Washington and Kyiv are shifting their objectives and leaning towards freezing the fighting along the front line – Financial Times

In the U.S. and within the “corridors of Kyiv,” there is a shift in war objectives, with growing inclinations toward negotiations with Russia to halt the war along the front lines.

This was outlined in an editorial by “The Financial Times”, which had recently reported on such plans, despite Ukraine’s denials.

The article states, “In Washington, some Western capitals, and in Kyiv, attitudes are changing—from the determination that the war can only end with the expulsion of the Russian army from Ukrainian territory, to a reluctant acknowledgment that the best chance for the future is a negotiated settlement that preserves most of the country.”

However, the publication notes that Kyiv is currently not receiving enough support to achieve even this scaled-down goal.

“Ukraine is entering its third winter of war, and the mood is gloomier than ever. In the east, its forces are losing ground to Russia’s relentless offensive, despite the heavy toll on Moscow. With half of its energy system destroyed, Ukrainians face cold months with prolonged periods without light and heat,” describes the FT.

Some Western capitals, which previously insisted on the necessity of Russia’s military defeat, are now “revising their goals” amid the intensifying situation in the Middle East. Furthermore, some Ukrainian officials, in private conversations, have expressed concerns that they lack the personnel, firepower, and Western support to reclaim all the territories captured by Russia.

As a result, there are “closed-door discussions” about a deal in which Moscow would retain de facto control over approximately one-fifth of Ukraine, though its sovereignty over those areas would not be recognized. Meanwhile, the rest of Ukraine would either be allowed to join NATO or receive equivalent security guarantees. Under this “umbrella,” Ukraine could recover and integrate into the European Union, similar to West Germany during the Cold War.

However, the article highlights several problems with these assumptions. Ukraine’s accession to NATO would “require a large and costly deployment of forces by the U.S. and its partners, leaving them in a Cold War-like situation.”

Another assumption is that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin could be persuaded to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But one of Putin’s stated goals was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and it is doubtful he has any incentive to agree to a land-for-peace deal as long as he believes his forces can achieve more success on the battlefield.

The newspaper urges President Biden and Western leaders to significantly increase support for Ukraine, backing Zelensky’s “victory plan.” It notes that the Ukrainian president “left the U.S. empty-handed” during his recent visit. Given the inevitability of negotiations, the “FT” calls for Ukraine to be bolstered as much as possible, “to strengthen Kyiv’s position before a potential Trump presidency or to lay the groundwork for Kamala Harris to build on if she wins.”

Previously, “The Washington Post” reported that despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s presentation of his “victory plan,” the details of Kyiv’s future strategy “remain unclear.”