Ukraine’s Offensive Could Set Stage for Diplomacy With Russia, U.S. Officials Say

Ukraine’s deliberate counteroffensive in opposition to Russia has overshadowed speak of a possible negotiated settlement within the battle, however some U.S. and European officers say the following section of the warfare might create momentum for diplomacy.

It is unclear how the officers will outline success within the counteroffensive, which might final many months, or how its final result would possibly have an effect on their method. Opinions vary extensively amongst navy strategists about whether or not Ukraine is prone to regain territory after greater than a yr of warfare.

For now, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has proven no indicators of eager to make concessions or have interaction in significant dialogue.

And U.S. officers stay cautious of any requires a right away cease-fire or peace talks, particularly these coming from China. Beijing persists at attempting to play peacemaker, regardless of its apparent strategic alignment with Russia. Foreign Minister Qin Gang has been touring throughout Europe this week to attempt to promote the notion that China can shepherd negotiations.

Some European officers assembly with Mr. Qin have expressed skepticism. And in Washington, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met together with his counterparts from Britain and Spain this week to shore up commitments to navy assist to Ukraine, sending a message that battlefield positive factors are the precedence.

Mr. Blinken stated on Tuesday at a news convention with James Cleverly, the British overseas secretary, that the Ukrainians have “what they need to continue to be successful in regaining territory that was seized by force by Russia over the last 14 months.”

Like Mr. Blinken, Mr. Cleverly didn’t point out diplomacy with Russia in any respect, as a substitute specializing in navy assist: “We need to continue to support them, irrespective of whether this forthcoming offensive generates huge gains on the battlefield, because until this conflict is resolved and resolved properly, it is not over.”

Ukrainian leaders additionally say they won’t comply with talks till they’ve pushed again Russian forces.

Still, President Biden’s aides have been exploring potential endgames, attempting to establish an final result that might be acceptable to each Kyiv and Moscow if actual peace talks began, U.S. officers say.

“I know that senior-level administration officials are regularly having conversations about what peace ultimately would look like with our Ukrainian counterparts,” stated Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the highest Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, “while at the same time having conversations about how to arm them and win back as much territory as possible.”

Mr. Biden’s aides and European officers say their finest hope is for Ukraine to make substantial positive factors through the counteroffensive, which might give it extra leverage in any negotiations.

But no matter its leaders might imagine, American officers say that the majority Ukrainians have little urge for food for compromise with their Russian attackers.

And U.S. officers concern that even when Russia’s navy suffers extra setbacks this summer season, Mr. Putin should still imagine he can win a warfare of attrition.

Avril D. Haines, the director of nationwide intelligence, stated in congressional testimony final week that whereas Mr. Putin was “scaling back his near-term ambitions” in Ukraine, the possibility of Russian concessions at any negotiating desk this yr “will be low.”

Another senior U.S. official stated that it doesn’t matter what success Ukraine achieves, the Russian chief might merely order a wider draft mobilization to rebuild a few of his navy energy.

Mr. Putin might additionally profit because the 2024 presidential marketing campaign gears up within the United States, with former President Donald J. Trump the early Republican front-runner. Mr. Trump and a number of Republican politicians have known as U.S. help for Ukraine wasteful and harmful.

China has pushed for a mediator position because it unveiled a imprecise peace initiative in February. Though Mr. Blinken and a few prime European diplomats say they’re open to the opportunity of China enjoying a useful position sooner or later, they criticize Beijing for not publicly recognizing Russia because the aggressor within the warfare. They insist {that a} nation unwilling to try this can’t be trusted to be a dispassionate mediator.

Xi Jinping, China’s chief, made a state go to to Moscow in March and voiced continued help for his nation’s partnership with Russia, which the 2 governments stated had “no limits” simply earlier than Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. China’s particular envoy for its peace initiative, Li Hui, was the ambassador to Russia for 10 years and obtained a medal from Mr. Putin.

U.S. and European officers are additionally suspicious of requires peace talks that don’t embody a requirement that the Russian navy first withdraw from Ukrainian territory, which is the place of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. China has not taken an express place on Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and U.S. officers say China and Russia would possibly use the pretense of talks to freeze the entrance traces — and Russian positive factors.

