World Update: Ukraine faces prospect of defeat – but the west must ensure a just peace


Date:

Author: Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

Original article: https://theconversation.com/world-update-ukraine-faces-prospect-of-defeat-but-the-west-must-ensure-a-just-peace-242146


There’s a degree of irony that countries attending the 2024 Brics summit this week voted to adopt the Kazan declaration (named for the capital city of the autonomous republic of Tatarstan in Russia, where the summit is being held). The declaration’s first clause emphasises that “all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety”. There’s also a certain amount of chutzpah on the part of conference chair, Vladimir Putin, whose ongoing invasion of Ukraine is so egregiously in breach of that charter.

Article one stresses that the primary purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security”. Article two rules that: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means”. If that’s not clear enough, it goes on to further insist that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Still, its a funny old world in which the UN secretary general, António Guterres, pitches up at a summit whose host is wanted on an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court on charges relating to the alleged illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. In a country whose troops are currently fighting in Ukraine in direct contravention of the UN’s charter.

To add a further layer of irony, October 24 is the 79th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Charter in 1945.

UN secretary general Aontonio Guterres greet Vladimir Putin at the 2024 Brics summit in Kaa=zan, Russia.
Strained relationship: UN secretary general Aontonio Guterrez greet Vladimir Putin at the 2024 Brics summit in Kaa=zan, Russia.
Grigory Sysoyev/Photo host brics-russia2024.ru via AP

Guterres called on Putin to agree a peace deal “in line with the UN Charter, international law and UN General Assembly resolutions”. The Russian leader is perhaps more likely to listen to a deal proposed by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. He said: “We must uphold the three key principles: no expansion of the battlefields, no escalation of hostilities, and no fanning flames and strive for swift de-escalation of the situation.”


Now, more than ever, it’s vital to be informed about the important issues affecting global stability. Sign up to receive our weekly World Update newsletter. Every Thursday we’ll you expert analysis of the big stories making international headlines.


The UN chief’s idea of a just peace would call for Russia to give up its illegal occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Xi’s proposal appears to call for a deal based on the status quo – virtually the opposite, in other words.

This is pretty much all Ukraine can hope for, as far as the University of Portsmouth’s Frank Ledwidge is concerned. Ledwidge, who has written regularly for The Conversation since Putin launched his invasion in February 2024 and is well plugged into defence and intelligence networks in Nato as well as in Ukraine itself, believes that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia – at least as things stand.

Ledwidge says Ukraine’s western allies are partly to blame for the maximalist aims of the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky. Western rhetoric has not properly been matched by sufficient weapons or the permission to use them as effectively as the situation warrants. Now is the time for realism, he writes:

A starting point could be accepting that Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are lost … Then we need to start planning seriously for a post-war Ukraine that will need the west’s suppport more than ever.




Read more:
Ukraine cannot defeat Russia – the best the west can do is help Kyiv plan for a secure post-war future


One of the key factors that Ledwidge stresses is that just one of Russia’s allies, North Korea, has supplied twice as many artillery shells this year as the whole of Europe. Now North Korean troops are apparently also about to join their Russian comrades on the battlefield. This, writes Ra Mason – a Korea specialist at the University of East Anglia – will help ease the pressure on Putin to bring forward his mobilisation plans.

ISW map showing the state of the conflict in Ukraine, October 23.

Losing battle? The state of the conflict in Ukraine, October 23.
Institute for the Study of War

It’s a diplomatic coup for Putin, Mason believes – it’s a “clear show of opposition towards the Washington-led global order”, which “deals a further blow to the myth that the Russian Federation is isolated, as an international pariah, in a world led by western powers.”

But a military coup de grace against Ukraine? Probably not. The jury is out on how effective North Korea’s “poorly equipped, unmotivated and undernourished” troops will be against Ukraine’s highly motivated defenders. It will also be interesting to see where and how they are deployed. If sent to the frontlines in Kursk, they’ll be helping an ally in its struggle against an incursion by Ukrainian forces. If deployed inside Ukraine, they’ll join Russia in breach of international law. Mason concludes:

If sent into new theatres of war against state-of-the-art Nato-supplied weaponry, it could effectively mean waves of ill-prepared cannon fodder being thrown into the meat grinder of Donbas’ trenches.




