a neutral status. It can seek membership in the Euro-Atlantic community and move towards EU membership. The question of NATO membership depends on a consensus within the Alliance." Russia has publicly stated that Ukraine has the sovereign right to seek EU membership. As for NATO, the memorandum correctly states that this depends not on Ukraine but on the unanimous consent of all members of the Alliance.
This means that either the Trump administration or any European government can block Ukraine's NATO membership without giving Kyiv any explanation. However, Moscow's main problem is that NATO's eastern members, particularly Poland and others, continue to appear as supporters of Ukraine's membership. And if the Democrats win in the US in 2028, they can override Trump's veto. That is why Russia is demanding that Ukraine enshrine neutral status in the Constitution or reach an appropriate US-Russian treaty, which Kyiv rejects.
Russian memorandum with unrealistic demands
According to Russian media, the Russian memorandum presented in Istanbul contains ceasefire conditions that Moscow must know are entirely unacceptable to Ukrainians. However, this does not exclude the possibility that Russia will be ready to compromise on some issues if it achieves its goals in other areas, particularly in bilateral relations with Washington.
The Russian memorandum includes the following demands:
Complete withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions,
An alternative ceasefire option is a ban on large-scale movements of the Ukrainian army, the abolition of mobilization and martial law, and the cessation of foreign arms supplies.
However, these conditions will only become possible if Russia wins the war. Ukraine will never agree to surrender the territories it still controls, and European countries will not agree to stop providing military assistance.
Demands and international response
According to the Russian memorandum, Moscow demands "international recognition of Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea as part of Russia in exchange for a ceasefire." This demand makes no sense. It's not just that Ukraine and the West will never recognize these annexations. The same applies to China, India, and South Africa, which have refused to acknowledge them and will continue to take the same position. The most that Russia can hope for (as was planned during the March 2022 talks in Istanbul) is to postpone the issue of the legal status of these territories for further negotiations.
Russia also demands:
Kyiv to announce the date of presidential and parliamentary elections, which should be held no later than 100 days after the lifting of martial law,
a limit on the size of the Ukrainian army,
a ban on neo-Nazi and nationalist propaganda, as well as nationalist parties and organizations,
restoration of the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
approval of the peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine by a legally binding resolution of the UN Security Council,
full implementation of the rights of the Russian-speaking population,
rejection of mutual claims for damages caused by the war.
Legal approval of the peace treaty by the UN Security Council is a logical and meaningful demand. However, Kiev's implementation of other Russian demands will be extremely difficult under Russian pressure since many of them presuppose approval by the Ukrainian parliament, which is unlikely.
The Importance of the US Role
Only Washington can offer Russia concessions in other areas, such as the deployment of US forces in Europe, that could force Moscow to soften its demands. Only the US can pressure Kyiv and European capitals to accept those terms. Some of Russia's demands (such as protecting the rights of ethnic minorities) are not only legitimate but also necessary for Ukraine's path to EU membership. However, a format must be found in which Ukraine accepts them as a starting point for its EU accession process rather than as a capitulation to Moscow.
The Trump administration's discontent with the peace process is understandable, but it would be the wrong move for the United States, even in its interests. Sooner or later, Washington will have to get involved again. Three recent developments show that prolonging the war carries serious risks for the United States.
1. Strategic Stability - Ukraine's attack on Russian nuclear-capable bombers is undermining strategic stability between the United States and Russia.
2. Economic Impact—A bipartisan bill in the US Senate would impose a 500% tariff on goods from countries that buy Russian oil and gas. While the bill refers to China, it also directly targets India, a key US partner unlikely to be swayed by this move to raise energy prices.
3. EU Sanctions - The EU has approved a new package of sanctions against Russia, including measures against its "shadow fleet." This is also disrespectful to countries like India that continue to buy Russian energy, considering it to be within the framework of international law.
An Estonian naval ship recently attempted to seize an oil tanker, and Russia responded by sending an aircraft. Russia even briefly detained a Greek-owned ship. Russian lawmakers have threatened punitive action, declaring: "Any attack on our oil pipelines could be considered an attack on our territory."
Conclusion
If the parties continue to maintain their unwavering positions, naval clashes are not only possible but inevitable. In this regard, it is evident that NATO member states would not dare to take such dangerous actions if they did not believe that the United States would support them. The Trump administration must curb these actions. At the same time, however, it must continue its role in ending the war in Ukraine. As long as the battle continues, the risk of local clashes between Russia and NATO will remain accurate, and the United States cannot remain neutral.
Prepared by: Arman Galoyan
