Has the time come for Zelensky to consider signing peace with Putin? This is what military experts think

The war in Ukraine will be two years old in February, and there are no signs of progress in either direction. Although both Russia and the invaded country do not even want to hear about a truce, there are already voices that suggest that it is inevitable.

Without significant achievements and with the world looking at Israel and Hamas, some experts put the possibility of a permanent ceasefire on the table. This is the question that the Daily Mail has posed to several military experts.

Charlie Herbert, a former British Army major general who served in Afghanistan, said signing a truce would only freeze Putin's “murderous aspirations” rather than stopping them completely.

For her part, Aliona Hlivco, CEO of the Henry Jackson Society think tank, and a former Ukrainian politician whose brother is fighting on the front lines, says: “This is an existential war for Ukraine. “If we reach an agreement now, as we did in 2015, Putin will only return ten years later to eliminate the Ukrainian nation as an entity.”

Ben Hodges, former commander of US forces in Europe, says: “Zelensky knows that Russia cannot be trusted in any negotiations and that the Kremlin is playing the long game, waiting for the United States and other Western nations to pressure Ukraine into consider a peace treaty.”

For his part, Kevin Ryan, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general, agrees, saying the security of Ukraine and Western nations — especially Estonia, Lithuania and Poland on NATO's eastern flank — would be in jeopardy if Zelensky sign a peace agreement now.

'Ukraine is the first battlefield of Putin's war with the West,' says Ryan. “The West has not fully woken up to the reality that we are at war with Russia. “Countries like Poland and the Baltic countries believe in Putin's words and actions and think that we are in a war,” he continued.

“But the United States, the United Kingdom and much of NATO? I think they believe that this is just a war between Russia and Ukraine, a war in which we can be on the sidelines helping,” he adds.

Ryan insists that no peace deal should be signed before Ukrainian troops retake the territory they lost in the 2022 Russian invasion, as well as Crimea, and that Western nations should do more to help Ukraine achieve this.

Never without Crimea

Ben Hodges agrees: “Zelensky knows he needs Crimea. They will never be safe as long as Russia occupies Crimea.. “Zelensky will never be able to rebuild Ukraine if Russia is in Crimea and capable of blocking or disrupting all of Ukraine's ports.”

However, Charlie Herbert believes that Zelensky “will inevitably look at a number of options to end this war in a way that is tolerable for the Ukrainian people.”

“They have sacrificed an enormous amount, more than I suspect we will ever know or understand, but an endless war is not possible for Ukraine or its Western supporters,” he added.

An endless war is not possible for Ukraine or its Western supporters

All experts admit that Ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive, which began in the summer, has not been as successful as Ukraine and its Western allies hoped.

The counteroffensive has moved at a much slower pace than anticipated as Western nations sent tanks and missiles into Ukraine, while Ukrainian troops struggled to dislodge Russian soldiers who are entrenched among the captured. And this has meant that Russia still controls almost a fifth of Ukraine.

Ukrainian soldiers continue fighting, determined to protect their land. But the situation is terrible: both suffer heavy losses and there are an estimated 100,000 casualties on each side.

And since the counteroffensive began, Ukraine has advanced just 16 km. He lost 20% of his field weapons in the first two weeks of the operation.

“The war is stagnant”

“The war is at a standstill,” says retired US Army colonel Gian Gentile.

“After months of relentless and grueling fighting, with huge casualties on both sides and little change in the position of the front lines, it has become increasingly evident that neither side still had a decisive military advantage,” says Herbert .

Herbert adds that this means the prospect of a decisive military victory by either side remains “illusory.”. “We shouldn't be surprised,” says Herbert.

“The callous and sacrificial nature of Russia's 'meat-grinding' tactics has proven to be beyond Ukraine's ability to quickly defeat them, regardless of the relentless courage and determination of the Ukrainian armed forces,” it added.

Gentile, associate director of the Arroyo Center at the RAND think tank in the United States, says morale among Russian soldiers is still low.. He says the West must take advantage of this and supply Ukraine with more weapons so it can win decisively.

“Although the Russians have built formidable defensive lines with mines, obstacles and trenches, Russian morale overall remains quite low and they lack a true operational reserve to respond to a Ukrainian advance,” says Gentile.

Gentile, who served in Iraq, added: “In other words, Russian defenses are susceptible to a Ukrainian offensive that could cause a systematic breach in the overall defenses of Putin's men.”

Hodges also has hope: “The counteroffensive on the ground is not going as well as we all hoped, but it is still moving forward,” says Hodges.. “I am witnessing the Ukrainian landings and the expansion of the beachhead on the left bank of the Dnieper River,” he adds.

The counteroffensive on the ground is not going as well as we all expected

Hodges says these gains, however small, mean Zelensky has “no need or desire to settle for anything with Putin.” Herbert says that while the prospect of a significant change in the stalemate over the winter months is “dim,” it is “too early to seriously consider that either side is ready for some form of negotiated political settlement to end the conflict.” this war.”

And without any peace agreement or agreement, Herbert says another “bloody summer of attrition next year remains the most likely scenario, with the sides desperately trying to find technological, tactical and logistical advantages.”

“It will be a deadly competition to break the stalemate, not unlike that faced by the Allied forces on the Western Front in World War I,” says Herbert. “The West can end the war, if only it provides Ukraine with enough weapons to win,” he adds.

A waste

Philip Ingram, a retired British Army colonel and military intelligence specialist, said: “If support dwindles before Ukraine has managed to defeat the Russians, then billions of dollars in aid given to Ukraine have been wasted. until now”.

“Any Western government, including the United States, that decides to waste all that money and not give more will be committing political suicide,” he adds.

Hlivco says: “Ukraine needs more weapons, more ammunition, more long-range systems and more fourth-generation fighter jets like the F16. The whole counteroffensive failed because we are short of weapons supplies.” When asked how long he thinks the war could last, Hlivco says: “My brother, who is a soldier on the front lines in Ukraine, said they are ready to fight this war for at least a decade.”

Back to the border of 1991

For Hodges, the most important step the West can take would be to “publicly declare that it is in our strategic interest for Ukraine to win, defeat Russia, and drive Russia back to the 1991 border” and send more weapons.

“Such a strategic objective would lead to much more effective policies in support of Ukraine,” says Hodges, explaining how policies should focus on sending more weapons to Ukraine.

'The US administration will ultimately decide how this war ends,' Hodges says. “The current policy of 'with you for as long as it takes' is another way of saying that we are not committed to seeing Ukraine win, but rather that we will provide incremental aid that keeps Ukraine in the fight, but will not be decisive,” he adds. .

“This is bad policy and is a huge missed opportunity to help Ukraine inflict defeat on Russia and change the security situation in Europe for generations,” he says.

For Herbert, he says there is a “certain inevitability” that the conflict will come to an end through some kind of political agreement, but insists that such an agreement should not be reached in the short term.

“Absent a fundamental change in the trench stalemate, there is some inevitability that this conflict will be brought to an end not by the cannon of a tank, but by quiet diplomacy and some form of political agreement, but not anytime soon.” term,” says Herbert.

“There will come a time when Ukraine will be forced to accept at least a ceasefire if there are no changes in the situation on the battlefield,” Ryan says.

“The goals of Ukraine being sovereign and free will not be achieved at the negotiating table,” he adds.. “Ukraine and the West must affirm and protect them with military power,” he concludes.