Read more:
Kim Jong-un sends North Korean troops to fight in Ukraine – here’s what this means for the war


Incidentally, the term “meat grinder” has been much bandied about of late. It follows reports from US intellegence recently that, while Russian forces have been making rapid advances and gaining a significant amount of ground in recent weeks, they are doing so at considerable cost in terms of dead and wounded. September was a particularly bloody month, with reports of Russian losses of more than 1,000 men a day, killed or wounded.

But Russian military strategists are well versed in such pyrrhic victories, writes historian Becky Alexis-Martin, who points to equally savage losses in Russia’s defence against Napoleon and in the first and second world wars. Stalin, in particular, was able to defeat the Nazi war machine by, inter alia, throwing millions of troops at their enemies (and incurring terrible casualties). But it’s not a strategy that guarantees success. And terrible psychological effects are beginning to manifest themselves in veterans returning from Ukraine with severe and often violent post-traumatic stress disorder.




Read more:
Russia’s ‘meat grinder’ tactics in Ukraine have proved effective in past wars – but at terrible cost


The diplomatic front

As if things weren’t bad enough for Zelensky on the battlefield, the Ukrainian president was dealt a serious blow earlier this month when the US president, Joe Biden, was forced by extreme weather events, including a hurricane hitting the state of Florida, to cancel the planned meeting of the heads of government of up to 50 of Ukraine’s western allies in Germany. The “Ramstein Group”, so-called after the German air base at which they meet, was scheduled to meet in the second week of October to consider Zelensky’s “victory plan”. Stefan Wolff, an international security expert at the University of Birmingham writes that the Ukrainian president was hoping to get some degree of commitment for a path to Nato membership for Ukraine as well as permission to use western-supplied long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia.

Neither of these seem likely to happen in the short term, says Wolff. Like Ledwidge, Wolff thinks Ukraine is doomed to defeat unless its allies double down on their aid – and fast. And like Ledwidge, Wolff sees little indication of that happening any time soon.




Read more:
Ukraine faces worsening odds on the battlefield and a struggle on the diplomatic front after Biden postpones summit


When it comes to continuing US support for Ukraine’s war effort, all eyes are now firmly fixed on November 5. The outcome of the presidential election will be seriously consequential for Ukraine’s future. Both candidates have made their positions clear and there is considerable difference between the two positions.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during the presidential debate on September 10.
Issue for debate: there’s a considerable difference between the positions of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris whenit comes to Ukraine.
EPA-EFE/Demetrius Freeman/pool

Donald Trump has said any number of times that had he not lost that “rigged and stolen” election to Biden in 2020, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine in the first place. Still, he says, if he wins this one, he’ll bring the war to a very rapid conclusion. But it remains to be seen, given Trump’s oft-stated admiration for Putin, whether the conclusion will be palatable to Kyiv – or to Nato in general.

Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, said the former president’s proposals are not “proposals for peace, they’re proposals for surrender”. As vice-president during the Biden administration, she flew to Europe not long after the invasion in February 2022 to help shore up support for Kyiv. Harris has also regularly restated her intention to continue to back Ukraine against Russia. In the only debate of the campaign she said that Ukraine was not Putin’s final stop and that he has “his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland”.




Read more:
On Ukraine, candidate Trump touts his role as dealmaker while Harris sticks with unwavering support


Poland, incidentally, is an interesting case in point. While it is Ukraine’s firmest ally and it leadership is four-square behind Kyiv, the people are curiously divided on the country’s support for Ukraine. You can read more about that here.




Read more:
Why many Poles are not as supportive of Ukraine’s war effort as their leaders in Warsaw


One imagines that Zelensky is as transfixed as anyone else on the 2024 US presidential election campaign as it heads into its final ten days. All we can tell you is that the polls are still very, very close. Well within most pollsters’ margin for error, in fact. A poll of polls, which combines polls from different agencies, published on the website FiveThirtyEight on October 22 shows that Harris leads Trump by 48.1% to 46.3% in the national popular vote. But the accepted popular wisdom is that the complex electoral college system used in the US may well favour Trump’s candidacy.

We’ll be providing daily updates on the US presidential race and full coverage of election day on November 5 and its aftermath.




Read more:
Harris nudges ahead of Trump in the polls – but could the economy prove her downfall?


World Update is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get our updates directly in your inbox.