Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Nowayhaha on January 28, 2023, 03:33:09 AM
-
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html
How does this end? Increasingly, this question is dominating discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war in Washington and other Western capitals. Although successful Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in fall 2022 renewed optimism about Kyiv’s prospects on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement on September 21 of a partial
mobilization and annexation of four Ukrainian provinces was a stark reminder that this war is nowhere near a resolution. Fighting still rages across nearly 1,000 km of front lines. Negotiations on ending the conflict have been suspended since May.
The trajectory and ultimate outcome of the war will, of course, be determined largely by the policies of Ukraine and Russia. But Kyiv and Moscow are not the only capitals with a stake in what happens. This war is the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences for the United States. It is appropriate to assess how this conflict may evolve, what alternative trajectories might mean for U.S. interests, and what Washington can do to promote a trajectory that best serves U.S. interests.
-
Some analysts make the case that the war is heading
toward an outcome that would benefit the United States
and Ukraine. Ukraine had battlefield momentum as of
December 2022 and could conceivably fight until it suc-
ceeds in pushing the Russian military out of the country.
Proponents of this view argue that the risks of Russian
nuclear use or a war with the North Atlantic Treaty Orga-
nization (NATO) will remain manageable.1 Once it is
forced out of Ukraine, a chastened Russia would have little
choice but to leave its neighbor in peace—and even pay
reparations for the damage it caused. However, studies of
past conflicts and a close look at the course of this one sug-
gest that this optimistic scenario is improbable.
In this Perspective, therefore, we explore possible tra-
jectories that the Russia-Ukraine war could take and how
they might affect U.S. interests. We also consider what
the United States could do to influence the course of the
conflict.
An important caveat: This Perspective focuses on U.S.
interests, which often align with but are not synonymous
with Ukrainian interests. We acknowledge that Ukraini-
ans have been the ones fighting and dying to protect their
country against an unprovoked, illegal, and morally repug-
nant Russian invasion. Their cities have been flattened;
their economy has been decimated; they have been the vic-
tims of the Russian army’s war crimes. However, the U.S.
government nevertheless has an obligation to its citizens to
determine how different war trajectories would affect U.S.
interests and explore options for influencing the course of
the war to promote those interests.
Key Dimensions That Define
Alternative War Trajectories
Numerous analysts have posited scenarios for the war’s
short-term trajectory—or even for endgames.2 Although
such scenarios are important constructs for thinking about
the future, they are less helpful for determining what pos-
sible developments matter most to the United States. It
is perhaps more useful for U.S. policymakers to consider
which particular aspects of the conflict’s future develop-
ment will have the most significant impact on U.S. inter-
ests. In lieu of rich, descriptive scenarios, we examine five
key dimensions that define alternative war trajectories:
• possible Russian use of nuclear weapons
• possible escalation to a Russia-NATO conflict
• territorial control
• duration
• form of war termination.
-
3
In this section, we describe each of these dimensions,
consider how they could vary as the war progresses, and
explore the relationships among them. We also explain how
different variations of these five dimensions would affect
U.S. interests.
Possible Russian Use of Nuclear Weapons
The specter of Russian nuclear use has haunted this con-
flict since its early days. In announcing his invasion in
February 2022, Putin threatened any country that tried to
interfere in Ukraine with consequences “such as you have
never seen in your entire history.”3 He went on to order a
“special regime of combat duty” for Russia’s nuclear forces
a week later.4 In October 2022, Moscow alleged that Kyiv
was planning to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in
Ukraine as a false flag operation and then blame Russia.
U.S. officials worried that Russia was promoting this story
to create a pretext for using nuclear weapons.5 And perhaps
most disconcertingly, Western governments appear to have
become convinced that Moscow considered using nonstra-
tegic nuclear weapons (NSNW) as its forces lost ground
in the fall. Russia has denied these allegations, but news
reports suggest that top Russian commanders did discuss
this option.6
Some analysts have dismissed the possibility of
NSNW use, contending that Russia knows that employ-
ment of nuclear weapons would be self-defeating. They
point to the lack of high-value military targets (for
example, concentrated Ukrainian forces) that could be
effectively destroyed with such weapons and to the risk
that these weapons might harm Russian troops deployed
in Ukraine. Use of these weapons could provoke NATO’s
entry into the war, erode Russia’s remaining international
support, and spark domestic political backlash for the
Kremlin. Knowing this, the logic goes, Russia would be
deterred from using nuclear weapons.7
These arguments ignore several issues that make Rus-
sian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency
that Washington needs to account for and a hugely impor-
tant factor in determining the future trajectory of the
conflict. First, there is evidence that the Kremlin perceives
this war to be near existential. Ukraine has long been in
a category of its own in Russian foreign policy priorities;
even before the 2022 war, Russia was willing to devote sig-
nificant resources and make major trade-offs to pursue its
objectives in Ukraine.8 For example, Moscow paid dearly
for its 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern
Ukraine. Western sanctions cost an average of 2 percent in
quarter-on-quarter decline in Russia’s gross domestic prod-
uct between mid-2014 and mid-2015, an effect that com-
pounded as the sanctions continued in subsequent years.9
Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion in February
2022, despite clear warnings from the United States and its
allies that he would pay a much higher price than in 2014,
shows that he is willing to go to even more-extreme lengths
to pursue his objectives in Ukraine. The decision to mobi-
lize 300,000 Russians in September 2022 arguably upended
a domestic social order that Putin spent nearly 25 years
building, which also signals a high level of resolve.10 That
order was premised on avoiding the kinds of social insta-
bility that mobilization introduced, particularly for Putin’s
core supporters. The decision to mobilize was postponed
until it was past due from a military perspective to avoid
these domestic political costs—and the perceived risks
of potential unrest stemming from an ebbing of popular
-
4
support for the regime. Putin’s willingness to accept these
domestic costs and risks underscores the importance he
attaches to Russian interests in Ukraine.
Second, since Russia’s conventional capabilities have
been decimated in Ukraine, Moscow’s nonnuclear esca-
latory options are limited. If Russia experiences further
large-scale battlefield losses, desperation could set in
among senior Kremlin decisionmakers. Once other con-
ventional escalatory options have been exhausted, Moscow
may resort to nuclear weapons, and specifically NSNW
use, to prevent a catastrophic defeat.
Third, Russian strategists have long highlighted the
utility of NSNW for accomplishing operational and tactical
goals in the context of a conventional war that Moscow is
losing. And Russia has capabilities to carry out these con-
cepts: Its NSNW delivery systems include artillery, short-
range ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, all of which
could be employed in Ukraine.11 Russian strategists also
envision preemptive employment of NSNW against civilian
targets—cities, military-industrial centers, and government
facilities—and against military ones, at least in the context
of a war with NATO.12 Moscow also could use NSNW for
demonstration strikes, either in the atmosphere or tar-
geted at population centers.13 The military effectiveness of
NSNW employment in Ukraine might be subject to debate,
but it is a plausible contingency given what is known about
Russian planning and capabilities.
Although Russian nuclear use in this war is plausible,
we cannot determine precisely how likely such use is. What
we can say is that the risk of nuclear use is much greater
than in peacetime. We can also say that nuclear use would
be highly consequential for the United States.
