Now is not the time for negotiation

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 2–8 June 2024

Eight publications (The Economist, Foreign Policy, The Washington Post, Politico, Los Angeles Times, Globe and Mail, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and Wall Street Journal) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

MMS summaries

Ukraine is defeating Russia in Crimea. The editorial board of the Economist argues that Crimea has become a death trap for Moscow’s forces. The huge investments in the peninsula’s military infrastructure since its occupation in 2014 are under threat. While Crimea was initially seen by the Kremlin “as an unsinkable aircraft-carrier, where logistics hubs, air-bases, and the Black Sea Fleet, operating out of Sevastopol, could be used to dominate the south of Ukraine, close off Ukraine’s vital grain exports, and provide a steady flow of men and materiel to push Ukraine completely out of the Donbas to the north,” today it has become a thorn in Russia’s defence system. Thanks to ATACMS ballistic missiles with a range of 300 km, Ukraine “can hit…any target in Russian-occupied Crimea, with deadly effect.” This means that Ukraine will “longer [have] to fight with one hand tied behind its back.” According to the Economist, “Crimea is a weak point for Russia. It has too much there to defend, and it is the best way for Ukraine to put real pressure on Mr Putin in order to extract concessions in the future.”

Now is not the time for negotiation. Rajan Menon (Foreign Policy) emphasizes that Ukraine should start peace talks only from a position of strength. Those advocating for peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow in the near future are making a number of mistakes. First, they tend to believe that Ukraine cannot achieve anything resembling a victory and that time is in Russia’s favour. Given this premise, the key question is who will start the negotiation process? At present, neither Washington nor Kyiv is demonstrating such readiness: “The greater the firepower Putin directs at Ukraine, the greater Ukrainians’ hatred of Russia becomes, and with it their resolve to keep resisting.” Second, supporters of negotiations believe that they can predict the outcome of a war. However, this is not the case. Ukraine has repeatedly surprised the world with its ability to stand up to Russia. Third, supporters of peace talks list the challenges faced by the Ukrainian armed forces but are silent on the problems of the Russian army: “Geolocated data show that Russia has lost nearly 16,000 pieces of equipment, including more than 3,000 tanks as well as over 5,000 armored personnel carriers, armored fighting vehicles, and infantry fighting vehicles. Plus, a third of its Black Sea Fleet’s ships and submarines have been damaged or destroyed. There’s been much debate about casualty figures in this war. The U.K. Ministry of Defense reckons that Russia’s total is 465,000 dead and injured soldiers.” Fourth, supporters of the talks assume that Moscow wants them, but there are actually no signs of such a desire: “Russia’s defense budget increased by almost 70 percent this year. As a proportion of Russian GDP it will reach 6 percent, compared to 3.9 percent last year. Nearly a third of the federal budget will support defense spending, compared to 16 percent in 2023.” Fifthly, according to supporters of peace talks, they should start soon. Ukraine has just started receiving high-quality weapons from the US and Europe, and therefore “it would be foolish to rush into negotiations before seeing what difference the infusion of additional weaponry will make, whether Russia’s military can sustain its current tempo once Ukraine has more firepower, and how successful Ukraine’s draft proves to be.” According to Menon, any further scenarios for peace talks require that “Ukraine boost its bargaining power by ending Russia’s momentum, mounting its own counteroffensive, and retaking more territory.”

The US should have a plan for Ukraine. Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro (Washington Post) emphasize that allowing the limited use of US weapons for strikes inside Russia may disrupt the Russian offensive on Kharkiv, but “the real problem with Biden’s decision is that Washington has yet again made a major policy change reactively—in response to Russia’s military moves and not as part of a broader strategy to end the war.” This decision is important for all parties to the conflict, as “it marks another turn of a tit-for-tat spiral that has continuously raised the risks of a broader war without offering a path to ending this one.” According to the authors, while allowing strikes deep into Russia is unlikely to significantly change the situation on the battlefield, it will lead to even greater escalation in a “reactive escalation absent a strategy…to end the war on terms favorable to Ukraine and the United States.” Coercive measures can be an additional lever in negotiations, not an end in itself. According to Charap and Shapiro, “Without a bargaining process, it might continue for years to come. And someday, one side or the other might finally stumble over an actual red line, which could lead to exactly the major escalation the Biden administration has been trying to avoid. In the meantime, Ukraine will continue to suffer and the costs of the war to the West will continue to mount.”

South Africa is drifting in its attitude to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Tim Mak (Politico) argues that Russia used Cold War-era narratives to gain support from South Africa. That is why, despite its condemnation of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Cape Town had been gradually drifting toward Russia: “South Africa has cooperated with Russia on military drills;…its ruling party, the African National Congress, has at times adopted Russian talking points; and…South Africa appealed to the International Criminal Court not to enforce an arrest warrant on Vladimir Putin so the Russian president could visit their country.” For more than two years, Cape Town held a position that could be described as somewhere between neutral and pro-Russian, and this is a problem because “as the African continent’s largest economy and a regional political powerhouse, its evolving position reflects the views of many other African countries as the war in Ukraine drags on.” However, public sentiment is opposite to the government’s official policy: “South African opinion polls show that the public has been broadly opposed to the Russian invasion. But the fact that the invasion falls low on voter priority lists has allowed the ANC-led government to pursue their own, more pro-Russia positioning.” The author believes that last week’s election results may change this dynamic. For the first time in its history, the ANC will need to form a coalition government, including with political forces sympathetic to Ukraine. According to Tim Mak, “With the ANC forced to share power, the question now is whether South Africa’s change of government might change its quasi-supportive stance toward Russia—and if so, whether other nations might follow.”

