Geopolitics Review - 16th December 2024
Conditions For Negotiation
Contents
Introduction
Negotiation Conditions
Are There Any Non-Negotiables?
Debunking Claims From Both Sides
Concluding Remarks
Other News In Geopolitics This Week
Bitesize Edition
One long-standing geopolitical issue that continues to affect the world today is a conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Western officials regarding the future of NATO over thirty years ago.
As a part of the reunification of Germany, by some sources, an oral agreement was made that if the Soviets left East Germany, NATO wouldn’t expand one inch eastwards. According to other sources, no such conversation occurred.
The world we live in today is one where NATO has expanded. When this issue arrived in Ukraine, it led to rising tensions, culminating in the current Russia-Ukraine war.
This is one of an array of factors contributing to the war in Ukraine, but it demonstrates how the world system has some deep-lying issues that need addressing. One such issue should be ending the war in Ukraine and how we move forward from there.
With Trump arriving in January and promising to end the conflict in less than 24 hours, what key points do Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin want from any agreement? Are there any non-negotiables that need to be navigated, and what long-standing beliefs of all geopolitical actors here have contributed to this world we find ourselves in decades later?
Introduction
Last week, I discussed the recent changes in the Ukraine war, with the addition of ATACMS and Russia’s use of the Oreshnik missile in Dnipro. In the face of these changes, I decided it would be good to reflect on potential scenarios of peace and negotiation. Especially with Trump promising peace in a day, it is worth exploring what each side would want to achieve in a scenario that stops the fighting. With that in mind, let’s explore below.
Negotiation Conditions
I listened to the Tucker Carlson interview with Sergei Lavrov last Friday, and the one key takeaway I took amongst the noise was that Russia still stands by the Istanbul Communique from 2022 as their terms for any agreement after the conflict. The terms were as follows:
Ukraine was allowed to apply for EU membership as a neutral state.
Limits placed on the size of Ukraine’s military.
Ukraine ceases NATO membership plans.
Foreign military bases are banned in Ukraine.
Russia and Western countries listed as guarantors are obliged to assist Ukraine in the event of aggression against it.
Crimea was to be negotiated after 10 or 15 years.
Russia keeps the territory it possesses, and the four oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
The Istanbul Comminique was not agreed to by both sides when first proposed. As is well known, Boris Johnson hopped on a Boris Bike and rode all the way to Kyiv. He told Zelenskyy to carry on fighting, and here we remain at war today. The Bucha Massacre was also noted as a reason negotiations were cut off. One key issue with the proposal was that if a military intervention was to occur, all guarantors would have to agree. Hence Russia themselves could have vetoed a military response, even if Russia was the aggressor.
On the flip side, we have what the Ukrainians would hope to gain from any negotiation. Olaf Scholz visited Ukraine a few weeks ago, and it is suspected he was visiting to see what Zelenskyy is willing to accept or decline when it comes to peace in Ukraine.
It’s worth exploring where Ukraine still sees this conflict and the conditions for a potential cessation of fighting. In a recent interview with Sky News, Zelenskyy laid this out. We have also had previous conditions on Ukraine’s part from the late 2022 Ukraine Peace Formula. His and Ukraine’s conditions were:
Full Russian withdrawal.
Restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders.
Justice for war crimes.
Security guarantees against aggression, with potential for NATO membership.
Reparations from Russia to rebuild.
No territorial concessions.
Nuclear safety for Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
Asia and Africa food security.
Security of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Prisoners of war, civilian detainees, and child deportees returned.
Ecocide investigation from Kakhovka Dam destruction.
A summit and treaty.
Ukraine is allowed to join the EU.
Keep these conditions in mind for now. Finally, the Biden administration is seemingly attempting to make life more difficult for Donald Trump in January, but his suspected conditions to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours have been well documented. Trump’s plan could involve:
An immediate ceasefire.
Ukrainian territorial compromise. If not agreed to, aid for Ukraine could be reduced.
Russian troops freeze, potentially in exchange for sanctions relief.
Neutrality clause including no NATO membership for Ukraine.
A security guarantee from Western nations, perhaps even with a troop presence in Ukraine. This could also be a third party or the UN.
It is worth noting that Trump’s exact plan is unknown, and there is a large amount of speculation surrounding the topic. But from many of these points, it seems like some agreements could be formulated. The important discussion here is where the parties disagree. Where within this issue could arise policies that can’t be agreed upon?
Are There Any Non-Negotiables?
Amongst these three different plans, are there any non-negotiables? What are the biggest points of disagreement?
An immediate ceasefire when Russia has some momentum.
Complete Russian withdrawal.
Territorial compromises.
The return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders.
How a Ukrainian security guarantee is enforced.
Reparations from Russia.
NATO membership.
Ukrainian presence in Kursk.