The United States has signaled both publicly and,
reportedly, in direct contact with the Kremlin that it
would retaliate if Russia were to employ nuclear weapons
in Ukraine.14 U.S. officials have avoided specifying the
exact nature of a possible response—instead using such
phrases as “catastrophic consequences”—but one NATO
official said it would “almost certainly” entail a “physical
response from many allies.”15 Although this formula-
tion does not explicitly commit to a military response,
even a nonmilitary retaliation that entails “catastrophic
consequences” for Russia might lead to a tit-for-tat spiral
that produces a NATO-Russia war. Russian NSNW use
in Ukraine could therefore lead to a direct U.S. conflict
with Russia, which could ultimately result in a strategic
nuclear exchange.16
But even if the escalatory challenges could be man-
aged, Russian nuclear use in Ukraine would be highly
consequential for the United States. If Russia won con-
cessions or made military gains through nuclear use, the
norm against nonuse would be weakened and other coun-
tries might be more likely to use such weapons in future
conflicts. Moreover, Russian use of nuclear weapons in
Ukraine would have large and unpredictable effects on
allied policies toward the war, potentially leading to a
breakdown in transatlantic unity. Death and destruction
in Ukraine, a tragedy in itself, could also have a major
impact on U.S. and allied publics. In short, the Biden
administration has ample reason to make the prevention
of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority
for the United States.
-
5
Possible Escalation to a Russia-NATO
Conflict
Since October 2021, when he first briefed President Joe
Biden on Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley reportedly kept
a list of “U.S. interests and strategic objectives” in the
crisis: “No. 1” was “Don’t have a kinetic conflict between
the U.S. military and NATO with Russia.” The second,
closely related, was “contain war inside the geographical
boundaries of Ukraine.”17 To date, Russia and Ukraine
remain the only combatants in the war. But the war could
still draw in U.S. allies. Combat is taking place in a coun-
try that borders four NATO member states on land and
shares the Black Sea littoral with two others. The extent
of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breath-
taking in scope. Support includes tens of billions of dol-
lars’ worth of weapons and other aid given to Ukraine,
tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
support to the Ukrainian military, billions of dollars
monthly in direct budgetary support to Kyiv, and painful
economic sanctions imposed on Russia.
A previous RAND Corporation report outlined four
plausible pathways to an intentional Russian decision to
strike NATO member states in the context of the war in
Ukraine. It identified the following reasons:18
• Punish NATO members for policies already under-
way with the objective of ending allied support for
Ukraine.
• Strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that
NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent.
• Interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine that Russia
believes might cause its defeat.
• Retaliate against NATO for perceived support for
internal unrest in Russia.
Although a Russian decision to attack a NATO
member state is by no means inevitable, in part because
it could lead to a war with a far more powerful alliance,
the risk is elevated while the conflict in Ukraine is ongo-
ing. Moreover, inadvertent escalation that leads to NATO’s
entry into the conflict is also an ongoing risk. Although the
November 2022 incident involving a Ukrainian air defense
missile landing on Polish territory did not spiral out of
control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintention-
ally spill over to the territory of neighboring U.S. allies. A
future targeting error could send a Russian missile into
NATO territory, potentially sparking an action-reaction
cycle that could lead to a full-scale conflict. If the war in
Ukraine were to end, the likelihood of a direct Russia-
-
6
NATO clash, whether intentional or inadvertent, would
diminish significantly.
It is clear why Milley listed avoiding a Russia-NATO
war as the top U.S. priority: The U.S. military would imme-
diately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the
world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Keeping a Russia-NATO
war below the nuclear threshold would be extremely diffi-
cult, particularly given the weakened state of Russia’s con-
ventional military. Some analysts are doubtful that Russia
would attack a NATO country since it is already losing
ground to Ukrainian forces and would find itself in a war
with the world’s most powerful alliance.19 However, if the
Kremlin concluded that the country’s national security was
severely imperiled, it might well deliberately escalate for
lack of better alternatives.
Territorial Control
As of December 2022, Russia occupied nearly 20 percent of
Ukraine. Kyiv’s top priority is regaining control over this
territory. And Ukraine has scored some impressive suc-
cesses, particularly in Kharkiv and Kherson. Yet the areas
Russia still controls contain important economic assets,
such as the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which
provided up to 20 percent of Ukraine’s prewar power gen-
eration capacity, and Ukraine’s entire Azov Sea coastline.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is committed to a military
campaign to liberate the entirety of Ukraine’s internation-
ally recognized territory. And he has justified this objective
with the moral imperative of liberating his country’s citi-
zens from brutal Russian occupation.
A war trajectory that allows Ukraine to control more
of its internationally recognized territory would be benefi-
cial for the United States (Table 1). The United States has
an interest in showing that aggression does not pay and
reinforcing the territorial integrity norm that is enshrined
in international law.20 However, the implications for that
interest of further Ukrainian territorial control beyond the
December 2022 line are not clear-cut. For example, even
if Ukraine took control over all of the territory that Russia
had seized since February 24, 2022, Moscow would still be
in violation of the territorial integrity norm. Put differently,
it is not clear that a trajectory that entails Russia maintain-
ing the December 2022 line of control would do more harm
to the international order than one that saw Russian forces
pushed back to the February line. In both cases, Russia
would control some Ukrainian territory in violation of the
territorial integrity norm.
An end to the war that leaves Ukraine in full control
over all of its internationally recognized territory would
restore the territorial integrity norm, but that remains a
highly unlikely outcome.
Furthermore, the weakening of the norm is less a
function of the quantity of land illegally seized than it is a
consequence of the international community’s acceptance
of the territorial change. The United States need not (and
almost certainly would not) formally recognize any Rus-
sian occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory regard-
less of where the de facto line of control is drawn. As it
did with Crimea, the United States can take measures to
ensure any Russian gains since February 24, 2022, are
treated as illegitimate and illegal and that Russia pays a
steep price for its aggression.
The extent of Kyiv’s control over its territory could
affect the long-term economic viability of the country and
thus its needs for U.S. assistance. For example, if Moscow
-
took over Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coast, leaving Ukraine
landlocked, that would pose severe long-term economic
challenges for the country. However, this outcome seems
unlikely given Russia’s military performance to date. The
economic impact of Russia’s possible long-term control
over areas it occupied in December 2022 compared with
what it held on February 23, 2022—although difficult to
calculate precisely—would be far less severe. The economic
effects of any lost territory will depend on the productivity
of those areas and the extent of their interconnectedness
with the rest of Ukraine. Regardless, Ukraine’s economy
would eventually adjust to any line; the question is how
painful that adjustment would be. Additionally, given Rus-
sia’s ability to strike deep beyond the current line of control
(or any line of control), greater territorial control is not
directly correlated with greater economic prosperity—or,
for that matter, greater security. As Kyiv has retaken more
territory since September, Russia has imposed far greater
economic costs on the country as a whole through its
strikes on critical infrastructure. An ongoing threat of
Russian attacks could inhibit investment and therefore
economic recovery throughout Ukraine regardless of how
much territory Moscow controls.
In sum, greater Ukrainian territorial control is impor-
tant to the United States for humanitarian reasons, to
reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s
future economic growth. However, the significance of
the two latter benefits are debatable. Russia’s violations
of international norms long predate the current conflict
and are likely to persist after the fighting ends. Moreover,
the United States and its allies have imposed many other
types of costs on Russia for its aggression—costs that have
already sent a signal to other would-be aggressors. And the
line of control as of December 2022 does not deprive Kyiv
of economically vital areas that would dramatically affect
the country’s viability.