In her congressional testimony, Ms. Haines stated Mr. Putin might use a cease-fire to attempt to regain energy whereas “buying time for what he hopes will be an erosion of Western support for Ukraine.”

She added that “he may be willing to claim at least a temporary victory based on roughly the territory he has occupied.”

Mr. Blinken just lately stated it was “a positive thing” that Mr. Xi had lastly spoken to Mr. Zelensky final month, however he was “still not sure” China was prepared to simply accept that Ukraine was the sufferer. Annalena Baerbock, the German overseas minister, stated practically the identical factor on to Mr. Qin at a news convention on Tuesday: “Neutrality means taking the side of the aggressor, and that is why our guiding principle is to make it clear that we are on the side of the victim.”

The most important argument for a larger Chinese position in diplomacy is the truth that the nation is Russia’s strongest companion, and Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin share a private bond. Russia’s warfare has roiled the worldwide economic system, creating issues for China.

“As a matter of principle,” Mr. Blinken stated, “countries — particularly countries with significant influence like China — if they’re willing to play a positive role in trying to bring peace, that would be a good thing.”

The White House stated on Thursday that Jake Sullivan, the nationwide safety adviser, talked about Ukraine with Wang Yi, China’s prime overseas coverage official, throughout a two-day assembly this week in Vienna.

The debate in Washington over potential peace talks is amorphous and paradoxical. There are even competing arguments primarily based on the identical hypothetical final result: If Ukraine makes substantial positive factors, which may imply it’s time for talks, some officers say — or it might imply Ukraine ought to put diplomacy on the again burner and hold preventing.

If Ukraine is unable to grab important territory, some U.S. and European officers would possibly need to nudge Mr. Zelensky towards a negotiated settlement.

“The dynamic will shift even if Ukraine makes marginal gains,” stated Mr. Smith, the Democratic lawmaker. After a number of extra months of warfare, he predicted, either side might be exhausted.

But some officers and analysts in Washington warning in opposition to such considering.

“There’s always been a desire among some people in Washington to say, look, if Ukraine doesn’t make gains — or if they do — it might be time to have a conversation about Ukraine looking for a settlement,” stated Alina Polyakova, the president of the Center for European Policy Analysis.

“I personally find that shocking,” she added. “Territorial concessions would validate Russia’s aggression, which sets a global precedent for China and others that such means work. Two, it would also mean that the West would have to accept the moral implications — accepting war crimes and condoning continued human rights abuses.”

Among prime U.S. officers, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been probably the most outspoken on the necessity for Ukraine and Russia to think about negotiations, arguing {that a} extended warfare would end in many extra casualties. Mr. Blinken has taken a special place. “There has to be some profound change in Mr. Putin’s mind and in Russia’s mind to engage in meaningful diplomacy,” he stated final week.

The secretary of state and different American officers have made imprecise statements on what they see as a viable finish to the battle.

At least twice up to now a number of months, Mr. Blinken has referred to the necessity for Ukraine to reclaim territory “seized by force by Russia over the last 14 months,” as he put it on Tuesday. But this warfare is a continuation of an earlier one: Starting in 2014, Russia seized efficient management of lots of of sq. miles of jap Ukraine and annexed its Crimean Peninsula.

It is unclear whether or not Mr. Blinken is deliberately drawing a distinction between these swaths of territory. Ukrainian leaders insist their objective is to reclaim each inch of their land taken since 2014, together with Crimea. But many U.S. officers and analysts imagine that Mr. Putin would take extra drastic measures to retain his grip on the peninsula.

Some U.S. officers have raised the opportunity of no less than forcing Russia to demilitarize Crimea, in order that it can’t be used as a staging floor for future assaults on Ukraine. But that final result might be nearly as tough for Mr. Putin to simply accept. The Russian Black Sea Fleet relies on the Crimean metropolis of Sevastopol.

Mr. Blinken stated final week {that a} “just and durable” peace plan “can’t ratify what Russia has done, which is the seizure of so much of Ukraine’s territory.” Nor can it permit Russia to “simply rest, refit and reattack six months later or a year later.”

Julian E. Barnes contributed reporting from Washington, and Steven Erlanger from Brussels.