– Washington’s push for a deal without Kyiv at the table is ‘very destabilizing for Ukraine,’ Berlin-based expert Simon Schlegel says, arguing that doing so would not lead to ‘sustainable peace’
ISTANBUL
As the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war approaches, experts warn that a sustainable peace remains unlikely, with geopolitical maneuvering and shifting US policies expected to ultimately prolong the conflict, rather than resolve it.
The past week saw diplomatic tensions erupt between Kyiv and Washington, one of its top providers of finances and arms since Russia launched its “special military operation” three years ago.
Now, the US is pursuing talks with Moscow with the aim of ending the conflict, even as top administration officials engage in a war of words with Kyiv.
US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz has accused Ukraine of “badmouthing” the US after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused his American counterpart Donald Trump of living in a “disinformation space.”
Waltz further urged Ukraine to reconsider a proposed mineral deal that would grant the US 50% ownership of critical minerals in Ukraine — an offer Zelenskyy rejected due to its lack of security guarantees.
Tensions escalated further when Trump labeled Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” and warned that Ukraine “better move fast” or risk “not having a country left.”
The Ukrainian leader responded by accusing Trump of being trapped in a Russian “disinformation bubble,” criticizing Washington’s backchannel talks with Russia, with the notable exclusion Ukraine at the table.
A war in stalemate
Speaking to Anadolu, Mark Kimmitt, a retired US Army brigadier general, described the battlefield situation as a “tactical draw,” emphasizing that neither Russia nor Ukraine has made significant military advances in recent months.
“There has not been any military certainty in any debate,” highlighted Kimmitt, who also served as an assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs. “The situation on the ground tactically is pretty much a draw. Neither side is winning, neither side is losing.”
While hopeful for the start of diplomatic negotiations, Kimmitt cautions that they are unlikely to fully resolve the conflict.
“I don’t believe it’s going to be a peace. Nor do I believe that the situation will be resolved. But as long as the fighting ceases and the killing stops, that may be the best we can ask for over the next couple of years,” he added.
Simon Schlegel, the Ukraine Program director at Berlin-based Zentrum Liberale Moderne, agrees, arguing that any deal reached through US-led talks with Russia might not be sustainable in the long run.
“One or both parties will probably come out of these negotiations disgruntled and far away from their original aims,” Schlegel said. “(Russia) has an incentive to negotiate now to regroup and replenish its army, only to try again later.”
US-Russia talks: A diplomatic gamble?
Recent US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia have also sparked controversy, particularly in Kyiv.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly criticized the negotiations, saying Ukraine was “blindsided” and only learned about the meeting through media reports.
“Any negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine are meaningless,” Zelenskyy declared, rejecting the legitimacy of any decisions made in his absence.
Despite these criticisms, US officials defended the talks as a “historic first step” toward ending the conflict.
National Security Adviser Waltz described the US approach as necessary shuttle diplomacy, while Trump expressed optimism that they could lead to a rapid resolution of the conflict, excluding Kyiv’s direct involvement.
Kimmitt compared the situation to previous US talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan, suggesting that Ukraine might not be included in initial diplomatic discussions.
“The only thing the United States has in the way of final leverage is reducing the support,” Kimmitt said, implying that a diplomatic settlement might be influenced more by Washington’s strategic calculations than Kyiv’s preferences.
Schlegel was more critical of the idea that the US could negotiate a settlement without Ukraine’s full participation.
“It’s very destabilizing for Ukraine,” he said, adding that speaking to Putin directly while sidelining Ukraine and the EU would not lead to a “sustainable peace.”
Europe’s uneasy role
European leaders have voiced strong disapproval of Ukraine’s exclusion from the Saudi talks.
French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the need for a “strong and lasting peace” that involves Ukraine, while Germany’s outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Europe “will not support any peace process that excludes Kyiv.”
In response to growing diplomatic concerns, European military leaders proposed deploying a peacekeeping force of nearly 30,000 troops to Ukraine as a “reassurance” measure.
While some leaders, like UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, supported the idea, others, including Poland and Denmark, firmly rejected deploying troops into the conflict zone.
European nations have also expressed frustration over the US taking the lead in negotiations.
Kimmitt highlighted tensions between Washington and European allies, noting that divisions within Europe make it difficult for the continent to present a unified front.
“At the Munich Security Conference, European nations were not happy about the United States taking the lead … But in many ways, they have no better alternative,” Kimmitt said.
According to Schlegel, some European nations firmly support Ukraine, while others, particularly those reliant on Russian gas, remain hesitant.
“The biggest countries in the EU, as well as the UK and Nordic nations, are very clearly on Ukraine’s side,” he said. “But in Central and Eastern Europe, in Slovakia and Hungary, the situation is much more complex.”
Schlegel warned that any agreement reached without full European participation would likely be met with resistance.
“These countries will insist that they need a seat at the table and will make clear that any agreements made without them will not be binding for them,” he said.
Risk of frozen conflict
While some officials, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have called for a cease-fire, Russia has rejected such proposals, fearing it would allow Ukraine to rebuild its military strength.
Kimmitt believes that, eventually, a cease-fire will be reached — but only as part of a broader negotiation, not as an immediate standalone concession.
“I believe there will be a cease-fire, but it will not be achieved as a concession to begin. But it will be something that is negotiated during certain talks, not before the talks with the EU,” he said.
Both experts suggested that the war could settle into a prolonged frozen conflict, similar to other unresolved territorial disputes.
“I don’t believe there will be peace,” Kimmitt said. “The best we can expect is a frozen conflict, like Kashmir or Korea, where both sides remain in a state of unresolved tension.”
Schlegel agreed, pointing out that even if an agreement is reached, Russia may not respect it in the long term.
“The more you give them, the more concessions you make upfront, and that Trump now gives the most important bits of these negotiations out of hand before the negotiations even start, the more the Russians will ask for,” he said, referencing past negotiations such as the Minsk agreements and Istanbul talks.