In addition to these benefits, greater Ukrainian ter-
ritorial control also poses potential costs and risks for the
-
United States (Table 2). First, given the slowing pace of
Ukraine’s counteroffensives in December 2022, restor-
ing the pre-February 2022 line of control—let alone the
pre-2014 territorial status quo—will take months and
perhaps years to achieve. Russia has built substantial
defensive fortifications along the line of control, and its
military mobilization has rectified the manpower deficit
that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counterof-
fensive. A long war is likely to be necessary to allow Kyiv
the time it would need to restore control over signifi-
cantly more land. As we describe in the following sec-
tion, a long war could entail major costs for the United
States. Furthermore, if Ukraine does push beyond the
pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake
areas that Russia has occupied since 2014 (particularly
Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based), the
risks of escalation—either nuclear use or an attack on
NATO—will spike. The Kremlin would likely treat the
potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat
both to national security and regime stability, given the
assets deployed there and the political capital invested in
the annexation of the peninsula.
Duration
We do not know how long this war will last. Some have
suggested it could end in negotiations over the winter of
2022–2023.21 Others have argued it will go on for years.22
Many in the United States are reluctant to push for an end
to the conflict at a time when Ukraine has momentum on
the battlefield and the Ukrainian people seem willing to
endure the costs of a long war to achieve their goals.
Although a longer war might enable the Ukrainian
military to retake more territory, there are other implica-
tions of the war’s duration for U.S. interests. A protracted
conflict, as perverse as it might seem, has some potential
upsides for the United States (Table 3). While the war
continues, Russian forces will remain preoccupied with
Ukraine and thus not have the bandwidth to menace
others. A longer war would further degrade the Russian
-
military and weaken the Russian economy. But the war has
already been so devastating to Russian power that further
incremental weakening is arguably no longer as significant
a benefit for U.S. interests as in the earlier phases of the
conflict. It will take years, perhaps even decades, for the
Russian military and economy to recover from the damage
already incurred.
A long war would also maintain pressure on European
governments to continue to reduce energy dependence on
Russia and spend more on their defense, possibly lessen-
ing the U.S. defense burden in Europe over the long run.
Here too, however, it is likely that European countries will
maintain these policies regardless of how much longer the
war lasts.
Yet there are significant downsides of a long war for
U.S. interests (Table 4). A longer war will lead to further
loss of life, displacement, and suffering for Ukrainian civil-
ians; minimizing these humanitarian consequences for
Ukraine is a U.S. interest. Continued conflict also leaves
open the possibility that Russia will reverse Ukrainian
battlefield gains made in fall 2022. Moscow’s mobilization
might stabilize the lines as of December 2022 and allow
Russia to launch offensives in 2023. The intensity of the
military assistance effort could also become unsustainable
after a certain period. Already, European and some U.S.
stocks of weapons are reportedly running low.23 There is
thus reason to question whether a longer war will lead to
further Ukrainian gains—losses are possible too.
The costs for the United States and the European
Union of keeping the Ukrainian state economically solvent
will multiply over time as conflict inhibits investment and
production; Ukrainian refugees remain unable to return
-
and, as a result, tax revenue and economic activity drop
dramatically lower than before the war. Russia’s campaign
of destruction of Ukrainian critical infrastructure will
create major long-term challenges for sustaining the war
effort and for economic recovery and has also substantially
increased Kyiv’s projections for the economic support it
will need from the United States and its allies.24
Global economic disruptions stemming from the war
will continue and possibly multiply as long as the conflict
goes on. The outbreak of war caused a sharp increase in
energy prices that has in turn contributed to inflation
and slowing economic growth globally. These trends are
expected to hit Europe hardest.25 The increase in energy
prices alone is likely to lead to nearly 150,000 excess deaths
(4.8 percent more than average) in Europe in the winter
of 2022–2023.26 The war has also contributed to rising
food insecurity globally. Ukraine’s exports of grains and
oilseeds dropped to 50 to 70 percent of their prewar levels
-
11
between March and November 2022, partly because of
Russia’s naval blockade and attacks on energy infrastruc-
ture. Russia has also restricted its own exports of fertilizer,
of which it is the largest global producer. The result has
been a large increase in food and fertilizer prices globally.
Although food prices came down somewhat after Russia
agreed to allow Ukrainian grain exports out of certain
Black Sea ports in July 2022, prices as of December 2022
remained above their prewar levels. These effects of the
war came at a time when food insecurity was already rising
as a result of extreme weather, the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, and other global trends.27
Beyond the potential for Russian gains and the eco-
nomic consequences for Ukraine, Europe, and the world,
a long war would also have consequences for U.S. for-
eign policy. The U.S. ability to focus on its other global
priorities—particularly, competition with China—will
remain constrained as long as the war is absorbing senior
policymakers’ time and U.S. military resources. Bilateral
or multilateral interaction—let alone cooperation—with
Russia on key U.S. interests is unlikely. For example, the
prospects for negotiating a follow-on to the New START
strategic arms control treaty, which expires in February
2026, will remain dim as long as the war continues. Glob-
ally, persistent sky-high tensions with Russia would con-
tinue to cripple the work of multilateral institutions, such
as the United Nations (UN) Security Council, and limit the
capacity for collective responses to shared challenges. Rus-
sia’s deepening military cooperation with Iran during this
war—at a time when Iran is reneging on its commitments
to restrain its nuclear program—suggests that Moscow
could play the spoiler on such issues as nonproliferation.
And although Russia will be more dependent on China
regardless of when the war ends, Washington does have
a long-term interest in ensuring that Moscow does not
become completely subordinated to Beijing. A longer war
that increases Russia’s dependence could provide China
advantages in its competition with the United States.
Finally, the duration of the war is directly related to
the two escalation contingencies discussed earlier (possible
Russian use of nuclear weapons and possible escalation to
a Russia-NATO conflict). For as long as the war continues,
the risk of both forms of escalation will remain heightened.
The risk will be dramatically lower when the war ends.
Therefore, the paramount U.S. interest in minimizing esca-
lation risks should increase the U.S. interest in avoiding a
long war.28
In short, the consequences of a long war—ranging
from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic
damage—far outweigh the possible benefits.
Form of War Termination
The literature on war termination suggests three possible
ways that the Russia-Ukraine war could end: absolute vic-
tory, armistice, and political settlement. For the purposes
of this analysis, we do not consider operational pauses,
temporary cease-fires, and agreements that break down.
Our focus is on the form in which the war eventually ends,
not the ebbs and flows along the way to such an outcome.
Absolute Victory
One form of war termination is an absolute victory. This
outcome involves one state “permanently removing the
(interstate) threat posed by its adversary.” Absolute vic-
tory, as Dan Reiter notes, can be accomplished through
-
12
“the victor installing a new leadership in the defeated
state, occupying or annexing the adversary’s territory, or
at worst annihilating the adversary’s entire population.”
Although it might entail an agreement, an absolute vic-
tory’s defining feature is “a war outcome that essentially
removes the possibility of the defeated state reneging on a
war-ending settlement.”29 This is the type of victory that
the allies achieved over Japan and Germany at the end of
World War II.
When the war began, Moscow appeared to be seeking
an absolute victory, with plans to install a new regime in
Kyiv and “demilitarize” the country. Since abandoning its
attempt to take the capital in early April, Russia appears to
have scuttled these plans. Putin’s declared aims have varied
over time since then, but at no point in recent months have
he or his ministers repeated the direct calls to overthrow
the government in Kyiv issued in the early weeks of the war.