To start, the momentum Russia has isn’t as strong as some make out. They are making gains, and have set their sights on Pokrovsk, but comparing the front lines from November 2023 and today is barely visible if the map is zoomed out. However, if the Russians see this as momentum, why stop pursuing your current strategy if you could find yourself in a stronger negotiating position in the future? Of course, this is a moral issue, but in the geopolitical world of incentives and self-interest, Russia heading to the negotiating table when they have momentum doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense unless they are incentivised to.
Secondly, the geographical issues are the next biggest issue to be solved. Russia wants the four oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Ukraine wants Russia to leave these. Trump will likely test Ukraine by asking them to make territorial concessions. This would immediately be an issue because Russia doesn’t hold all of this territory. Why should Ukraine give away the territory it possesses, or why should Ukraine have to give away any territory at all? This is likely Ukraine’s view regarding a hope to return to its 1991 borders, which would include Crimea. Again, in discussing incentives, could Trump provide Zelenskyy with enough incentive to give up territory for a security guarantee?
Part of the territorial issues would also involve Ukraine leaving the Kursk region.
We then come to how Ukraine’s future security is guaranteed. NATO membership in the eyes of Russia cannot happen. For Ukraine, NATO is how it guarantees its future security, and so an equivalent measure should be implemented. But would Russia accept this?
The expected eventual agreement is that a security guarantee cannot and will not involve NATO, since this could only delay the conflict until a future date through an activation of Article 5. The conflict needs to be stopped, here and now. If a security guarantor system is implemented, it has to involve a range of international actors. It cannot be enforced where Russia can veto any vote or policy, and to avoid the potential for clashes, it should be overseen by an independent international body, such as the UN, and should seek to foresee any potential issues that geopolitical players could seek to take advantage of for their own benefit, so those issues could be noticed, and avoided quickly. Anybody breaking a security guarantee system here should be seen as breaking international law. A demilitarized zone would be difficult, especially with citizens having lived in much of the territory where one would have to be placed.
Finally, how Ukraine is rebuilt becomes the final issue I’ll include. Could it come from the stolen Russian foreign exchange reserves, which are of the extent of $300B? Would Russia be particularly happy with this? The potential for a levy on Russian energy exports is less likely, especially with how much Russia relies on its energy exports. Perhaps sanctions relief could somehow be involved in a deal to provide reparations to Ukraine.
With these non-negotiables in mind, what would need to change for them to become negotiable?
Trump’s entrance in January could well change the direction of this conflict. A key worry is that Ukraine shouldn’t have to give up anything in a war that it didn’t ask for. The U.S.-led system continued to move NATO towards Russia since the “promises” between Reagan and Gorbachev were never written down. With Russia seeing Ukraine as a “sister state”, it was always going to lead to heightened tensions in Ukraine.
Russia is also gaining ground in Ukraine. Putin’s condition is that Russia retains control of the four regions it acquired in referendums that passed with flying colours, a quite suspicious change in voter patterns when analysing the earlier referendum in which no oblast voted over 50% to join the Russian Federation. The world of geopolitics is littered with lies, but the momentum is with the Russians. This conflict is still theirs to lose.
As has especially been the case in geopolitics recently, it has been filled with a lot of noise. To end, I’m going to debunk various claims made by both sides, so we can better view this situation with all the noise stripped out. Over the last few decades, geopolitical actors have contributed to the creation of this world. Is there any way we can de-escalate?
Debunking Claims From Both Sides
From the Russian point of view, the Americans and the West triggered the Maidan Revolution in 2014. To provide stability, Russia took Crimea, and fighting in the Donbas and Luhansk has occurred since. Today, we know Russia also wants the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts since this is now a part of the Russian constitution, and elections in the regions saw them wish to join the Russian Federation. On a macro level, all this has been occurring at the same time as NATO advancement after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which it was promised wouldn’t happen.
To debunk some points here, the validity of the elections in the four oblasts is heavily debated. They also occurred once the war had started and many citizens had fled. This points to an election that isn’t representative of the true collective opinion of the citizens of these oblasts. I also understand countries need a structure of governance and leadership, but all countries should be able to decide their own future. If any nation wishes to join any group of like-minded nations, why should a conversation from over three decades ago determine if this country is “allowed” to do this? If something collapses and breaks, do we rebuild it exactly as it was, or do we seek to address issues that led to its collapse in the first place and create a better system? The Soviet Union collapsed, and we’re floundering in the past when we should be looking forward. Of course, this has to incentivise all geopolitical actors, and a multipolar world could well be that incentive for some nations who feel underrepresented in the US-led rules-based order. This should, however, see all geopolitical actors make an active effort to not turn it into multipolar conflict.
Now let’s flip the coin and explore from the U.S. and the West’s point of view. Russia invaded Chechnya, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and Ukraine in 2022. This pattern of four is no coincidence. Vladimir Putin has said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy in Russian history. His actions paint a picture that he hopes to regain some of this power lost. Ukraine has always been considered a close ethnic neighbour of Russia, but every country around the world has a right to determine its own future. This especially includes the former Soviet states. If they wish to join the Western world, they should be allowed to uninterrupted by Russia.
