The Ukraine war may have reached a tipping point after the Ukrainians’ surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. If the Ukrainians can hold on to territory gained, it will give them increased diplomatic and military leverage.
Psychologically, the move makes it easier to talk about peace negotiations after a period when that was difficult without abuse from war supporters in Ukraine and elsewhere. This war of scale has been grinding down Ukraine’s own military and civil resistance to the imperial invasion as external support peaks.
Among the foremost military signs of this are the war’s sheer asymmetry, relentlessness and potentially long duration; its terrible death and injured rate of about 600 Ukrainians daily and double that on the Russian side; the 5:1 imbalance of matériel in Russia’s favour; the balancing up of European and US support for Ukraine by flows of military aid from China, Iran and North Korea to Russia.
Civil signs include changing public opinion in Ukraine about peace talks, as 44 per cent support them, with 35 per cent saying no and 21 per cent undecided; changing attitudes towards conscription, as 46 per cent say there is no shame in refusing it, with 29 per cent saying there is, and 25 per cent undecided, and substantial numbers avoiding or fleeing it; greater realisation that these changing attitudes vary significantly across regions, classes and political divisions; growing concern that issues such as corruption, social inequalities, media censorship and economic reconstitution and recovery need to be openly discussed, tackled and cannot be postponed.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
[ Ukraine’s incursion displaces more than 133,000 in RussiaOpens in new window ]
Signs that external support for Ukraine has peaked include an important survey in 15 European states showing a negotiated outcome with Russia, as opposed to an outright Ukrainian military victory, is now seen as the most likely outcome by most Europeans. Support varies roughly from stronger in the north to weakest in Italy, Bulgaria and Romania, with France and Germany in between. There is no real support for sending troops. It is a firm but finite support.
In asymmetric power relations, the weaker party needs to be smart and courageous to survive
Attitudes in the US are overshadowed by a possible Donald Trump victory; but even the most forward neocon liberals in the Biden administration see the need for negotiations with Russia, and they did that in the recent prisoner exchange. Their support for greater use of Nato-supplied arms against targets in Russia, as against US president Joe Biden’s caution, is being stress-tested in the Kursk operation.
EU and US policy-makers are more and more aware that they need to draw China and the Global South into their strategies on Ukraine – and that is a difficult task. Russian and Chinese calls for a multipolar world in which power is shared more equally between major states cut across the US determination to maintain the existing order in which it is the dominant hegemon.
Hence, states like India, Brazil, Iran or Saudi Arabia remain neutral in the conflict – not least because they are appalled at US support for Israel’s genocidal policy of human and infrastructure destruction in Gaza. Nor do they think the EU has sufficiently distanced itself from that, so any parallelism drawn between Israel and Ukraine as colonial victims is spurious.
Democracy versus authoritarianism does not cut much ice among these elites – whatever about their citizens. China’s Ukraine role is potentially transformative because of the pressure it can put on Russia and its ability to present a balanced deal to the Global South as beneficial. Such goodwill is important for Ukraine and the EU as security guarantees are made to Ukraine.
That the Ukrainians know this is clear from their own peace efforts and dealings with China. Russia was not invited to the conference they organised this summer, but Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy says it would be asked to the next one. There are hints on the Russian side of an increasing willingness to deal.
The process and possible content of any peace negotiations have been well rehearsed. Talks would have to recognise military facts on the ground without perpetuating them. Ukraine and Russia would need durable security guarantees. Issues such as minority and language rights, reconstruction costs and eventual territorial borders would require sophisticated and internationally overseen resolution.
Ukraine’s prolonged resistance to the invasion has established firm European and US support for the security guarantees it needs to ensure its survival. That includes eventual EU membership and reconstruction support; but it falls short of Nato membership if a deal is to be agreed. Russia will insist on that as a trade-off and has support on it.
[ The Irish Times view on the Kursk offensive: Ukraine changes the narrativeOpens in new window ]
Language and minority rights guarantees for both parties have comparable cases to draw on from international experience. The same applies to interim and permanent border arrangements.
In asymmetric power relations, the weaker party needs to be smart and courageous to survive. Ukraine should now turn these undoubted achievements in the war towards a peace deal.