A ‘hurting stalemate’: the cold, hard reality of Ukraine-Russia negotiations

With Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine grinding on, it appears negotiations may soon start to yield results.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine have indicated what they might be prepared to sacrifice to achieve a negotiated settlement, but a compromise between Russia’s original demands and Ukraine’s steadfast refusal is looking more likely.

Ukrainian negotiators began talks demanding an immediate ceasefire and then safe passage for civilians from conflict areas. Russia demanded Ukraine’s strategic neutrality, acceptance of Russian control of Crimea and formalisation of autonomy for the Donbass region.

So far, neither country has progressed those claims.

From a Russian perspective, a continued invasion is its central bargaining tool. From the Ukrainian perspective, it knows its determined and well-armed resistance is exacting a heavy toll on the Russian advance, and that Western economic sanctions are beginning to bite.

The Ukraine war is, then, starting to resemble what is known as a “hurting stalemate”, which is where both parties to a conflict cannot progress their battlefield claims without great cost but in which the price of continuing is becoming too high.

The Ukraine war is not yet at that point, but is moving closer to it — for both sides.

Russia knows it can continue to slowly advance its assault, in particular by employing the blunt, destructive tactics it used in Syria. But the Russian military has been shown to be vulnerable to a well-coordinated resistance armed with NATO-supplied handheld weapons — Stinger and Javelin missiles — that are effective against aircraft and tanks.

Not unreasonably, Ukraine initially argued that talks could not progress in good faith while the war continued. Yet ceasefires are categorically distinct from peace agreements and confusing the two or demanding a ceasefire in order to achieve an agreement was always likely to produce neither.

It is a cruel reality that negotiations often — indeed, usually — occur while war continues. Negotiators, particularly on the side suffering the heaviest casualties, are acutely aware that the time they take costs lives. The continuing loss of life is, in hard, brutal terms, a negotiating pressure point.

Negotiations have thus continued because Ukraine took an immediate ceasefire off the table. A ceasefire could, however, still be dangled by Russia as an incentive for talks to progress in a way that starts to satisfy some of its demands or ameliorate its underlying concerns.

In all of this, it is easy to say the negotiation process is not fair and that Russia, as the aggressor, should agree to a ceasefire or withdraw entirely. But “fairness” doesn’t come into negotiations, which are essentially about both parties maximising strengths and minimising weaknesses.

The outcome of negotiations is to find a position that both sides might not be entirely happy with but which satisfies their most basic political and security requirements.

The talks look to continue, an outcome to this ugly war is possible, and it is starting to look more likely. But an agreement will require cold calculation and considerable compromise.

In the meantime, people will continue to die.