Martin Suchanek
Are negotiations really underway between Russia and Ukraine? Will Putin, Zelensky (and Trump) actually meet for talks? Are conditions for an end to hostilities being negotiated behind the scenes? Will the war over Ukraine end or will it drag on indefinitely?
„Kremlinology“ is booming once again, paralleled by „Trumpology“. Their conclusions are no better than clairvoyance. No one really has a clear answer to these questions – for several reasons. First, the future of Ukraine and its workers and peasants is being discussed behind closed doors, for all the flurry of tweets, press conferences and semi-official briefings. Even when leaks occur, the question arises, are they substantial, secret information or messages floated deliberately to deceive?
The Alaska Summit and its Consequences
The summit in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 16 was undoubtedly a political success for Russia and its foreign policy. Not only did Trump roll out the red carpet for Putin but the summit made clear the terms for ending current hostilities in Ukraine that would be acceptable to the United States and Russia.
Those terms are essentially the freezing of the front lines and ceding to Russia not only Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, but also the parts of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson districts occupied by its forces. This is presented as simply a recognition of the reality on the ground. On that basis it is suggested that the European NATO states would not recognise Russia’s territorial gains under international law, but would accept them, de facto, as was once the case with the Baltic states. Ukraine’s NATO membership would also be off the table, since it is rejected not only by Russia, but also by the USA. Instead, there would be an immediate lifting of sanctions and a normalisation of relations, opening the way to unspecified „deals“. The diplomatic and political „isolation“ of Putin, EU policy for years but never really achieved, was once again undermined by Trump in front of the whole world.
So much for the contours of a possible agreement. The biggest obstacle to the immediate implementation of such a deal is Russia’s imperialist ambitions. The Kremlin’s reasoning is simple, why freeze the fronts now when they can conquer even more territories by winter? Ukraine lacks logistical and manpower reserves and funds. Having already forbidden the use of its long range weapons against crucial targets inside Russia, the US is now intending to cease all arms deliveries, obliging European states to buy weapons on Ukraine’s behalf – Trump’s idea of a “good deal”.
Thus, the policy of the EU and the Western NATO allies at the moment is mainly to put the best face it can on a losing game. Merz, Macron, Starmer as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were reportedly well prepared at the recent meeting with Trump. Allegedly, they even appeared with assigned roles and Merz played the „bad cop“ by singing the praises of Trump to the skies. The fact that they were not humiliated in the Oval Office, as Zelensky was in February, is considered a diplomatic triumph by these shabby heroes.
More important, however, is that even the Ukrainian leadership, whose country is being torn apart in the talks between Trump and Putin, has to repeatedly praise Trump’s wisdom. The leaders of the EU, and the “Coalition of the Willing” around the UK, Germany and France, are also fawning on Trump, even as he rolled out the carpet for Putin in Alaska. There is however one difference.
Unlike the Europeans, the US is prepared to sacrifice Ukraine in the interests of a strategic, geopolitical, calculation. It wants to lure imperialist Russia away from its too close alliance with China. For that, Trump is prepared to recognise Russia’s war gains, rule out Ukrainian NATO membership, free Moscow of sanctions and allow Putin international recognition as leader of a great power. Meanwhile, Zelensky and the European powers are being promised utterly vague security guarantees.
No wonder, then, that the diplomatic and political struggle drags on and Ukraine’s cities continue to be bombed nightly. Thus, Russia can play for time, and so can the United States. Faced with this, Ukraine has few options. The EU powers and Britain are being made painfully aware of their own military and geostrategic dependence on the USA. Hence the abject pleas to “Daddy”, as Rutte called Trump, not to abandon Ukraine and to allow the Europeans to enforce „robust security guarantees“.
The only thing that is clear is that talk of ceasefire and peace negotiations could drag on for months. Basically, the USA, like Russia, continues to pursue the goal of enforcing a dictated peace in its own interest. That would mean a de facto sharing of influence over a devastated Ukraine, with Russia holding the conquered territories while the USA and the EU exploit the west of Ukraine economically.
