The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine

Source: Foreign Affairs 16-04-2024

The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine

by Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko.

This article reveals a hidden history of intense, high-stakes diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine in the weeks immediately following Russia's February 2022 invasion, which nearly resulted in a comprehensive peace agreement.

Key Diplomatic Efforts and the Framework

• Early Talks: Despite the simultaneous invasion, Moscow began probing for a compromise within days. Talks started in Belarus and moved to video conference before an in-person meeting in Istanbul.

• The Istanbul Communiqué (March 2022): This meeting led to a joint communiqué, largely drafted by the Ukrainians, which provisionally established a framework for a settlement. Key provisions included:

  • Permanent Ukrainian Neutrality: Ukraine would renounce NATO aspirations, non-nuclear status, and hosting foreign military bases/troops.

  • Multilateral Security Guarantees: Possible guarantor states, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council (like Russia) plus others, would be obliged to provide military assistance (like a no-fly zone or direct intervention) if Ukraine was attacked again.

  • EU Membership: Russia would explicitly "facilitate Ukraine's membership in the European Union"—an extraordinary concession given Russia's pre-war stance.

  • Crimea Dispute: The two sides would seek to peacefully resolve the dispute over Crimea during the next 10 to 15 years, implicitly acknowledging its disputed status—a major shift for Moscow.

The Near-Final Treaty and Sticking Points

After the communiqué, negotiators exchanged draft treaties (up until April 15, 2022), indicating rapid progress toward a deal. However, substantial disagreements remained:

• Russian Veto on Guarantees: In later drafts, Russia attempted to add a clause requiring a decision agreed to by all guarantor states before intervention, effectively giving itself a veto. Ukraine rejected this, insisting on individual guarantor obligations.

• "Denazification" Demands: Russia inserted non-security clauses demanding Ukraine ban "fascism, Nazism, neo-Nazism, and aggressive nationalism" and repeal specific laws related to historical memory (likely a "poison pill" or a measure for Putin to save face).

• Military Size: The sides were far apart on the size and structure of Ukraine's future military, with Russia insisting on much lower troop and equipment limits.

• Territory/Borders: The issue of current borders and territory occupied by Russian forces was deliberately skirted, to be decided by Putin and Zelensky at a planned summit.

Why the Talks Broke Off

The talks ultimately broke down in May 2022 due to a combination of factors:

• Western Skepticism and Reluctance: Western partners, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, were hesitant to embrace the framework. They were not willing to commit to the security guarantee, which would obligate them to potentially go to war with Russia. Then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly advised President Zelenskyy to "just keep fighting."

• Ukrainian Hardening Resolve: The failure of Russia's thrust toward Kyiv and the subsequent forced Russian retreat stiffened Ukraine's resolve, demonstrating that the military could be pushed back.

• Discovery of Atrocities: The gruesome discovery of Russian atrocities in Kyiv suburbs like Bucha and Irpin outraged Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian public, making diplomacy with Russia politically toxic, though the work on the treaty continued for some time after the discoveries.

• Ambitious Scope: The negotiators "put the cart of a postwar security order before the horse of ending the war," attempting to craft a sweeping peace treaty instead of focusing first on a basic cease-fire and conflict mitigation measures.

The authors conclude that despite the current dim prospects for negotiations, the history of spring 2022 shows that both Putin and Zelenskyy were willing to consider extraordinary compromises to end the war, suggesting that these abandoned ideas could still be relevant for a future, durable peace settlement.