Although some allege that Moscow has not given up on its
initial ambitious goals, even if the Kremlin still aspired to
impose an absolute victory, facts on the ground indicate that
it would not be able to do so. As of this writing, Moscow’s
primary goal seems to be holding onto territory in the four
Ukrainian regions that Russia now claims as its own. But
even if Russia took and held those regions, that would hardly
be an absolute victory; it would have to effect a fundamental
change in Ukraine’s political system, such as ousting Presi-
dent Zelenskyy, to achieve absolute victory. But Ukraine’s
system of government is now more firmly anchored than it
was before the war, Russia’s brutal tactics have repelled even
those Ukrainians who harbored pro-Russian sympathies,
and Zelenskyy is immensely popular. Moreover, the Ukrai-
nian military, with its current capabilities, could pose a
threat to Russian occupied areas or even the bordering areas
of undisputed Russian territory indefinitely.
An absolute Ukrainian victory is also unlikely.
Ukraine has never officially proclaimed an intention to
achieve an absolute victory as the literature defines it. Pres-
ident Zelenskyy’s declared objectives have changed over
time, but, as of December 2022, his stated goal is to retake
all of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea and the areas of
the Donbas that Russia has occupied since 2014. Still, com-
plete territorial reconquest would not constitute an abso-
lute victory. If the Ukrainian military were to eject Rus-
sian forces from Ukraine, they would doubtless seriously
degrade the Russian army in the process. Nonetheless,
Russia would have a wide variety of capabilities on its terri-
tory and beyond—particularly the navy and the aerospace
forces, which have not taken major losses in the war—that
could enable continued strikes on targets deep within
Ukraine. Russian ground forces could readily regroup and
launch another large-scale offensive. To achieve absolute
-
13
victory, Ukraine would have to deny Russia the ability to
contest its territorial control. Forcing the Russian military
to cross the international border would not produce that
outcome. And although Ukraine has surprised observers
with its ability to defend its own homeland, it is fanciful to
imagine that it could destroy Russia’s ability to wage war.
Therefore, Kyiv would probably need regime change
in Moscow in addition to victory on the battlefield to avoid
living under the constant threat of reinvasion.30 Some ana-
lysts contend that Russia’s poor performance in the war,
mounting casualties, and mobilization could cause political
instability and lead to Putin’s overthrow and replacement
with a new regime that would stop fighting, come to terms
with Ukraine, and pose a diminished threat over the long
term.31 However, there is little historical evidence to sug-
gest that regime change in Russia would necessarily ensue
following battlefield failures. Leaders of personalist regimes
like Russia’s have often remained in power after a military
defeat.32 Moreover, there is no guarantee that a new Rus-
sian leader would be any more inclined to make peace with
Ukraine than Putin is. As Shawn Cochran writes, “it is
difficult and probably pointless to predict the outcome of
any wartime change of leadership in the case of Russia’s
war in Ukraine. At a minimum, however, the West should
not assume a change of leadership would result in an end to
the war, at least in the short term, as Putin’s war could very
well continue without Putin.”33 Moreover, regime change
in Moscow might not reduce the intensity of the competi-
tion between the United States and Russia on other issues.
Regardless, Kyiv has not proclaimed regime change as its
stated objective, although some Ukrainians understand-
ably hope for it.
Since neither side appears to have the intention or
capabilities to achieve absolute victory, the war will most
likely end with some sort of negotiated outcome. Negoti-
ated ends to wars, unlike absolute victories, require the
belligerents to accept a degree of risk that the terms of the
peace could be violated; even the relative “loser” in the con-
flict will retain the ability to threaten the other side. Agree-
ments to end wars are highly contingent on the particulars
of a given conflict, but it is analytically useful to distin-
guish between lasting cease-fires or armistice agreements
on the one hand and political settlements on the other.
Armistice Agreements
In armistice agreements, like those that ended the Korean
War in 1953 and the Transnistria conflict in Moldova
in 1992, the two sides commit to stop fighting and often
create mechanisms, such as demilitarized zones, to prevent
the resumption of violence.34 Although armistice agree-
ments can be quite detailed (the Korea agreement was
nearly 40 pages long), they generally do not address the
political drivers of the conflict, which means tensions can
endure and diplomatic and economic relations between the
parties often remain at a minimal level. Armistice agree-
ments that have mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring
compliance to reduce the risk of conflict resuming are
more durable than those that do not.35
An armistice in Ukraine would freeze the front lines
and bring a long-term end to active combat. Russia would
stop attempts to occupy additional Ukrainian territory and
cease missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastruc-
ture. Ukrainian forces would stop their counteroffensives—
strikes on Russian-held areas of Ukraine and on Russia
itself. There would still be ongoing, unresolved territorial
-
14
disputes (that is, divergent positions on the location of
Ukraine’s borders) between Kyiv and Moscow; these would
be contested politically and economically, not militarily.
The key political issues beyond territorial control, ranging
from Russian payment of reparations to Ukraine’s geopo-
litical status, would remain unaddressed. The sides would
likely conduct only minimal trade; the borders would be
largely closed. The line of control would likely become
highly militarized, like the inner German border during
the Cold War.
Political Settlement
A political settlement or peace treaty would involve both
a durable cease-fire and a resolution of at least some of the
disputes that sparked the war or emerged during it. Since
1946, peace treaties have been less common than armi-
stice agreements, but they tend to produce a durable end
to fighting and reduction in tensions.36 In the case of the
Russia-Ukraine war, a settlement would entail negotiated
compromises on some of the core political issues at stake
for the two sides. The Russia-Ukraine bilateral negotia-
tions in the early weeks of the war, which culminated in the
Istanbul Communique released at the end of March, and
more-recent statements from political leaders give hints
about some issues a political settlement could cover.37 For
Russia, codifying Ukraine’s nonalignment would likely
be central. Ukraine would want reinforced Western com-
mitments to its security since it does not trust Russia to
comply with any agreement. A settlement could cover a
host of other issues, such as a reconstruction fund, bilateral
trade, cultural matters and freedom of movement, and
conditions for relief of Western sanctions on Russia.
A political settlement need not cover all this ground or
it could address other issues. But the core outcome would
be a return to some degree of normal relations between the
former belligerents. Importantly, the parties could agree
to disagree about the status of certain territory even while
reaching terms on other issues. For example, the Soviet
Union and Japan normalized diplomatic and trade rela-
tions in 1956, but the territorial disputes between Moscow
and Tokyo were never resolved. A political settlement does
not have to definitively resolve all the differences between
the parties; it does need to address enough of these dif-
ferences to qualitatively improve the broader relationship
between the former belligerents.
These two categories of negotiated ends to wars—
armistices and political settlements—are often not so
clearly differentiated in practice: many cease-fire agree-
ments address some political issues, and some settlements,
as noted, leave key political disputes unresolved. A negoti-
ated end to the war in Ukraine is likely to fall somewhere
between these two ideal types.
Implications for U.S. Interests
Since an absolute victory is highly unlikely, there will prob-
ably be a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war at some
point.38 But, given current trends, the prospects for such an
agreement are poor in the near term, as we discuss in the
following sections. A political settlement might be more
difficult to reach than an armistice agreement since the
latter would be narrowly focused on maintaining a cease-
fire, not resolving the increasingly deep and broad set of
issues disputed between Ukraine and Russia.
The limited available data suggest that political settle-
ments are more durable than armistice agreements.39 The
-
logic of this is intuitive. A political settlement addresses
grievances on both sides and core issues in dispute between
them. This leaves fewer issues over which to fight in the
future and creates benefits to peace for both belligerents. In
the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, a settlement also might
open the door to a broader negotiation of rules of the road
for regional stability that could mitigate the prospects of
conflict breaking out elsewhere along Russia’s periphery.
