By Eric Vandenbroeck and co-workers

It’s not just about Moscow and Kyiv but the entire Russia-West relationship.

The protracted war in Ukraine is entering a new and potentially much more dangerous phase. The surprising success of Ukraine’s offensive to retake territory Russia seized since its invasion in February has left Russian President Vladimir Putin with precious few choices to turn the tide of war.

In his September 21 speech about the steps he was taking to win his war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin had to explain why he had not already won. The culprit was NATO, which he faulted for its considerable support to Kyiv.

Following the sudden breakthroughs by Ukrainian troops in Kharkiv in September, the Kremlin is now climbing the escalation ladder. Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a Russian military mobilization on Sept. 21 while issuing yet another semi-veiled threat of the use of nuclear weapons, a return to one of Moscow’s themes following earlier defeats in the initial stages of the invasion. Referendums to join Russia in several Moscow-backed separatist territories, which have long been discussed and are currently being held, are yet another sign of the Kremlin’s attempts to ratchet up pressure on Ukraine.

These developments point to a severe risk of escalation in the Ukrainian conflict, which has already bled over into energy disruptions between Russia and Europe and has come worryingly close to threatening nuclear accidents. But further escalation isn’t inevitable. Indeed, they could provide the impetus for something that has eluded the Russia-Ukraine conflict going back to 2014: an earnest and dedicated attempt by all parties involved to reach a diplomatic resolution to end the war in Ukraine—or at least mitigate against its most destructive outcomes.

To be sure, there have been many failed efforts at resolving the Ukrainian conflict diplomatically. These go back to the start of the conflict in early 2014 following the Euromaidan revolution in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea, and sponsorship of a separatist uprising in the Donbas. Diplomatic negotiations were then launched almost immediately. These primarily came in two forms: the Trilateral Contact Group, which included Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to address the tactical and security components of the conflict, and the so-called Normandy Four between Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany to address broader strategic issues from a political level.

These mediation efforts produced a roadmap agreement to end the Ukrainian conflict, known as the Minsk agreement, which included a cease-fire and a pullback of forces from the line of contact. Still, no part of this agreement was ever successfully nor sustainably implemented. Many issues undermined its implementation, including Russia’s deliberately ambiguous status as both a mediator and belligerent, as well as disagreements between Kyiv and Moscow over the sequencing of the security and political components of the protocol. At the core of the Minsk agreement’s failure was that its purpose was used differently by each of the main parties, with Ukraine viewing it as a way to reclaim territory seized by Russia. In contrast, Moscow viewed it as undermining Kyiv’s Western integration efforts.

The Minsk agreements were rendered entirely obsolete with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. No longer was the status of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics subject to negotiation; instead, Russia chose to recognize these territories as independent states before launching an all-out military assault on Ukraine. The Kremlin claimed this was necessary to protect these territories and achieve broader “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine. This led to the current phase of the military conflict in Ukraine. This phase has been negotiated mainly on the battlefield and now appears to be on the precipice of escalating further.

d Russia, this does not mean international mediation in the Ukrainian conflict has been futile. There has been one such diplomatic effort in the current phase of the conflict that has been not only agreed on and implemented by all parties involved (including both Ukraine and Russia) but could also serve as a framework for preventing the war from worsening.

That effort is known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative, an international agreement involving Ukraine and Russia that Turkey mediated and the United Nations. It was signed on Jul 22 and came into force on 1 Aug. This agreement paved the way for a humanitarian maritime corridor for grain supplies through the Black Sea and has allowed Ukraine and Russia to unlock food exports that were obstructed as a result of the war. As the agreement has been successfully implemented for more than a month or two, it has helped alleviate economic pressures in Ukraine and food shortages worldwide, offering evidence that practical collaboration can still be achieved between Kyiv and Moscow even amid war.

