Is this the beginning of the end of the war in Ukraine?

Dossier Ukraine: Who will negotiate peace? Desplega

.

Ukraine's borders at stake in negotiations

BarcelonaAlthough the Trump administration's peace initiative for the Ukraine war appears to be in its infancy and future scenarios are still uncertain, there is a consensus among all the international relations experts consulted for this article: The winds coming from Washington are blowing in favour of the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The new US president may be tempted to try to achieve a peace agreement in a short period of time, thus fulfilling an election promise, by putting pressure on Kiev to make painful concessions. However, experts warn that a peace perceived as a victory for Moscow could have negative consequences in the long term.

One of the questions that arises in these initial stages is whether Putin is really interested in starting a serious negotiation process.Putin is winning on the battlefield, his troops are advancing. Therefore, he might prefer to wait, to continue advancing positions in order to have a better negotiating position in the future. But I believe that he will agree to negotiations in order to present himself as a man of peace," says Mira Milosevic, an analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute – one of the most important institutions in the world. think tank linked to the Spanish government-specialized in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Most experts consulted, including Milosevic herself, lean towards the view that Moscow will participate in the negotiations, especially given that the Trump administration seems to have accepted several of the conditions imposed by the Kremlin. "According to the statements of the last few days, Trump has bought 100% of Putin's general framework for negotiations"And this will allow the Russian president to have a very favourable starting point for negotiations," comments Pol Morillas, director of Cidob.

"Even before the negotiations began, Trump had already granted Putin two of his main demands: Ukraine's non-entry into NATO and the right to annex Ukrainian territory invaded by force," says Milosevic, who points out another element that is not often talked about: the fact that the US has accepted link any negotiations on arms reduction or control, including nuclear arsenals, to an agreement on the war in Ukraine.

In the current scenario, according to Morillas, one of the main doubts is what the pace of the negotiations will be, as well as their ambition.

"One possibility is that the terms of the peace agreement will be decided at a bilateral summit between Trump and Putin and, therefore, that it will be a quick process. But it could also happen that the conversations between both leaders would rather open the door to long negotiations, as occurred in the case of the Agreements of the Agreements of the Moscow Agreements that did not end the hostilities that began in 2014, Following the popular uprising that led to the flight of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.

If the talks really drag on, as Milosevic assumes, Trump could lose the ability to impose his vision of a peace in Ukraine that is favourable to Moscow's thesis and contrary to traditional Washington policy. "The time frame in which Trump can exert much influence will be limited. As the effects of his policies generate negative consequences in the US - for example, an increase in inflation or job losses due to tariffs - or as the Democrats regroup and mount a stronger opposition, critical voices will emerge," he predicted.

A lasting peace?

Ukrainian analyst Oleksandr Slyvchuk advises caution against jumping to conclusions based on statements made to the press by US leaders. But he does, however, warn of the possibility of a "unfair agreement" does not really lead to lasting peace. "Wanting to end the war by making concessions to Russia will only postpone the problem for several years. An emboldened Russia represents a very real threat to the European Union, especially to the eastern countries, as demonstrated by the cyber attacks suffered by the Baltic republics," says Lyvchuk, who believes that the best security policy for the region should include Ukraine's entry into NATO. "This way, Russia will surely not attack Ukraine in the future. Russia will not be satisfied with the four provinces it occupies; it wants to control the entire country," he adds. A very similar message to that reiterated by President Zelensky.

According to Milosevic, one of the objectives of Trump's policy towards Ukraine is to break the alliance between Moscow and Beijing, since Curbing China's rise as a world superpower is one of its major foreign policy goals"Separating Russia from China is an old obsession of the US, which they already tried in the 1970s with Kissinger. In this way, without the Moscow-Beijing axis, it will be easier for Washington to compete with China," says the Serbian expert, who believes that we are experiencing the "end of NATO."

Morillas considers this strategic approach to be a mistake, and believes that it contradicts Trump's vision, since this attempt to attract Russia would be perceived as a gesture of weakness by the United States, Bad thing in an era of fierce competition between major global powers"A peace in Ukraine that is the result of Washington's weakness will not break the Moscow-Beijing axis, but rather will give wings to the goal of building an alternative world order to that dominated by the West, an old dream of Putin," warns the director of Cidob.

From Brussels, Garvan Walshe, from think tank CEU Democracy Institute, cools the chances of a major peace deal between Putin and Trump. "Most likely there will simply be a ceasefire that will serve to give the parties strength to recover for a new phase of the conflict. Trump will sell the ceasefire as the deal of the century, but it will not be. He only cares about symbolism, not substance," says Walshe, who predicts that Ukrainians will not accept such an unfavourable peace plan as the one that is being drawn up and will prefer to continue fighting.. He also believes that Europe will continue to support them: "The Weimar+ group [which brings together several European powers, including the United Kingdom] has said that it will continue to support Ukraine, and only Hungary or Slovakia could be left out."

On this issue, Slyvchuk agrees with Walshe and believes that even in the face of the threat of a suspension of US military aid, Ukraine will not give up. "Ukraine is not going to give away the territories currently occupied by Russia, a position that has a lot of social support in the country," he says with conviction.

In fact, he believes that not even a grand agreement between Putin and Trump that would force Ukraine to sign an agreement that included the transfer of territories would really bring peace. "In this scenario, an insurgency would be created in the occupied Ukrainian provinces; there would be no end to the violence. There is a real risk that Ukraine could become a failed state, and that should not be in anyone's interest," he warns.

Both Morillas and Milosevic are more skeptical about Ukraine's ability to sustain the war effort without US military support. "If at least the European Union gave Ukraine full financial and military support, it might be able to continue to resist. But we are not in this situation. The Union is internally divided, and it does not even see itself capable of offering security guarantees in Ukraine once peace is signed without the US umbrella. Ukraine alone cannot do it," laments the director.

One idea that all analysts share is that the next few months will be crucial, and not only for the future of Ukraine.