Since it is plausible that divergences regarding the security
architecture and broader regional order have been a signifi-
cant driver of Russia’s behavior, a negotiated end to the war
that addressed those divergences could be more durable.40
Therefore, other things being equal, U.S. interests are
better served by a political settlement that might bring
a more durable peace than an armistice. Additionally, a
political settlement could be a first step toward address-
ing broader regional issues and reducing the chance of a
Russia-NATO crisis in the future. If the intensity of com-
petition in Europe is more manageable and the risk of war
recurrence in Ukraine is lower, the United States can shift
resources in line with U.S. strategic priorities and Ukraine
can recover economically with less outside support.41 How-
ever, the level of hostility as of December 2022 between
Russia and Ukraine, and between Russia and the West,
make a political settlement seem much less probable than
an armistice.
Summary
Variation on all of these five dimensions—Russian nuclear
use, NATO-Russia escalation, territorial control, dura-
tion, and form of war termination—is possible at this stage
in the conflict. In the next section, we examine how the
United States should prioritize among these dimensions as
it formulates its policy toward the war.
Prioritizing the Dimensions of War
Trajectories
For the United States, the two categories of escalation we
have described—Russian use of nuclear weapons and a
Russia-NATO conflict—would doubtless be the most-
consequential dimensions of possible future war trajecto-
ries. Few in Washington would quibble with that assertion.
However, there is a vibrant debate about the likelihood
that either of these forms of escalation will transpire. As
we noted, although the probability of either development
is not high, both are plausible due to the circumstances
created by the war, and, in light of how profound the con
-
16
sequences could be, avoiding them should remain the top
U.S. priority.
Our analysis suggests that duration is the most impor-
tant of the remaining dimensions for the United States.
The negative consequences of a long war would be severe.
So long as the war is ongoing, escalation risks will remain
elevated. Duration and escalation risks are thus directly
linked. Additionally, a longer war will continue to cause
economic harm to Ukraine as well as to Europe and the
global economy. For the United States, a longer war will
entail both increased direct costs (such as more budgetary
and military support to Ukraine) and increased opportu-
nity costs in terms of pursuing other foreign policy priori-
ties. More Ukrainians will suffer and the upward pressure
on food and energy prices will continue while the war is
ongoing. There are possible benefits to protracted conflict:
a further weakening of Russia and the opportunity for
Ukraine to make territorial gains. But the former no longer
represents a significant benefit; Russia has already been
weakened dramatically. And the latter is uncertain—more
time might allow Russia to make gains—and the benefit
of further Ukrainian territorial control, as we will discuss
next, is important for the United States but does not out-
weigh the consequences of a long war.
Greater Ukrainian territorial control would be ben-
eficial for the United States. The humanitarian case is com-
pelling for liberating more Ukrainians from the horrors of
Russian occupation. The international order and economic
arguments for further Ukrainian territorial reconquest are
less clear-cut. Moscow was in violation of the territorial
integrity norm since its annexation of Crimea and inva-
sion of eastern Ukraine in 2014. Even a Russian retreat
to the pre-February 2022 status quo ante lines would not
mitigate that violation. And the United States has tools to
increase the costs to Russia for its violation and to deny
legitimacy to its illegal occupation. That said, denying
Moscow territorial gains would help send a message that
similar acts of aggression will result in similarly power-
ful pushback. Greater Ukrainian territorial control could
return economically productive assets to Kyiv’s control,
decreasing Ukraine’s dependence on the United States and
its allies. However, given where the line of control was as
of December 2022, that economic benefit is unlikely to be
essential to Ukraine’s viability. If Russia were to push sig-
nificantly farther west, and particularly if it took control
over Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coast, the economic impact
would likely be severe. But as of December 2022, such an
outcome is improbable because Russia’s military appears
incapable of making significant territorial advances. Con-
versely, if Ukraine were to rout the Russian military and
retake all of its territory, including Crimea, the risks of
nuclear use or a Russia-NATO war would spike. That out-
come seems equally improbable at the present stage of the
conflict.
Our analysis suggests that there are two possible forms
of conflict termination in this war. Since territorial recon-
quest in itself will not end the war, and absolute victory by
either side is unlikely, the importance of this dimension
rests on how much value the United States would gain
from a political settlement versus an armistice agreement.
A political settlement may be more durable than an armi-
stice, potentially creating greater stability in Europe and
allowing the United States to free up resources for other
priorities. That gain would be important, but a durable
armistice would also be beneficial to U.S. interests. And a
-
17
political settlement seems less plausible, at least at this stage
of the conflict.
This prioritization of the dimensions of possible war
trajectories has direct implications for U.S. policy. Since
avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimiz-
ing escalation risks, the United States should take steps
that make an end to the conflict over the medium term
more likely. By itself, Washington cannot shorten the war.
But since the conflict will likely end with negotiations,
avoiding a long war requires efforts to spur talks. And the
United States could take steps to address key impediments
to starting them. The next section identifies impediments
that could plausibly be addressed by U.S. policy.
Impediments to Ending the Conflict
Putting aside the question of its desirability, is a negotiated
end to the fighting even possible? As of December 2022, it
seems highly unlikely in the near term. Russia and Ukraine
have not engaged in negotiations on a settlement since May.
There are many reasons for this aversion to talks, such as
increasingly intractable territorial disputes and domestic
political constraints that make compromise difficult. For
example, the Ukrainian public may find it difficult to
compromise with a country that has committed atrocities
and continues to hold Ukrainian territory, especially when
the military appears capable of further gains.42 U.S. policy
cannot overcome all such impediments to negotiations.
Given the U.S. interest in avoiding a long war, the
question for Washington is whether there are dynamics at
work that U.S. policy could plausibly affect. Although there
are many factors that lead the parties to continue to fight,
the scholarship on war termination suggests two drivers
of the parties’ resistance to negotiations that Washing-
ton could ameliorate. The literature’s basic finding is that
negotiating an end to a war requires both sides to believe
that they have more to gain from peace than from continu-
ing to fight. Optimism about the future trajectory of the
war and pessimism about the likelihood and benefits of
peace thus inhibit negotiations and drive belligerents into
protracted conflicts.43 In the remainder of this section, we
explain why these dynamics may be at work for both Russia
and Ukraine. In the following section, we assess the policy
instruments available to the United States to address them.
