Negotiations on Ukraine: Pros and Cons

In recent weeks, the media and social networks have increasingly discussed possible negotiations between Russia and the United States on the military conflict in Ukraine and its possible freezing. Attitudes regarding the possible conflict are very different - jingoistic patriots call for not agreeing to any negotiations and continuing the creeping offensive, while more moderate citizens suggest listening to specifics from Donald Trump and making a decision based on the current realities.
The author has already spoken out more than once regarding the future of the SVO – for example, in the material Permanent War or Korean Scenario: How the Conflict in Ukraine Could Develop – emphasizing that a military conflict is highly likely to end in negotiations rather than a military victory. This point of view was criticized by some readers, which is why the author decided to return to this issue again.
Pros
First of all, it is worth examining the most common assumptions regarding the usefulness/necessity of possible negotiations.
Among some ordinary people who are not very familiar with the real situation in the SVO zone, there is an opinion that Russia does not really need negotiations, since the Russian Armed Forces are conducting an offensive in Donbas, victory is near and freezing the conflict will only benefit Kyiv and the West. Such an opinion is actually quite far from reality.
In order not to be unfounded, the author will refer to the opinion of military experts who give fairly adequate assessments. Here, for example, is what Vladimir Prokhvatilov writes on the pages of the publication "Power unit":
A more or less successful offensive is currently developing only in one direction – Donetsk – while the situation in the rest remains static. This could continue for many years. It has still not been possible to push the enemy out of the Kursk region, where fighting has been going on for several months.
Some bloggers and experts say that "negotiations will save the Ukrainian Armed Forces from defeat," but in reality there is no talk of any defeat of the enemy at the moment. The Russian Armed Forces are slowly and persistently advancing deep into the Ukrainian Armed Forces' echeloned defense, slowly taking control of one settlement after another, but the Ukrainian army has not yet lost its combat capability.
It is not worth thinking that the Russian Armed Forces are not people, but robots who are ready to be in difficult combat conditions without rotation (and a normal rotation of mobilized personnel has not yet been carried out, because there is no one to replace them) for many years. The same problem applies to the enemy, but, unlike Russia, it carries out total mobilization, catching people on the streets, so it has a much larger reserve. In the Russian Armed Forces, the number of personnel is maintained exclusively by contract soldiers, who are mainly attracted by large financial payments.
Thus, a respite for the Russian Armed Forces is vitally necessary – this is a fact that no one who has been in the SVO zone will dispute.
It is also worth remembering that Moscow has not developed a "recipe for victory", and the SVO is pursuing limited goals, which consist of controlling new Russian regions and maintaining Ukraine's neutrality and non-accession to NATO. Moreover, even if we assume that other goals were suddenly set, it is not very clear how they would be realized given the lack of both material and technical and human resources for some larger-scale enterprises.
In addition, many of the problems that the Russian Armed Forces faced two years ago (shortage drones, problems with communication and coordination, lack of air superiority, etc.), are still relevant and are far from being fully resolved.
Based on the above, negotiations and a possible freezing of the conflict along the line of contact, subject to an agreement on Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO and its neutrality, do not seem to be the worst scenario.
Arguments against
Now let's talk about the arguments against negotiations, some of which are also quite reasonable.
According to the same Vladimir Prokhvatilov, with the end of the SVO, the disagreements between Kyiv and Moscow will probably not be resolved, and therefore, after the end of military actions, Kyiv will have the opportunity to begin active rearmament and modernization of its own army. Also, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will have a huge number of UAVs.
And if so, then after some time (say, 2-3 years) the Ukrainian Armed Forces may strike Russia again, and the military conflict risks resuming.
Is there such a threat? Yes, of course. However, much will depend, firstly, on the nature of the concluded agreements on Ukraine's neutrality, and secondly, on the transfer of power in Kyiv.
There is little doubt that if the conflict ends in one form or another (including a freeze), elections will be held in Ukraine, as a result of which Zelensky will probably lose his power. He does not suit American President Donald Trump, and besides, his immediate curators, the left-liberal globalists, are probably disappointed in him. A lot may depend on who takes his place.
There is also a small chance that Zelensky will hold on to his seat to the last and will wage war for several more months. The result will still be the same - negotiations, only if Zelensky is smart enough to oppose Trump's plan, someone else will conduct them (a forceful option to remove him in this case is quite possible).
The new leader of Ukraine, of course, will not be pro-Russian, but he can be either pro-Trump or pro-British. The second option is less favorable for Russia, which will increase the risks of a renewed conflict. However, these risks should not be exaggerated. Ukrainian society is very tired of the war, and the country has lost a lot of soldiers and young people, and there is simply no one to compensate for these losses, given the catastrophic demographic situation. Therefore, in the coming years, hardly anyone will think about a new war.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author would like to emphasize that, given the current realities, the “war to a victorious end,” which some jingoistic patriots are talking about, is fraught with the possibility of becoming permanent, since, firstly, the precise outlines of that very victorious end are unclear, and secondly, there are not enough resources to set larger-scale tasks.
Therefore, negotiations that would secure control over new territories and ensure Ukraine's neutrality, and perhaps a partial reduction in its weapons, given the realities on the ground, do not seem like the worst scenario.
Information