In March, you wrote that Ukraine’s supporters need to clearly define what the victory in this war must look like in order to be able to achieve it. How might that look like and what else is there to be done to bring an end to the hostilities?
There are different options for what an end to the war could look like. What has been surprising throughout the course of the war in the last year is that none of these options have been confirmed by Western allies and set to be on the same page with Ukraine.
The first option is the liberation of the entire territory of Ukraine, including Crimea. That is the preferred option for Ukraine, although there has always been some ambiguity from Ukraine’s side about whether Crimea should be liberated militarily or in a political process. From the Western side, there have always been concerns or fears of escalation, especially the nuclear kind.
The second option is going back to the 2014 line — parts of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea remain occupied by Russia. The problem with saying this is a good option is that the argument just repeats a pattern we’ve already seen in the past. We’ve already had 2014 and a renewed attack by Russia. So the risk is — the Russian leadership might just wait out for a couple of years and then try to attack once again.
The third option that was discussed in the earlier stages of the war is to have a line that allows Russia to keep even more territory. But that is an option which, at least for now, is not considered feasible anymore because Western leaders have very much agreed to Zelensky’s formula of a just peace in Ukraine.
So these are the three options that were under discussion. At the moment everything depends on how successful Ukraine’s counter-offensive will be.