A key player in negotiating the agreement was Turkey, which has emerged as the most active and effective mediator between Russia and Ukraine since the conflict began. Turkey’s unique position as the only NATO member to not pass sanctions against Russia and Ankara’s complex yet constructive relationship with Moscow and Kyiv gave Ankara the political leverage to mediate between both sides. In addition, Turkey’s strategic location on the Black Sea and its points of entry from the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean Sea made it crucial from a logistical perspective, as any shipments transiting the Black Sea must pass through Turkish-held straits to reach global markets.

The U.N.’s role was vital as it gave multilateral legitimacy to the agreement, particularly as the Russia-Ukraine conflict has created global grain problems. Russia and Ukraine collectively account for around 18 percent of global grain exports, providing the majority of imported grains to many countries in Africa and the Middle East. However, Russia’s military blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and Western sanctions against Russia make it much more difficult for both countries to bring their grain supplies to market. The war has not only impacted the price of grain and led to rampant food inflation but also created grain shortages in some of the world’s most vulnerable areas.

As a result, Ukraine and Russia were incentivized to reach an agreement on grain supplies even as the broader military conflict endured, paving the way for Turkey and the U.N. to mediate. Since the Black Sea Grain Initiative was launched, nearly 200-grain ship voyages have delivered more than 4 million metric tons of grain products. Despite occurring during an active conflict, several factors facilitated the grain agreement. It had clear incentives for Russia and Ukraine to unlock their grain shipments, and it did not require either party to compromise on their broader strategic interests. It also addressed concerns from Turkey and the U.N. over tackling food shortages and inflation, and there was buy-in among all parties for international observation and coordination toward implementation. This allowed diplomacy to be pursued earnestly and for the negotiators to focus on the technical details of a deal's legal and logistical parameters while overcoming any political obstacles.

All of these factors are important to remember when considering what a diplomatic agreement to end—or at least mitigate against the escalation of—the conflict in Ukraine could look like at this stage of the war. Like the Black Sea Grain Initiative and unlike the Minsk agreement, any such agreement needs to have a common purpose and one that all parties mutually agree on. Although there are certainly no shortages of differences between Moscow, Kyiv, and the West, there are common goals that all parties can still get around, even if those are just to prevent a dramatic escalation that would hurt all sides. Such escalation could take numerous forms, from a Russian nuclear weapons attack to a full-scale energy cutoff to the economic and political crises such acts could set off.

Thus, the Black Sea Grain Initiative, with its focus on multilateral cooperation and identifying and implementing common goals, could provide a practical conceptual framework for preventing the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. Turkey has made it no secret that it wants to help mediate a broader cease-fire agreement between Ukraine and Russia, with Ankara hoping that the experience of the grain deal—as well as a more recent prisoner swap it mediated along with Saudi Arabia—can be leveraged toward this objective. Successful mediation that produces tangible results, even on relatively minor issues, can build the groundwork for future de-escalation.

Of course, the critical issues of territorial control and security guarantees are far more challenging to mediate. Ukraine and Russia may eschew mediation efforts as their forces attempt to gain an advantage on the battlefield. Nevertheless, the latest developments have placed the Ukrainian conflict at a crossroads, with a severe risk of escalation on the one hand and an opportunity for a diplomatic climbdown on the other.

But the mobilization he has announced will not turn this around, and the use of nuclear weapons would make a bad situation catastrophic. Putin is on course to lose, and given the many thousands of lives already sacrificed, he fully deserves to do so.

More than 2,000 people in total have been detained across Russia for protesting against President Vladimir Putin’s partial military mobilization, including 798 people arrested in 33 towns on Saturday, according to the independent monitoring group OVD-Info.

Reuters reports that frustrations spread to pro-Kremlin media, with one editor at the state-run RT news channel saying problems such as call-up papers being sent to the wrong men were “infuriating people.”

The Kremlin’s supporters have criticized military call-up, something unheard of in Russia since its ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine began.

Valentina Matviyenko, the chairwoman of Russia’s upper house, the Federation Council, said she was aware of reports of men who should be ineligible for the draft called up.

“Such excesses are unacceptable. And, I consider it right that they are triggering a sharp reaction in society,” she said in a post on the Telegram messaging app.

 

For updates click hompage here