The now-delayed meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Budapest, Hungary, could have been a turning point towards peace in Ukraine. Instead, it has revealed a deeper fault line.
Advertisement
However, it is one that can be overcome. Even the Kremlin’s special envoy for investment and economic cooperation, Kirill Dmitriev, believes that the parties are close to an end to the war.
The global community should offer an off-ramp and seek a middle ground amenable to both sides. No ceasefire, however well-meaning, will work unless it factors in the deeper struggles around Europe’s security posture and Russia’s anxieties about the West. In short, what is needed is credible enforcement and balanced security guarantees.
In this regard, Kyiv rightly demands protection from future aggression. Meanwhile, Moscow insists on assurances that Nato, the transatlantic security alliance, will not creep closer to its border. The fact that the Budapest summit was even on the table indicates that both sides are, at least ostensibly, open to “freezing” the conflict. However, trust is running thin.
I have previously argued for the creation of a formal seven-party talks framework, reminiscent of the Korean six-party talks, comprising the UN Security Council’s five permanent members – the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia – plus Ukraine and representatives of the European Union. But now, an older precedent can offer guidance: the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953 did not end the war, but it greatly reduced the violence.
Advertisement
Such an approach, if enacted with the help of neutral third-party oversight, could offer a viable path outside maximalist goals. If Ukraine and Russia are serious about halting the fighting, they will need to embrace a peacekeeping framework strong enough to deter violations but neutral enough to be accepted by both.