We tried to escalate the invasion, now we're playing for time.

February 24, 2024, the sad second anniversary of the incursion of the invading troops of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve the goal of a rapid military operation, and so we have a long and yet unending conflict in which representatives of NATO and Europe have not yet said what they want. Putin is waging a delaying war because he believes he will either “sit it out” thanks to almost unlimited human resources, or he will have better alternatives in his hands later on. The Western world is beginning to accept the scenario of World War III. Preparing for the worst possible situation had to come from the very beginning.

Let's learn from our own mistakes

In the international negotiating community, we warned of the impending crisis situation even before the invasion, saying that Vladimir Putin would not attack Ukraine during the Olympic Games. If he did, the Chinese president would lose face and he would never forgive Putin for it. Today we know that Putin did indeed consult Xi Jinping on the situation.

At that time, NATO had a unique opportunity to escalate the situation by deploying military units along the entire length of the eastern flank. Policymakers in the European Union and the US could impose tough sanctions that they would not communicate in advance and which would not be such as cutting off only some Russian banks from the SWIFT system. We have thus lost the opportunity to de-escalate the situation in exchange for Putin's abandonment of the invasion.

So far, no one wants to admit publicly the fact that Putin will stop where we stop him. As long as we choose the strategy of retreat, he will continue the strategy of pressure. Until we say exactly what we want, “ending the war” will only be our wishful thinking, not a measurable goal. Still, there are first signs of behind-the-scenes negotiations over possible cease-fire negotiations.

When do we sit down at the negotiating table

Such a negotiation will have several conditions. The first is that one of the parties first stops believing that it can win. Then we will look for someone Putin will be willing to talk to. Russians do not trust institutions, only personalities, and Vladimir Vladimirovich will be willing to deal only with whom he considers his equal.

It may be after the US presidential election even Joe Biden, who already kind of slammed the door on Putin two years ago when he called him a “butcher.” The Kremlin's statement that Putin considers Biden a better candidate than Donald Trump may indicate who the Russian president would feel more confident in negotiating with. Ukraine cannot negotiate with Russia on its own, as this would legitimize Volodymyr Zelensky as president of sovereign Ukraine. And Europe appears more of a clunky institution than capable of sending to negotiate the strong figure that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel needs.

One more thing is important. Putin is not a visionary, and this can be seen in the way the Russian Federation and the Russian economy works. So in the future, we will negotiate with a former KGB agent with a special profile as an executive who focuses on immediate solutions.

Golden bridge for Putin

If the first to come to the negotiating table were Russia, Putin would start sending subtle signals like “we are ready for constructive dialogue.” In order not to lose face, however, it will be the Western powers that officially invite him to the negotiating table. And that will be preceded by long behind-the-scenes negotiations about how everything will work out and what can even be negotiated.

In the end, for Putin, the West will put up a golden bridge back to Russia. He must come home from the negotiations as a winner. In a recent controversial interview with US presenter Tucker Carlson, he actually said it himself when he declared that it was impossible for Russia to be defeated in Ukraine. If we don't build him that bridge, he'll keep the war going. Or he will not abide by the agreement and invade Ukraine again later.

Every conflict ends in negotiation

Every negotiation is about business, that is, influence, territory or, perhaps, the availability of technology. It still seems that the best solution on the table will be to divide Ukraine into East and West, something in the style of Germany after World War II. No one wants to talk about it publicly. We need to negotiate multilaterally, including with China or India. We also have to negotiate very intensively internally, within the European Union, to proceed in unity.

Negotiations to date, if we don't mention the prisoner exchanges, have been more camera theater. The United States keeps repeating that it will not negotiate with Russia behind Ukraine's back, and the EU is cracking down on Ukraine's backer and troublemaker bee with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. NATO is gearing up for major exercises, and both the US and EU are approving further packages of financial support for the defending Ukrainians.

According to the rules of war, Putin seeks to divide his enemies. Recently, for example, the Russian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas for her comments on Russia, not only to intimidate potential other heroes, but gradually put some European politicians on a kind of anti-sanctions list. Meanwhile, he is deepening his trade-friendly alliances with Iran, North Korea and especially China, even though they have historically not been very close with Russia, and China will be more worried than happy about the long-running conflict.

Two years on, Putin still believes that war is more profitable for him than negotiation. And before he sits down at the negotiating table, he will continue to test the unity of allies. What if a window of opportunity opened for a better alternative?

‍