Shaky grounds for peace deal

THREE YEARS AGO, Russian troops crossed into Ukraine from Belarus in the north, Crimea in the south, Donbas in the south-east, and Kharkiv and Sumy in the south-west.

- HARSH V PANT

Moscow aimed to de-militarise Ukraine and assert Russia's red lines on Ukraine's intent to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Russian strategic planners anticipated a swift victory, expecting to subdue Ukraine within weeks. However, nearly 1,100 days after the conflict began, Ukraine, with the support of the West, has been able to prevent Moscow from completely attaining its battlefield objectives.

The war has come at a tremendous cost to both nations, with staggering manpower losses and economies strained. With a likely endgame in sight following a phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 12 and the potential reset in US-Russia relations, the discourse around ending the war has gained traction. However, bringing lasting peace is complex and lengthy as there is a fundamental contradiction in the perception each side has of their security.

Positions on territory In Moscow's calculus, the objectives of war were not driven by the question of claiming sovereignty over Ukrainian territories alone. Ukraine's political neutrality, autonomous status for the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Kyiv renouncing its aspirations of joining NATO was Moscow's position in the spring of 2022, which Ukraine accepted in principle during negotiations in Istanbul, but the deal fell through as it did not have the backing of the West. However, Moscow's position on territory has since evolved. Before the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland last year, Putin demanded Ukraine's withdrawal from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, which Ukraine rejected.