Here’s the English version of the interview that I gave to Dan Viet’s Dang Thuy on this subject.
1. Recent signals suggest that Ukraine may be open to discussing negotiations based on certain conditions proposed by Russia, including the status and control of approximately 25% of Ukrainian territory. How do you assess this potential turning point, and what key factors are driving Kyiv to adjust its stance at this juncture?
Zelensky began floating this scenario a year ago, but it’s only just recently that he expressed what’s widely interpreted as sincere commitment to it. The timing suggests that his falling out with Trump over Ukraine’s continued attacks against Russian energy infrastructure in defiance of the US’ demands to stop, which have worsened the global energy crisis caused by the Third Gulf War, is the reason. The Atlantic reported that Trump considers this to be a form of midterm meddling aimed against him.
Zelensky therefore likely realizes, or was advised (whether by his own team, his European allies, and/or his partners in the US’ “permanent bureaucracy” a.k.a. “deep state”), that Trump is probably ready to wrap up the conflict and might even coerce Zelensky into far-reaching concessions if he remains obstinate. Therefore, he might have calculated that it’s better to accept freezing the frontlines instead of continuing to demand that Trump do more to help Ukraine turn the tide, ergo his policy pivot as of late.
2. From Moscow’s strategic perspective, would Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate on the basis of territorial realities on the ground be sufficient for Russia to pursue a lasting ceasefire? Or will Moscow remain firm on its broader objectives of comprehensive demilitarization and neutrality?
Russia has asked for this since spring 2022’s peace talks, but it wasn’t till just recently that Zelensky expressed sincere commitment to this scenario. Putin also previously confirmed that he agreed to the US’ proposed compromises at Anchorage without disclosing exactly what they entail. Nevertheless, he and his team have repeatedly reaffirmed the need to resolve the root causes of this conflict, which include NATO’s ties with Ukraine, its leadership’s glorification of WWII-era fascists, and minority rights.
The approximately 11% of Donetsk that Ukraine still controls is also immensely symbolic for both sides since freezing the frontlines without Russia obtaining control of it could reinforce perceptions, especially within Russia, that Putin wasn’t able to obtain at least one of his originally stated goals in full. This further contextualizes Russia’s demand that Ukraine withdraw from the remainder of the region. It’s also why the US has considered coercing Ukraine to do so as a quid pro quo for Russia agreeing to a ceasefire.
3. In terms of legal frameworks and domestic political dynamics, what internal backlash and political risks might President Zelensky face if he assents to a peace formula involving the loss of de facto territorial control?
It’s unlikely that Zelensky would agree to formally cede any territory to Russia; instead, he’d probably retain Ukraine’s claims but agree to only pursue them diplomatically from then on out. The influence that ultra-nationalist forces have over him, which some have likened to them holding him hostage in a political sense, is one of the reasons why it took him so long to express sincere commitment to the de facto loss of the Russian-controlled regions that Ukraine claims as its own. He fears unrest or worse.
Trump’s revived rhetoric about regime change in Ukraine bodes ill for Zelensky since it strongly suggests that Trump expects that Zelensky will decline to run in his country’s long-delayed elections. Considering the US’ influence over ultra-nationalist forces in society, not to mention those within the state itself, the US could likely leverage these relationships to electorally depose Zelensky. If he rigs the vote to stay in power, then a US-backed Color Revolution and/or coup by the military and/or secret police is possible.
4. Should negotiations make tangible progress, what security guarantee model for Ukraine could realistically prove acceptable to all primary stakeholders—Russia, the U.S., and Europe—without sowing the seeds for future conflict?
Diplomacy is the art of the possible, as the saying goes, so mutual compromises are required to find common ground between all primary stakeholders in a conflict in the absence of one side’s total victory. Such is the case with the Ukrainian Conflict. Russia doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO nor NATO troops officially deployed to Ukraine, Ukraine wants security guarantees for deterring what he claims might be a future unprovoked attack by Russia, and most of Europe’s elites have a pathological fear of Russia.
Therefore, one scenario could see Ukraine excluded from NATO per a Russian-US deal but European troops deployed there outside of NATO without the US’ Article 5 commitments. The creation of a crisis-control channel between Russia, the US, and Ukraine could manage whatever incidents might follow. The restoration of complex economic interdependence between Russia on one side and Ukraine and the EU on the other through a US-brokered grand energy deal would help keep the peace afterwards.
5. Looking at the broader geopolitical implications, what signal would these negotiations send to the emerging multipolar world order, particularly regarding the strategic partnership among Russia, China, and the Global South?
Each side’s participation in these talks is independent of their ties with the Global South, but a grand peace deal brokered by the US could reshape the world order. A stable peace in Europe could free up more US forces from there for redeployment to the Asia-Pacific for more robustly containing China. Likewise, the resumption of US investment in Russia’s resource industry could ipso facto preclude investment in these same deposits from China, which might not receive a US sanctions waiver either.
Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, who’s considered to be the strategic mastermind behind Trump 2.0, is famous for his “Strategy of Denial” against China. In the current context, the US seeks to deny China access to the markets and resources required for fueling its superpower trajectory in order to coerce China into a lopsided trade deal for institutionalizing its junior global status vis-à-vis the US. The US is therefore expected to exploit a grand peace deal in Europe in pursuit of this ultimate end.
This interview was originally published at Dan Viet under the title “Phỏng vấn độc quyền: Vì sao ông Zelensky đột ngột thay đổi lập trường nhượng bộ lãnh thổ?”
