The 16th BRICS summit was held in the Russian city of Kazan on the Volga River last week. President Vladimir Putin, the impeccable host, was visibly exuberant. The overall message was loud and clear. Putin is neither isolated internationally nor does he have any intention to succumb to Western pressure on Ukraine.
Close to 35 countries’ heads of state or government attended the conclave. To the added chagrin of the West, even UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was also present, drawing strong ire especially from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He was of the view that it did not behoove the UN Secretary-General to have accepted an invitation from a person who was wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.
While almost all guest leaders talked about Ukraine, none even implicitly blamed Russia for the war. Putin’s long press conference at the end of the summit was a treat to watch. He responded to many hard and direct questions with clarity and confidence and parried many with diplomatic panache.
Putin is highly unlikely to accommodate Zelensky in any meaningful way unless he sees all-out defeat or economic meltdown or unmanageable domestic unrest.
Now the question is how will the Ukraine war end? Will Putin or Zelensky ever agree on a solution that is seen as one-sided and coercive? Or, is a mutually-acceptable modus vivendi still possible?
When Russia moved into Ukraine on February 24, 2022 under the “special military operation”, most thought the government in Kyiv would collapse in a week or so, Zelensky would flee the country, and Kremlin would be able to install a pro-Moscow dispensation. However, all calculations proved wrong.
Instead of surrendering, Ukrainians under the leadership of Zelensky, stood up to fight Russia. The West, led by the US, was quick to provide military assistance to Ukraine with the hope that the Russian aggression would be repulsed and that even Putin could be removed from power by building pressure from within. These also turned out to be elusive. And today, the conflict seems to have been gridlocked with apparently no off-ramp to take an exit.
China and Brazil did try to mediate with proposals which, inter alia, called for an immediate ceasefire. This very idea became a non-starter from the Ukrainian side which contended that agreeing to a ceasefire would tantamount to accepting the Russian aggression and its occupation of a vast Ukrainian land in the Donbass region. Additionally, Ukraine also insisted that the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 must also be reversed. Moscow while understandably ready to an immediate ceasefire demurred to any suggestion that would result in withdrawal of its forces from the Ukrainian territory. Putin might eventually show some flexibility vis-à-vis some areas in the Donbas region, but Crimea in any case would remain nonnegotiable.
On the other hand, Zelensky is now coming under increasing pressure as the Western fatigue in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically has been growing as the conflict is dragging on without an end in sight. Even the “Summit for Peace” on Ukraine held in Switzerland in June this year, without Russian participation, could not make any headway beyond rhetoric and platitudes. Another such conference is now being planned in the Netherlands early next year which will in all likelihood be more of the same.
Of late, Zelensky has been in a hurry as he can see that in case of Trump’s victory Ukraine would lose sympathetic ears in Washington DC. And without the US support, other countries may start dithering as we are already witnessing in the case of some NATO and EU countries, especially Hungary and Ireland. Conscious of this, Zelensky presented his five-point “Victory Plan” to President Biden in a meeting in the White House in September.
Zelensky is now coming under increasing pressure as the Western fatigue in supporting Ukraine militarily and economically has been growing as the conflict is dragging on without an end in sight.
The plan in essence sought US permission to allow Ukraine to use heavy weapons and long-range missiles supplied by the US and other NATO countries to hit military targets inside Russia. Any such move would definitely further escalate the war as Putin has threatened to even use tactical nuclear weapons should the need arise. Reportedly, such weapons have already been deployed even in Belarus to create the necessary deterrence.
Zelensky also proposed that NATO should invite Ukraine forthwith to join the transatlantic alliance. At this point, all NATO members do not see eye to eye. Even Germany, which is providing substantial assistance to Ukraine, is skeptical. It seems that Biden is biding time and may still oblige Zelensky should Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.
In his ongoing election campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he would be able to end the war in Ukraine even before taking oath as president on January 20, 2025. This is what is worrying for Zelensky as Trump would likely go to the hilt to press him for accepting an immediate ceasefire sans any meaningful concession from the Russian side. Trump’s running mate JD Vance has also publicly opposed military assistance to Ukraine, saying that Taiwan was far more important for the US.
It goes without saying that Putin is highly unlikely to accommodate Zelensky in any meaningful way unless he sees all-out defeat or economic meltdown or unmanageable domestic unrest. Indubitably, Russia is suffering huge human losses in the ongoing war. According to some reports, close to 100,000 Russian troops have so far been killed and over 300,000 wounded in the war. This is massive and definitely unsustainable for Russia. No wonder, there are reports of about 3,000 North Korean troops joining Russians, especially in the Kursk region where Ukraine was able to capture some Russian territory this year.
Territorial integrity of states is enshrined in international law and the UN Charter. From a purely legal standpoint, Russia’s occupation of eastern Ukraine cannot be justified.
This unexpected Ukrainian move and success helped Zelensky to show to the international community, especially its Western allies where the public support to Ukraine has been diminishing, that neither Russia is invincible nor Ukraine is losing the war. The fact that Moscow has still not been able to push the Ukrainian troops back to the border betrays Russia’s military limitations. It is also adding more complications to the conflict and finding an end to it ever more difficult if not impossible.
Territorial integrity of states is enshrined in international law and the UN Charter. From a purely legal standpoint, Russia’s occupation of eastern Ukraine cannot be justified. Nevertheless, the world does not work on the basis of law, especially when powerful states see their primary interests at stake. Otherwise, Israel would have long been punished for it massive war crimes in Gaza, and now in Lebanon. It is the US which should also be held responsible for both the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
NATO, a legacy of the Cold War era, should have been dismantled with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact as the erstwhile Soviet Union disappeared from the world map. Instead, NATO was not only retained but also expanded closer to the Russian borders. Zelensky’s enthusiasm to join NATO was also misplaced. He should have never poked the bear. By doing that he has put Ukraine in a cleft stick.
Russia for all its constraints and weaknesses will never reconcile to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. Be that as it may both Putin and Zelensky now need face savers. Ukraine must give up joining NATO and vacate Kursk; and Russia must vacate the territory it has occupied in the eastern Ukraine since the war began in February 2022. As for Crimea, Russia will never oblige and Ukraine will have to digest this hard reality for now without giving up its claim.
There is no other solution to end this war unless Ukraine and the West have the appetite to do whatever it takes. Even then Russia cannot be expected to let it go so quickly and without wreaking unsustainable havoc. Alternatively, turn the war into a low-level conflict and wait for Putin’s era to come to an end. But what if the West and Ukraine find Russia more “Putinized” after Putin.
Ambassador(R) Abdul Basit Holds a Master’s Degree in International Relations from QAU, Islamabad. He joined the Foreign Service of Pakistan in October 1982. He has held various diplomatic assignments at Pakistan Missions abroad, such as in Moscow, New York, Sana’a, Geneva, and London. He served as Foreign Office Spokesperson during 2009-2012. He was Pakistan’s Ambassador to Germany from 2012-2014 and High Commissioner to India from 2014-2017. Served as President of Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) from 2017-2018 as well as President of Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) from 2018-2022. Presently, hosts the TV talk show “Decipher with Abdul Basit” on ABN News. Author of the book entitled “ Hostility: A Diplomat’s Diary on Pakistan-India Relations”.