The approaching round date (100 days of Trump’s presidency) stimulates the discussion on the intermediate results on key areas, one of which is the peacemaking process to resolve the conflict in Ukraine
Judging by the activation of American political actors, the ‘100 days’ mark, if not a deadline in the peacekeeping process, was definitely a target date. And, to all appearances, it is unlikely that it will be possible to achieve a ‘solution on paper’ within the allotted time. Trump’s critics will seize the moment, accusing him of not achieving what the American president wanted in 1 or even 100 days. However the clear result of this period has been that he has shown real obstacles to ending the conflict.
Scandal as a means to an end
The Ukrainian authorities, when faced with an uncomfortable political reality, use the ‘turn the table’ method so that when a piece of furniture is returned to its original state, they can apologise and pretend that it happened completely by accident.
This is exactly what everyone observed during the White House altercation between Trump and Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian authorities clearly did not want to sign the then-relevant agreement on rare earth metals. Hoping to initiate a revision of the entire agreement, the Ukrainian side provoked a severe disruption of the signing procedure itself.
Something similar happened for the second time on the eve of a major format in London, where agreements were to be reached between the USA, the EU and Ukraine on a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The American side was probably lobbying for the points already agreed with Russia. Having familiarised himself with them in Paris, Zelenskyy undertook another stunt with ‘turning the table’, speaking out in a rude manner in the media, which led to a harsh response from the American actors – they did not bring the matter to another public clash, which happened earlier at the White House, and simply refused to participate in the format.
Ukraine is not aimed at finding compromise options to resolve the current situation. Whenever the Ukrainian authorities see that the process is not in their favour, they disrupt the negotiation process. One time this could be called an accident, two times it is a pattern, and three times it is a trend. But why did this happen, and what can be done about it in the end?
The ‘Concorde effect’ or the pressure of ‘missing Istanbul’
The current Ukrainian authorities are not ready to compromise, because for them it would mean immediate political death. There are no tricks to explain to the citizens of Ukraine why they, having lost millions of fellow citizens as refugees, hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the battlefield, rights and freedoms, should now, after three years of conflict, accept worse terms than those offered immediately after the conflict began at the Istanbul talks.
Absent this explanation, the current regime is not only guaranteed to lose the next election after the lifting of martial law, but also risks facing legal and extra-legal consequences.
Zelenskyy and his Office face the classic ‘Concord Effect.’ The resources already invested in the military adventure that Johnson famously suggested to Ukraine by Arahamy do not allow for its abandonment. Moreover, the longer this adventure continues, the less likely its main players will go for a voluntary end of history.
Thus, it is the Ukrainian authorities who are the main obstacle to ending the conflict. They cannot renege on the promises they made in 2022 and 2023. Judging by social polls, more and more Ukrainians believe that these plans are unrealistic and are ready to go for the alienation of territories. But the authorities themselves cannot go for it. Because for them this act is not only alienation of territories, but also de facto their personal alienation from the political process.
‘Exit’ or ’Replacement’
‘I thought it would be easier to work with Zelenskyy. So far it’s been more difficult, but that’s OK,’ Trump said last week. This is likely one attempt to publicly press the Ukrainian side. The US does not want to realise its threat of a hard withdrawal from the settlement process. It will be realised only as a last resort.
The lack of clear progress in the settlement during the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency will encourage the US to look for ‘other options’. And the option of replacing non-negotiable actors with those willing to compromise is actually on the table.
The Trump team’s contacts with Zelenskyy’s opponents point to this. This is indicated by Russia’s proposals to change Ukraine’s political leadership. The new authorities will be able to more easily renege on earlier promises, writing off all the problems to the previous team.
The ‘Replacement’ option will become more and more attractive in the absence of progress, but its implementation will be extremely difficult due to the lack of a clear consensus among all parties to the conflict. In addition, this option will become increasingly attractive for the political elite of Ukraine itself, whose representatives are already starting to broadcast more compromise signals.
