Ukraine is being left out in the cold – MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

January and February are the cruellest months in Ukraine. For the past week, temperatures in Kyiv have hovered between lows of -19°C and highs of -6°C. The Ukrainian capital gets about nine hours of daylight per day. And the relentless Russian bombardment of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has meant that, for the most part, people are shivering in the dark in the coldest winter in a decade.

At one point in January, things were so bad that Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, ordered anyone who could to leave the city to leave and find refuge in places with alternative sources of power and heating.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, honoured the commitment he reportedly made to Donald Trump to order a one-week pause on attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure. The US president insisted he had, Ukrainians said he hadn’t and that, in any case, Russia was attacking so many Ukrainian targets that it was hard to tell when the “power truce” actually began and when it ended.

At the time, Kremlin mouthpiece Dmitry Peskov said that the goal was the “creation of favourable conditions for holding talks”. It’s no coincidence that the nights before both recent rounds of three-way talks between Russian, Ukrainian and American negotiators saw massive Russian bombardment of critical civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.

And, once again, the talks have failed to achieve very much. After the most recent day of negotiations in Abu Dhabi, some progress has been made on prisoner swaps, but little else of any substance has been agreed. As Stefan Wolff notes, the two sides are so far apart in their negotiating positions that there’s little or no chance of seeing a meaningful peace agreement any time soon.

Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham who has written regularly for The Conversation since the full-scale invasion nearly four years ago, sees a series of potholes on the road to peace, many of which Trump has helped to dig.

For example, on the vexed issue of territory, Putin takes as his starting point what has become known as the “Anchorage formula”, apparently agreed with the US president when the pair met in Alaska last August. This holds that in return for security guarantees from Kyiv’s allies (the coalition of the willing in Europe, but – of course – principally the US), Ukraine will withdraw from the portion of the Donbas that it still holds after four years of bitter fighting.

Zelensky, for his part, remains adamant that this is a non-starter. Meanwhile Putin is equally adamant that he will not accept non-Ukrainian boots on the ground as guarantors of a ceasefire. Add to that, Trump’s mercurial approach to security guarantees and his apparent desire to link any peace deal to some sort of business upside for the US, and you understand why Wolff concludes that: “Any claims of progress in the negotiations in Abu Dhabi are therefore at best over-optimistic and at worst self-deluding.”

Take Putin’s stipulation that Kyiv must withdraw its military from the rest of the Donbas. This, write Rod Thornton and Marina Miron of King’s College London, would be tantamount to suicide for Ukraine. The “Donbas line” has held up Russia’s westward advance for the best part of four years.

It comprises a row of fortified cities linked by a line of seven distinct defensive layers which Russian troops would need to overcome to move further into central Ukraine.

Given the rate of attrition, particularly on Russia’s side (at last count, estimates are that Russian casualties have mounted to 1.2 million killed, inured or missing – more than double those of Ukraine) you can understand why Putin’s military planners are so keen to avoid their troops having to face these sophisticated killing zones.

To sum up: the post-second world war order is in disarray, Nato is looking shakier by the week, a major war is raging in Europe and the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, is reportedly becoming increasingly insistent about China’s claim over the future of Taiwan in his recent phone call with the US president. So now’s a good time to note that the New Start nuclear arms control treaty has just expired, prompting speculation on all sides as to the likelihood of a new nuclear arms race.

Xi’s military purge

Talking of China, reports emerged recently that Xi has purged another of his top generals. The removal of Zhang Youxia, vice-chair of China’s central military commission (CMC), which is chaired by Xi, means that all but one of the members of that powerful body have lost their positions in the past three years.

China-watcher Kerry Brown, of the Lau China Institute at King’s College London, tracks XI’s record of purging senior officials since his early days in charge. When considering what this might mean for Taiwan, it’s worth noting that Zhang was the last remaining senior military commander with actual combat experience, having fought in the war against Vietnam in the late 1970s. This may mean that China will need to regroup and reorganise before it could consider mounting any aggressive action against Taiwan. All eyes will be on who replaces Zhang.

Competing visions for Gaza

On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos the other week, shortly after the US president launched his Board of Peace, the dignitaries who had signed up to the board were given a presentation on the future of Gaza by two members of the board’s executive committee: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

It was a similar vision to one publicised by the US president last year and featured gleaming office towers, data centres, luxury beachfront resorts and modern transport hubs. Like a similar plan unveiled by Israel last year, it’s not immediately clear what part the 2.1 million residents of Gaza may play in the reconstruction of their homeland.

Timothy J. Dixon, an expert in urban futures at the University of Reading, has run his ruler over the competing visions for the future of Gaza and spells out some of the considerable challenges that lie ahead for anyone taking on this gargantuan task.

Not the least of them is doing something with the estimated 61 million tonnes of rubble under which there is likely to be large amounts of unexploded ordnance and human remains.

Whether there is any justice in this for the people of Gaza themselves remains to be seen. One plan for reconstruction, the Gaza Phoenix plan, was developed by a consortium of local and regional planners and “preserves Gaza’s identity, its heritage and its people”. Or at least, that’s the aim. It sounds optimistic, but as Dixon points out, the most successful plans for large-scale reconstruction – most notably the Marshall plan for the rebuilding of Europe after 1945 – “involved close engagement with civil society and local communities to achieve success”.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Ukraine is being left out in the cold – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-is-being-left-out-in-the-cold-275260