As the Alaska summit showed, none of the great powers is prepared to change course, at least in the short term. This could only change if Russia openly and completely rejected the geostrategic goals that the US is pursuing. That is unlikely. Although it is not in Putin’s interest to drop his alliance with his “great friend” Xi Jinping, why say so when he can continue to fool Trump into concession after concession?
Ukraine, but also Germany, France, Britain and the EU are officially acting as if none of this were the case. They happily clutch at any statement by Trump, or any other member of the US government, that suggests a harder line towards Russia. Such zig-zags by no means indicate a change of US policy. At best, they are only a reminder to the Russian leadership not to overstrain the patience of the world’s largest economic and military power.
Any peace dictated by Trump and Putin, which includes the division of the country, would mean a heavy defeat for Ukraine, above all, for its workers and peasants. It would also, indirectly, mean a heavy defeat for the Russian working class, which would face a politically strengthened Putin regime, at least in the short term. It would also constitute a defeat for the entire international working class. A reactionary, imperialist cessation of hostilities, agreed by a Ukrainian government, would not be a prelude to lasting peace in Ukraine or internationally.
Ukraine itself would be further dismembered and its national right to self-determination trampled underfoot. Even for the Russian and Russian-speaking populations who fear Ukrainian nationalism, Russia’s victory would only bring an extension of Putin’s Bonapartist dictatorship and oppression. Moreover, with or without security guarantees for Ukraine, it would lead to further rearmament by Russia and the European NATO countries, massively strengthen the militarism and imperialism in both camps, and eventually turn out to be a prelude to another, possibly even direct, war between the rival powers.
Prospects for Ukraine
Despite the obvious international context of increasing inter-imperialist rivalry, the war over Ukraine has never been a purely proxy war between the great powers. It is, first and foremost, the legitimate defence of a semi-colonial country against an imperialist invasion. The leadership of that war, Zelensky and the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, however, have led the country’s workers and peasants into the trap of political, military and economic dependence on the West, subordinating their interests to those of their allies. Zelensky has to downplay the differences with the USA, puts a good face on the bad situation, sells rare earths and other natural resources to the USA, contrary to the Ukrainian constitution. He has also banned opposition parties and organisations and undermined trade union rights. As a result, Ukraine is objectively in an extremely difficult situation. Under this leadership, it can do little to thwart a “peace” deal imposed by Russia and the USA.
As long as the war continues, the self-defence of semi-colonial Ukraine remains justified. At the same time, revolutionaries must warn against any false hope in their Western allies, not only against Trump’s deceptions, but also against all illusions in Germany, Britain and the EU.
Above all, an on-going struggle in Ukraine must oppose the sell-out of the country and fight for the expropriation of all privatised and sold off companies, for the cancellation of debt and reconstruction of the devastated cities and battlefields under workers‘ control. All anti-working class and anti-union laws must be fought and repealed, all restrictions on democratic rights by the Zelensky government ended, especially against opposition parties and Russian-speaking minorities. In short, the working class must act as an independent force, build a new revolutionary party, giving no support to Zelensky or any other bourgeois force.
In the Russian-occupied territories, the fight must be waged as part of a more general struggle against the Putin government, Russian imperialism and for a new Russian workers‘ revolution that recognizes the right to national self-determination (including the right to secede).
In the West, we must defend Ukraine’s right to self-determination, and to receive the weaponry and finance it needs for this. At the same time, we must reject conditions that NATO places on its support and also its huge rearmament schemes. Already there is talk of re-introducing conscription. In the event of a ceasefire, revolutionaries must reject any stationing of Western troops in Ukraine. These would not only act as a bargaining chip in deals with Russia. They would also serve to defend Ukraine’s incorporation into Western capitalism against possible unrest by the working class and peasants against exploitation by their corporations. Ukraine’s right to national self-determination will ultimately be realised neither by the West nor by the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. Rather, this requires the joint struggle of the Ukrainian, Russian and Western European working class against their bourgeoisies and the imperialist order, and for workers‘ governments and a socialist Europe.