I’ll place my debunking hat on once again. Firstly, what politicians want for their own self-interest, and what the people of a nation want are two different topics. Once again, a system enacted on the world is a determinant of the direction in which the world is heading, not the citizens of this world. Now, a nation enacting four different examples of violence in the last few decades must be addressed, especially when founded in creating instability and gaining territory of other sovereign nations. This can be aided by the limitation of conflict through international institutions that make efforts to build national and regional institutions representative of all, something that our world currently lacks. We need reasons to work together that represents all. Look at economic interdependence as one such example. Both the United States and China rely on eachother for goods and services that fulfil their needs. A decoupling is slowly occurring here between the US and China, but something should take its place. If we can incentivise geopolitical actors to engage in some form of balanced interdependence, then win-win relations will naturally be prioritised over zero-sum loselose relations that often present themselves as escalatory. How we do this, I don’t know.
Outside of all this escalatory geopolitics, the most important thing should be the citizens of Ukraine. These are everyday people just like me and you, and for whatever reason you believe, be it the military-industrial complex, or any other reason, are being neglected and are suffering heavily for this conflict.
I recently started reading Patriot by Alexei Navalny. He was a Russian opposition politician who had a vision of a future in Russia. He highlighted injustices and corruption in the Russian government, was poisoned in 2020 but survived, and unfortunately, he died earlier this year while in captivity in Russia. It can sometimes be difficult to determine what is truth and lies in the world of geopolitics, but as I read this book about a man of incredible bravery, I saw a man who loved his family. I see a man who cared for people he never met and wanted a better future for them at great personal cost. I see a man who pictured a better future not just for his country, but for others around the world. That to me sounds like a world worth pursuing, even if those in power today see the world as a facilitator of their own self-gain. In our current world of geopolitical conflict, I’m on the side of peace and a better future for everyone around the globe. I’m on the side of Alexei Navalny.
Call it naive, or idealistic, but the pursuit of such a world, in my opinion, is an aim worth pursuing. Who knows where positive impacts could be felt if only we prioritise peace around the world? If only by taking one small step forward at a time, it’s much better than the steep staircase we find ourselves falling backwards down today.
Concluding Remarks
In the Information Age, there are fewer secrets. Batches of geopolitical theatre centuries ago would have been seen as irrational on the surface.
But, I recently read one of the best quotes I’ve read in years from Econolog.
“There’s often very well-defined but hidden strategy behind apparently mad escalation steps”
This U.S.-Russia scenario seems like such a scenario to me. Neither party is innocent, furthering their own individual self-gain over that of billions around the world. Our leaders are playing with fire, and I for one hope somebody arrives with an extinguisher soon.
In laying out what I’ve written today, I’m aware that I’m incredibly far from providing any answer, nor am I in any position to do so. But for my own understanding, and to start a conversation, I believe it’s prudent to discuss such topics while considering potential solutions.
With that in mind, if anybody believes they do have answers or any issues with my analysis, I’d love for you to let me know in the comments. I hope by highlighting the historical points of view that got us here, and what each side wants from a negotiation, we could begin to assess what is truly non-negotiable, where there could be some agreements formed, and how each side can be incentivised to agree to ceasefire and peace through inventive strategies.
Next week, I plan on discussing what is unfolding in Syria. I’ll explore the history of the state, how the civil war unfolded since the Arab Spring in 2011, and how we saw the collapse of the Assad Regime. Find out more about this next week.
Other News In Geopolitics This Week
Beijing Considering Yuan Devaluation In Response To Trump Tariffs
Germany Gas Use and Power Prices Jump Amid Weak Wind Generation
Russia Launches Large Attack On Critical Fuel and Energy Infrastructure
South Korean Defence Minister Sent Drones To Pyongyang to Spark Retaliation
Trump Team and Israel Separately Weighing Preemptive Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites
Thanks for reading! I’d greatly appreciate it if you were to like or share this post with others! If you want more then subscribe on Substack for these posts directly to your email inbox. I research history, geopolitics, and financial markets to understand the world and the people around us. If any of my work helps you be more prepared and ease your mind, that’s great. If you like what you read please share with others.
Key Links
The Geopolitics Explained Podcast
If you want to see daily updates and discover other newsletters that suit you, download the Substack App.
You can become a paid subscriber to support my work. There are paid posts every Thursday and long-form monthly articles in my global questions series exclusively for paid subscribers. The Geopolitics Database is also accessible. Read Geopolitics Explained for 20p per day or start a free trial below to find out if my work is for you! I appreciate your support!
Sources:
https://news.sky.com/story/emotional-zelenskyy-opens-up-on-peace-sacrifice-and-family-in-exclusive-interview-13263437
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-where-are-russias-300-billion-reserves-frozen-west-2023-12-28/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/10-maps-that-explain-ukraines-struggle-for-independence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
https://www.osce.org/odihr/528075
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna184145
that's a very helpful summary, and many thanks for adding the quote!