Mutual Optimism About the Course of the
War
International relations scholarship has found that wars
become protracted when the belligerents disagree about
their prospects for victory. In peacetime, states cannot be
sure about an adversary’s military capabilities or willing-
ness to fight and therefore its ability to win on the battle-
field. Moreover, states have an incentive to exaggerate their
power and resolve so as to get what they want without
having to go to war. Some scholars think of wars as resolv-
ing this information problem since fighting reveals the
true balance of power and interests. Once that information
is clear to both sides, the weaker or less determined of the
two should become more pessimistic about what it can gain
by continuing to fight. This pessimism should cause that
side to adjust its demands downward, potentially opening
space for an agreement to end the war.44
This theoretical expectation about views converging on
which side is more likely to prevail rests on an assumption
that power is largely fixed.45 When this assumption holds,
-
battlefield outcomes should be a reliable indicator of power
and therefore a guide to how the sides will fare in future
clashes. In theory, both sides should use this information
to anticipate future developments, and their expectations
about the war’s trajectory should converge. But when one
side’s power fluctuates while the fighting is ongoing, or
when its power could change significantly in the future,
evidence from past battlefield results will not produce that
same clarity. Instead, this variation (or possible future
variation) in one side’s power can lead belligerents to dif-
ferent conclusions about how the conflict will evolve.46
For example, this dynamic appears to have contrib-
uted to the length of World War I in Europe. A stalemate
on the Western front in 1917 meant that the belligerents, if
they were looking at the record on the battlefield, should
have agreed that their prospects for victory were roughly
even. Instead, both sides appeared to be optimistic about
their ability to gain by continuing to fight. The British
and French were unwilling to negotiate that winter in part
because they hoped that U.S. entry into the war would
break the stalemate. Germany believed that, with an end to
fighting on the Eastern front after it signed a peace treaty
with Russia, redeployed German forces would make a
breakthrough in the west. This mutual optimism may have
been a factor that inhibited negotiations in late 1917 and
early 1918.47
In the Russia-Ukraine war, this dynamic may also
be at work. Ukraine’s power is heavily dependent on an
unpredictable outside factor: Western assistance. None of
the actors mentioned—not Russia, Ukraine, or the West—
anticipated the unprecedented levels of Western military
and intelligence assistance to Kyiv, or the effect that assis-
tance would have. None are sure how much aid will be
provided or the effect it might have in the coming months
and years. To put it in terms of the information problem, it
is unclear how powerful Ukraine will be in the future.
In the face of this uncertainty, the two countries seem
to have come to different conclusions about Ukraine’s future
power. As a result, despite months of fighting, both Russia
and Ukraine appear to be optimistic about the future course
of the war. Ukraine is optimistic that Western support will
continue to increase and that Ukrainian capabilities will
improve. Russia appears to believe that the United States and
its allies will eventually waver in their support for Ukraine,
particularly as the costs of the war mount. In part, the
Kremlin says that high energy prices, fueled by the ongoing
conflict, will strain European economies and cause support
for helping Ukraine sustain the fight to diminish. As former
President and current deputy chair of the Russian Security
Council Dmitri Medvedev put it, “America always abandons
its friends and its best [proxies]. It will happen sooner or later
this time too.”48 Once it is inevitably deprived of its Western
lifeline, Ukraine, according to Moscow, will be unable to
prevail against the Russian military.
In short, both sides believe that their relative power,
and thus ability to prevail, will improve over time. The
centrality of Western assistance to Ukraine’s war effort
-
19
and the uncertainty about the future of that assistance,
has led Moscow and Kyiv to different conclusions about
which of the two will gain the upper hand over time. The
conflict is therefore not resolving the information problem
in the way that the literature leads us to expect; both sides
have grounds for optimism about the possibility of making
gains by continuing to fight. Historically this kind of
mutual optimism has made wars difficult to end.49
Pessimism About the Benefits of Peace
Pessimism about the durability and benefits of peace can
also contribute to protracted conflict. We focus on two
sources of pessimism: (1) the inability of the two sides to
credibly commit to uphold agreements and (2) a Russian
view that Western sanctions will continue after the war
ends, making peace less attractive than it could be.
Fears That Peace Will Not Last
Pessimism about the durability of peace can stem from fear
that the other side will not uphold commitments it makes
as part of a deal to end a conflict yet. Mistrust, on its own,
need not prevent an agreement; belligerents generally do
not trust each other after a conflict, yet many wars end
through negotiations. The real impediment to negotiations
emerges if at least one of the belligerents believes that the
other (1) is a determined aggressor that could gain in rela-
tive power in the future and violate any agreement once its
position improves or (2) could have significantly different
preferences in the future. Such concerns, known as credible
commitment problems, can lead belligerents to continue
fighting even when they know victory is impossible.50
Returning to the World War I example: In addition
to mutual optimism about continuing the war, credible
commitment problems also kept the belligerents fighting
despite the stalemate. Fear that Germany would grow in
power after the war as it integrated lands acquired through
the treaty with Russia led London and Paris to question
whether Berlin would uphold an agreement. Therefore,
Britain assessed it had to achieve an absolute victory over
Germany rather than negotiate an end to the war.51
A credible commitment problem is certainly at work in
the Russia-Ukraine war. The Ukrainian leadership appears
to believe that Russia is a predator state that will abandon
any cease-fire once it has reconstituted its military and
attack again. Ukraine may also fear that it could lose West-
ern support during any break in the fighting brought about
by an armistice or political settlement, allowing Russia’s
military to recover more substantially or quickly than its
own. These fears will affect Kyiv’s openness to negotia-
tions regardless of how much territory it controls. Even
if Ukraine were to regain control over the entirety of its
internationally recognized territory, these same concerns
could limit the prospects for ending the war.
An Unappealing Peace
A second credible commitment problem—the possibil-
ity of a change in Ukraine’s preferences—may be making
Russia pessimistic about the benefits of peace. Russia has
long sought to ensure that Ukraine remain outside NATO.
Earlier in the conflict, Ukraine signaled that it might
accept neutrality as part of a settlement.52 Russia would
presumably see a significant benefit to a peace in which
Ukraine made a credible commitment not to join NATO.
But Russia has little faith that any Ukrainian pledge of neu
-
20
trality would be upheld. Moscow has experienced shifts in
Ukrainian foreign policy and has a dim view of the Ukrai-
nian elite’s ability to keep its promises over the long term.
Therefore, the Kremlin would be concerned that a future
Ukrainian government, which is more deeply committed
to NATO membership, could take power and undo any
neutrality pledge made as part of a settlement.
Another factor also may be contributing to Russia’s
pessimism about the benefits of peace: the prospect of
continued Western sanctions after the war. The United
States and its allies have imposed unprecedentedly severe
sanctions on Russia as a punishment for its invasion of
Ukraine. However, it is not clear that the United States
and its partners are willing to participate in a multilateral
negotiation process in which they would offer Russia a
path to sanctions relief. This pessimism may be rein-
forced by statements from some U.S. officials that one
of Washington’s goals is to weaken Russia over the long
term.53 Moscow has ample reason to believe that Western
sanctions are likely to continue even if it settles bilaterally
with Kyiv to end the war.
U.S. Policy Options to Address the
Impediments to Talks
The previous section summarized three factors that rein-
force the parties’ shared aversion to begin negotiations to
end the war: mutual optimism about the future course of
the war stemming from uncertainty about relative power;
mutual pessimism about peace stemming from cred-
ible commitment problems; and, for Russia, the lack of a
clear path to sanctions relief. These are far from the only
impediments to negotiations. However, they are ones that
the United States is most capable of addressing with its
own policies. In this section, we describe policy options,
along with their trade-offs, that are available for Wash-
ington to do so. We acknowledge that there are policies
that the combatants themselves or other third parties,
such as the European Union, could adopt to address these
same impediments. For example, combatants could agree
to bilateral measures, such as demilitarized zones, to
address fears about a return to conflict. The United States
could encourage other states to adopt such policies. Here,
however, we focus on options that the United States could
implement directly.
Clarifying the Future of Aid to Ukraine
A major source of uncertainty about the future course of
the war is the relative lack of clarity about the future of
U.S. and allied military assistance to Ukraine—both arms
deliveries and intelligence-sharing. Although the Ukrai-
nian military’s capabilities and effectiveness are the pri-
mary drivers of its success, external assistance has been a
key factor. For example, U.S. and allied long-range, highly
accurate, multiple-launch rocket systems provided to
Ukraine in summer 2022 caused major disruptions to Rus-
sian military logistics and resupply.
Greater clarity about the future of U.S. and allied
military assistance could be used for two purposes.
