Analysts anticipate no swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Analysts advised against expecting the U.S.-mediated discussions that commenced last month to bring an end to hostilities between Russia and Ukraine in the near future, during a forum on Tuesday organized by the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard.

Despite Ukraine’s agreement to an unconditional ceasefire, Russia intensified missile and drone assaults on Kyiv this week.

“We are a long way from any peace agreement or process,” stated Fiona Hill, A.M. ’91, Ph.D. ’98.

Hill served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019 during President Trump’s initial term. She provided testimony to Congress during Trump’s impeachment proceedings in 2019.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin possesses no motivations to conclude the conflict, but has many incentives to engage in discussions aimed at normalizing relations with the U.S., concurred Hill and panel participant Lucian Kim, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

Hill remarked that Putin’s aspiration for a Russia reunited with Ukraine, along with his readiness to accept increasing casualties, severely limits the prospects for a durable agreement, particularly given the relative inexperience of the U.S. negotiation team.

Both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are aware that Trump’s primary intention is to facilitate a peace agreement, even if it may not endure or could prove detrimental for Ukraine, Hill said, who is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe as well as a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers.

“Trump is attempting to impose a peace agreement that appears to align with Putin’s conditions,” seeking to reset U.S.-Russia relations, which he endeavored to achieve during his first term, she added.

Without intelligence and military backing from the U.S., the “most probable” scenario for Ukraine is territorial concessions to Russia. At this point, the idea that Ukraine could somehow regain Crimea and Donetsk is “nearly impossible to conceive,” commented Kim, who previously served as a Moscow-based correspondent for NPR and Bloomberg.

However, even a negotiated alteration of borders would likely not satisfy Russia, he cautioned. “Putin will not relent until Ukraine is under the Kremlin’s control.”

Russia and its allies, including China, Iran, and North Korea, have long viewed the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war against the U.S. The most crucial question now pertains to how they will respond if the U.S. completely withdraws from the conflict, especially for Europe, according to Hill.

“This is clearly a European war,” that will challenge the region’s stability and cohesion, she said.

Analysts concurred that Europe possesses more defensive capabilities than often acknowledged. Many nations recognize the threat Russia poses to their individual safety and have increased defense budgets in recent years.

Others have recently become motivated to strengthen their military forces since Trump’s return to power. Nonetheless, coordinating, training, and adequately preparing an alliance of individual European armies to assist Ukraine, if necessary, will require time, possibly more than the beleaguered nation can afford.

“The only hope the Ukrainians have at present is that the Europeans somehow organize themselves,” remarked Kim.

While Ukraine has the solid support of President Joe Biden, Kim noted, the relationship between the two nations remains far from ideal.

The Ukrainians have expressed a significant “level of frustration” with the limitations the administration has placed on the weaponry provided and its usage, along with the sluggish pace of deliveries. They regarded this as overly cautious, believing it stems from the Biden administration’s perspective that the conflict does not pose an existential threat to the U.S.

Hill added that another factor influencing the U.S. stance on military aid in Ukraine is that from the outset of the war, the Biden administration prioritized the avoidance of a nuclear World War III over taking all necessary steps to ensure Ukraine’s victory over Russia.

During a recent visit to Ukraine, Kim mentioned that he did not hear Biden’s name once mentioned and felt that few missed his administration. As early as last summer, there were indications that Ukraine held onto a “naive hope” regarding the potential for an improved outcome in a second Trump term.

“People believed that Trump, despite his track record in Ukraine during his first term, could somehow stir up the situation enough for a better result than allowing the war to continue in its current trajectory,” stated Kim. Yet, he observed, the Ukrainians have since been “disenchanted with those illusions.”