As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, the southern city of Mariupol has withstood constant bombardment resulting in indiscriminate destruction and a large number of civilian deaths and injuries. Up to seven Russian Navy ships have shelled the coastal city from Sea of Azov.
After almost four weeks since President Putin launched the invasion, observers say the Russian military has largely stalled in place, and have turned to heavy air and artillery bombardment of several Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, President Biden is scheduled to visit Belgium and Poland on March 23 in an effort to hold together the Western alliance.
After several rounds of talks between Ukrainian and Russian representatives, there have been no breakthroughs to establish a ceasefire or end the conflict. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said all issues would be open for discussion, as he called for direct talks with Putin. The top issues on the table are the status of Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, the fate of the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk and Kyiv’s goal of joining the NATO military alliance. Zelensky said that any compromises he may reach with Moscow would be put to a referendum vote. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Marcus Stanley, advocacy director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, who considers the importance of current negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the role of the U.S. to support those talks to end the war.
MARCUS STANLEY: I do think diplomacy is critical and I think that as Americans, you know, I think the U.S. has a moral obligation. Even though we’re not the the leaders in diplomacy here, Ukraine is the leader in diplomacy. And we obviously cannot and should not impose a diplomatic solution on Ukraine. But the U.S. is an important player here, I think, and we should be seeking as rapid a peaceful end to this war as we can, even if it does involve some painful compromise, because the alternative of the war continuing, it will, yes, that will weaken Russia and weaken Putin on the world stage. But it will be a disaster for the people of Ukraine. I mean, it would involve sort of fighting Putin to the last Ukrainian, you know, which I think is a very dark outcome.
And also as long as this war is continuing, we face the risk of nuclear escalation of the war and escalation of the war to nearby NATO countries, which is extraordinarily dangerous.
So, in terms of the prospects for diplomacy, I think it’s a very difficult and delicate situation right now. We’ve seen kind of this alternation between reports of some progress and a potential settlement on the table. And then people saying, “No, that’s in fact not true.”
And I think the outline and sort of the consistent kind of outline that has seemed to come out does revolve around a neutral Ukraine that does not join NATO. Some kind of recognition of Russia’s occupation of Crimea and some kind of settlement of the Donbass civil war. And then also possibly a change in internal policies toward Russian speakers, although that’s less clear.
These are the same issues that led to the war. And it appears Russia you know, from Russia’s perspective, it appears Russia is continuing to put them on a table for a diplomatic solution. The problem is when you get into the details of these, it’s extremely tricky because obviously, Ukraine wants and need some security guarantees so they don’t just get invaded again.
And what does that guarantee look like? And how is it different than Ukraine joining NATO? And how does it preserve — from Russia’s perspective, a neutral Ukraine? And then within Ukraine, these issues about Crimea, the Donbass, are very, very controversial within Ukraine. So it’s a very tricky situation for Zelensky.
Just as a last note, I think that any peace settlement also has to be attentive to the need for reparations and the rebuilding of Ukraine from the damage that has been done. And is being done.
SCOTT HARRIS: Right. Marcus, I did want to ask you about one key element of any future peace agreement, and that would be the lifting of onerous sanctions that are currently in place on Russia. How willing do you think the United States, the European Union and other actors across the world would be to lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive peace deal?
MARCUS STANLEY: I would say, first of all, these sanctions go far beyond Putin and his inner circle. These sanctions are pretty devastating to the overall Russian economy that the U.S. put together with our allies very quickly and effectively. And I think it’s a key question for the Biden administration. What is the goal of these sanctions? Because if the goal of these sanctions is to weaken Russia over a long period of time, degrade the Russian economy and military, make Russia a pariah in the community of nations and eventually perhaps achieve regime change, eventually drive out Putin, that is a goal that will take years.
That is you know, I mean, it’s a goal that will take years and may not even be attainable. We’ve seen 60 years of sanctions on Cuba that did not succeed in regime change. You know, we’ve seen decades of sanctions on Iran that did not succeed in regime change. So if your goal with these sanctions is to weaken and punish Russia and possibly achieve regime change then they would have to be in place a very long time.
But if you want to sort of achieve the maximum incentives to settle the war and you want to maximize the negotiating power of the Ukrainian government in dealing with Russia, then you do put these sanctions on the table for an end to the war in Ukraine. You say that if there is a diplomatic solution worked out here that is acceptable to Ukraine and if that diplomatic solution leads to a ceasefire and withdrawal this year, then lifting the sanctions is on the table. And you would lift the sanctions, at least some of them at least the ones sort of collectively aimed at at all of Russia.
And I think that may be politically difficult in the United States. I think, frankly there are a lot of people in Washington, D.C., who would like to see sort of an extended conflict and extended sanctions that sort of break Russia decisively as a world power, perhaps over a multi-year period. But that is a very dangerous course and that’s also a course that’s going to, I think, maximize the bloodshed in the war.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with Marcus Stanley (30:46) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the Related Links section of this page.
For more information, visit the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft at quincyinst.org.