First, if a clear, long-term plan were adopted with cred-
ible delivery schedules and clear capability implications,
it could make Russia more pessimistic about the future
of its own campaign. The United States has already
taken steps in this direction with the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative and the establishment of a com
-
21
ponent of U.S. European Command dedicated to the
Ukraine assistance effort. But arms deliveries have not
yet become regular, nor is there a transparent long-term
plan. Western assistance continues to be calibrated in
response to Russian actions, and thus Ukraine’s future
capabilities are uncertain. Transparent long-term plans
with strong domestic and international backing could
minimize the unpredictability, though they may also be
less responsive to a changing threat environment.54
Second, the United States could decide to condi-
tion future military aid on a Ukrainian commitment
to negotiations. Setting conditions on aid to Ukraine
would address a primary source of Kyiv’s optimism that
may be prolonging the war: a belief that Western aid will
continue indefinitely or grow in quality and quantity.
At the same time, the United States could also promise
more aid for the postwar period to address Ukraine’s
fears about the durability of peace. Washington has done
so in other cases, providing vast amounts of aid to Israel
after it signed the Camp David accords and a bilateral
peace treaty with Egypt, ensuring that Israel’s capabilities
exceeded those of its neighbors. Although this example
differs in important ways from the Russia-Ukraine con-
flict, it suggests that the United States does have ways to
calibrate long-term aid commitments to reassure close
partners about their ability to defend themselves. Doing
so in this case while also signaling the limits of wartime
assistance could address Ukraine’s short-term optimism
about continuing the war while increasing its confidence
in the longevity of any arrangements to end the fighting.
Linking aid to Ukrainian willingness to negotiate has
been anathema in Western policy discussions and for good
reason: Ukraine is defending itself against unprovoked
Russian aggression. However, the U.S. calculus may change
as the costs and risks of the war mount.55 And the use of
this U.S. lever can be calibrated. For example, the United
States could level off aid, not dramatically reduce it, if
Ukraine does not negotiate. And, again, a decision to level
off wartime support pending negotiations can be made in
tandem with promises about postwar sustained increases in
assistance over the long term.
Clarifying the future of U.S. aid to Ukraine could
create perverse incentives depending on how the policy is
implemented. Committing to increased wartime assistance
to Ukraine to reduce Russian optimism could embolden
the Ukrainians to obstruct negotiations, blame failure on
Moscow, and gain more Western support. Announcing a
decrease or leveling off in assistance to Ukraine to reduce
Kyiv’s optimism about the war could lead Russia to see
the move as a signal of waning U.S. support for Ukraine.
-
22
If it took this view, Russia might keep fighting in the hope
that the United States would give up on Ukraine entirely.
Although recognizing that Ukraine is fighting a defensive
war for survival and Russia an aggressive war of aggran-
dizement, the United States would nonetheless have to
carefully and dispassionately monitor events and target
its efforts to create the intended effect on whichever side’s
optimism is determined to be the key impediment to start-
ing talks.56
U.S. and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s
Security
To address the credible commitment problem for Ukraine,
the United States and its allies could consider outlining
the long-term commitments they are prepared to make to
Ukraine’s security if Kyiv comes to terms with Moscow.
Security commitments can take many forms, rang-
ing from promises of limited support in wartime to a
vow to intervene militarily to defend another country if
it is attacked. Providing Kyiv such a commitment could
affect Ukraine’s decisionmaking about ending the war:
It would address Kyiv’s concerns about the credibility of
Moscow’s promises not to attack Ukraine again as part of
a settlement.57 A U.S. security commitment—particularly
a commitment to intervene militarily should Russia attack
again—would deter Moscow from future aggression, since
Russia would be risking war with a much more powerful
coalition, not just with Ukraine. Ukraine would be more
confident in its security and would have a more stable
environment in which to recover economically from the
conflict. A U.S. or allied commitment to Ukraine’s postwar
security could make peace more attractive to Kyiv by not
leaving it to depend on Moscow’s word.
Early in the war, Kyiv proposed that the United States
and other countries provide Ukraine a commitment even
more ironclad than those undertaken by Washington
toward treaty allies: an explicit vow to use military force if
Ukraine were attacked again. (Contrary to popular belief,
not even Article 5 of the Washington Treaty commits
NATO allies to use force if another is attacked. Each ally
promises to take “such action as it deems necessary” in the
event of an attack on another.58) The reaction in Western
capitals to the proposed commitment was lukewarm at
best.59 U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab stated
“We’re not going to . . . replicate unilaterally the NATO
commitments that apply to NATO members.”60 However,
some countries were willing to pledge to help Ukraine in
other ways if it were attacked again. As one French official
said, “It would be military supplies so that [Ukraine] can
deal with a new attack or, possibly, [commitments] that
would see us get involved if Ukraine is attacked in a way
where we could assess how to assist it.”61 A July statement
from the Group of Seven (G7) elaborated on these pledges,
proposing that G7 members would engage in intelligence-
sharing, resilience, and other measures as part of a “viable
post-war peace settlement.”62 The United States and key
allies were prepared to commit to the kind of support they
are currently providing Ukraine if it were to be attacked
again. That support is extraordinary in scale and scope,
and Ukraine has used it more effectively than almost
anyone imagined before the war. Still, promising to provide
this type of support again might not reduce the credible
commitment problem for Ukraine: As effective as it has
been, the support has not stopped Russia from continuing
-
23
its aggression. Creative approaches could be considered
that are not as binding as U.S. mutual defense treaties but
greater than pledges to return to current levels of support
in a future contingency.
Although it might help sweeten a deal for Kyiv, a U.S.
security commitment to Ukraine might be unpalatable for
Moscow. After all, one of the motives for Russia’s war was
to prevent Ukraine’s alignment with the West. The creators
of the Istanbul Communique envisioned overcoming this
challenge by getting Russian buy-in for a multilateral secu-
rity guarantee arrangement with Russia, the United States,
and others named as guarantors. The guarantee would be
made with the understanding that Ukraine would remain
neutral and unaligned with any of those powers.63 The
document also ruled out foreign military deployments and
exercises on Ukrainian territory. Although Russia’s endors-
ing a U.S. security commitment to Ukraine might seem
counterintuitive, it would in this case be on the condition
of Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and strict limits on
foreign military presence on its territory.
The offer of even a limited U.S. security commit-
ment could carry costs and risks for the United States. For
example, if the United States were to devote significant
resources to arming Ukraine in peacetime, it would have
fewer resources for its other priorities. Moreover, in the
event of another Russia-Ukraine war, commitments to
Ukraine would limit U.S. freedom of maneuver in crafting
a response. A more expansive security commitment could
lead to a direct clash with Russia in case of a future attack
on Ukraine. Therefore, the benefits associated with a U.S.
security commitment—Ukraine’s increased willingness to
negotiate, a possible end to the war, and deterring future
Russian aggression—would have to be carefully weighed
against these potential drawbacks.
U.S. and Allied Commitments to Ukraine’s
Neutrality
As noted earlier, the credible commitment problem for
Russia relates to a potential Ukrainian neutrality pledge
made as part of a settlement. Moscow’s perception that
Ukraine’s unilateral commitment would not be credible
could contribute to making peace much less appealing.
As part of the Istanbul Communique, Russia would have
received an international-legal commitment to Ukraine’s
neutrality from the United States and several NATO allies,
in addition to Ukraine’s own neutrality pledge. A U.S. and
allied commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality would create a
major additional hurdle—a change in Western policy or
even law depending on the nature of the commitment—to
Ukraine joining NATO in the future. Such a promise could
mitigate the credible commitment problem for Russia.
Thus far, the United States has maintained its prewar
policy on Ukraine’s future with NATO: rhetorical sup-
port for Kyiv’s aspirations for membership and a refusal to
engage in negotiations that would in any way undermine
NATO’s open door policy—the principle that the Alliance
will consider any application from qualified states in the
region—and the related stance that no other state gets a say
in that process. As the July 2022 Madrid NATO summit
communique stated, “We fully support Ukraine’s inher-
ent right . . . to choose its own security arrangements.”64
Ukraine itself has returned to emphasizing its objective
of joining NATO, after suggesting it might be willing to
accept neutrality earlier in the war.65 President Zelenskyy
-
24
even put his country’s application to NATO on an “acceler-
ated” track following Putin’s annexation announcement
in September, although the significance of this move is
unclear.66
Just as Russian acceptance of U.S. or allied security
commitments was linked to the neutrality pledge in the
Istanbul Communique, Ukraine would likely need security
commitments to make neutrality palatable. On its own, a
multilateral commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality would be
seen in Kyiv as a net negative for the country’s security: The
prospect of NATO membership would be off the table, with
nothing provided in its place. Politically, any government in
Kyiv would need something to show to the public as a rec-
ompense for “losing” the possibility of joining the Alliance.
As with a U.S. security commitment, a commitment
to Ukraine’s neutrality would entail trade-offs for the
United States. On the one hand, it could help bring about
the end of the war and resolve a long-standing source of
NATO-Russia tension. But on the other hand, it would be
extremely politically difficult at home, with allies, and with
Ukraine. Indeed, Kyiv’s independent, sovereign decision to
formalize its neutrality would be a necessary prerequisite
for Washington to contemplate providing a commitment to
that status. And even then, some U.S. allies might resist any
hint of a change in NATO’s open-door policy, particularly
one made under Russian pressure. Further, a combined
commitment to Ukraine’s security and neutrality would
be a novel construct for the United States; traditionally,
firm security commitments have only been issued to allies.
Making Ukraine more secure without undermining its
neutrality would be a difficult balance to maintain.
Establishing Conditions for Sanctions Relief
As discussed already, part of Russia’s pessimism about
peace could be a belief that international sanctions will
remain in place even if it negotiates an end to the war in
Ukraine. Offering a pathway to partial sanctions relief,
therefore, is one step that could make negotiations more
likely.67 The United States, the European Union, and other
partners imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia,
including the freezing of more than $300 billion in Russian
central bank assets and the imposition of export controls
that will severely limit the country’s future growth. Thus
far, U.S. sanctions have largely been framed as a punish-
ment for Russia’s actions, not as a tool to affect Russia’s
behavior and bring it to the table. As Daniel Drezner has
pointed out, the United States and its partners have not
been explicit about “what Russia can do to get the sanctions
lifted.” The “lack of clarity undermines coercive bargain-
ing, because the targeted actor believes that sanctions
will stay in place no matter what they do.”68 The promise
of sanctions relief contributed to Iran’s willingness to
negotiate over its nuclear program and conclude the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 and to Libya’s agree-
ment to renounce weapons of mass destruction in 2003.69
Although not perfect analogies, these experiences suggest
the plausibility of using the promise of conditional sanc-
tions relief, as part of a package of policies, to influence a
rival’s calculations.
Some might contend that promising sanctions relief
would reward Russian aggression and send a signal to
China and other U.S. adversaries that they can make
gains by using force. However, this argument ignores
the steep price that Russia has already paid for this war:
harming its economy, tarnishing its international reputa
-
25
tion, weakening its military, sparking European efforts to
cease importing Russian hydrocarbons, spurring further
NATO enlargement to Finland and Sweden, and provok-
ing European allies to increase defense spending. Some of
these costs may be transitory for Russia, but others—such
as NATO enlargement, European efforts to reduce energy
dependence, and economic damage—appear to be perma-
nent shifts.70 Given these significant costs of the war for
Russia, it is less likely that other states will look at the cur-
rent conflict as clear evidence that aggression pays, even if
some sanctions are eventually relieved as part of an agree-
ment to end the war. Furthermore, sanctions relief is likely
to be partial at most; some measures, such as the much
stricter export controls, are intended to be permanent.
There are other risks to consider, however. The United
States has expended considerable effort building and holding
together a global coalition to sanction Russia. Presumably,
the United States would aim to gain support from members
of this coalition before signaling the possibility of sanctions
relief to Russia, but it may not be possible to get all members
to agree, which could limit the amount of relief the United
States could offer. Even if coalition members were unified on
a plan for sanctions relief, a risk would remain: As the mem-
bers of the coalition begin to unwind sanctions as part of a
negotiations process, some states might become reluctant to
put them back in place if the Ukraine-Russia negotiations or
agreements collapse. The coalition may not be as strong as it
is now if it later needs to reimpose sanctions. Moreover, U.S.
leaders may pay a political cost domestically and with allies
opposed to any sanctions relief.
Conclusion
The debate in Washington and other Western capitals
over the future of the Russia-Ukraine war privileges the
issue of territorial control. Hawkish voices argue for using
increased military assistance to facilitate the Ukrainian
military’s reconquest of the entirety of the country’s terri-
tory.71 Their opponents urge the United States to adopt the
pre-February 2022 line of control as the objective, citing
the escalation risks of pushing further.72 Secretary of State
Antony Blinken has stated that the goal of U.S. policy is to
enable Ukraine “to take back territory that’s been seized
from it since February 24.”73
Our analysis suggests that this debate is too narrowly
focused on one dimension of the war’s trajectory. Territo-
rial control, although immensely important to Ukraine, is
not the most important dimension of the war’s future for
the United States. We conclude that, in addition to avert-
ing possible escalation to a Russia-NATO war or Russian
nuclear use, avoiding a long war is also a higher priority
for the United States than facilitating significantly more
Ukrainian territorial control. Furthermore, the U.S. ability
to micromanage where the line is ultimately drawn is highly
constrained since the U.S. military is not directly involved
in the fighting. Enabling Ukraine’s territorial control is also
far from the only instrument available to the United States to
affect the trajectory of the war. We have highlighted several
other tools—potentially more potent ones—that Washing-
ton can use to steer the war toward a trajectory that better
promotes U.S. interests. Whereas the United States cannot
determine the territorial outcome of the war directly, it will
have direct control over these policies.
-
President Biden has said that this war will end at
the negotiating table.74 But the administration has not
yet made any moves to push the parties toward talks.
Although it is far from certain that a change in U.S. policy
can spark negotiations, adopting one or more of the poli-
cies described in this Perspective could make talks more
likely. We identify reasons why Russia and Ukraine may
have mutual optimism about war and pessimism about
peace. The literature on war termination suggests that such
perceptions can lead to protracted conflict. Therefore, we
highlight four options the United States has for shifting
these dynamics: clarifying its plans for future support to
Ukraine, making commitments to Ukraine’s security, issu-
ing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality, and set-
ting conditions for sanctions relief for Russia.
A dramatic, overnight shift in U.S. policy is politically
impossible—both domestically and with allies—and would
be unwise in any case. But developing these instruments
now and socializing them with Ukraine and with U.S.
allies might help catalyze the eventual start of a process
that could bring this war to a negotiated end in a time
frame that would serve U.S. interests. The alternative is a
long war that poses major challenges for the United States,
Ukraine, and the rest of the world.