Biden’s authorization of US weapons use in Russia marks a shift in Ukraine support. Mikhail Alexseev (LA Times) emphasizes that President Biden’s recent decision to permit Ukraine to use US-supplied weapons for counter-fire purposes against targets across its northern border is a strategic move aimed at bolstering both Ukraine’s and America’s security. The timing of this authorization is crucial, coming after a period in which Russia has escalated its aggression, capturing more territory and heavily bombarding Ukrainian cities. By enabling Ukraine to strike critical Russian military assets such as the S-300/400 surface-to-air launchers and other military facilities, Biden’s move is already impacting the war’s dynamics: “These efforts are helping Ukraine stall Russia’s Kharkiv offensive and undercut Russia’s capacity to attack further west and potentially target Kyiv,” Alexseev writes, highlighting the immediate benefits of the authorization. Biden’s decision also sends a strong message of unity and resolve from the US and its allies. Being the largest supplier of military equipment to Ukraine, the US has set a precedent that reinforces international support for Ukraine: “Ensuring Putin doesn’t win is vital to our security and prosperity.” The author underscores the strategic importance of this move, stating, “Our national security officials have indicated they are not detecting changes in Russia’s nuclear strike preparedness,” which shows that the US and its allies are not cowed by Moscow’s threats. This stance not only supports Ukraine’s immediate defence needs but also serves as a warning to other adversaries like Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, demonstrating that the US is willing to take decisive action when necessary.

Rising nationalist tide threatens visions for united Europe. Konrad Yakabuski (Globe and Mail) reminds readers that in recent months, Paris has witnessed a surge in political theatrics, exemplified by a recent incident involving fake coffins at the foot of the Eiffel Tower. The author notes, “Political stunts such as this one have become increasingly common in Paris in recent months, and most have been linked to Russian interference aimed at creating division among the French themselves.” These orchestrated events are occurring in the run-up to European Parliament elections, where President Macron faces an uphill battle against Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN), which opposes deeper French engagement in Ukraine. Against the backdrop of the 80th anniversary of D-Day commemorations, Macron’s warnings about the ramifications of backing the far-right RN have not deterred its projected victory. Contrary to Macron’s push for European unity, including the concept of a “true European army,” nationalists like Le Pen and her counterparts in Italy are rallying against further integration and Brussels’ influence. With a backdrop of resurgent nationalist sentiments across the EU, the elections signal a potential shift in the balance of power within the European Parliament, posing a significant threat to Macron’s vision of a united Europe.

Canada’s inaction on seized Russian assets hinders support for Ukraine. Aaron Gasch Burnett (Macdonald-Laurier Institute) focuses on Canada’s reluctance to take decisive action in seizing frozen Russian state assets, despite their potential to provide significant support to Ukraine without cost to Canadian taxpayers. Burnett notes that “Canada will meet with its other G7 counterparts in mid-June to decide whether—and how—to seize some $450 billion CAD in Russian state assets frozen in Western countries at the beginning of the war.” While Canada initially showed promise by passing legislation allowing for the confiscation of assets linked to Putin’s allies, it now appears hesitant to follow through on leveraging these resources in order to aid Ukraine effectively. Burnett criticizes Canada’s passive approach, suggesting that the government’s lack of assertiveness undermines its ability to lead on the international stage. Despite possessing a clear advantage in the initiative to seize Russian assets, Canada seems content to defer to other nations rather than take further proactive steps. This reluctance to exert direct OR open political or diplomatic pressure risks squandering the opportunity to support Ukraine by establishing a precedent for financial deterrence against aggressor states. “Canada’s chances to lead on the world stage are getting rarer. On Russian asset seizure, it could help Ukraine get a war chest, save some costs for stretched Canadian taxpayers, and help introduce a whole new concept in international security—financial deterrence,” writes Burnett. “If Kyiv falls while countries like Canada sit on billions in an adversary’s money, history’s judgement of us will be damning.”

Tragic losses highlight the toll of delayed support for Ukraine. Jillian Kay Melchior (Wall Street Journal) chronicles the life of Iryna Tsybukh, a 25-year-old combat medic who risked her life to rescue wounded soldiers in Ukraine’s deadliest battles, who was killed while serving in Kharkiv oblast. As described by her friend, photojournalist Julia Kochetova, Iryna was always at the forefront of action, racing to provide vital medical care amid relentless shelling and hazardous conditions. Highlighting the dire situation in Kharkiv, where civilian casualties have surged due to relentless Russian attacks, the author notes that “air-defense shortages remain so acute that if city residents step outside, they ‘don’t have a clear understanding [whether] they will be alive in the [next] moment or not,’” emphasizing the urgent need for assistance. Iryna’s death underscores the high human cost of Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression, exacerbated by delays in international aid and restrictive policies on military action. Brig. Gen. Serhii Holubtsov stresses the critical need for Ukraine to target Russian military infrastructure in order to mitigate further attacks: “If we were able to strike the military targets from which the enemy is launching their strikes, we would have had less victims, many people would…still [be] alive.” Despite recent adjustments in US policy allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory from Kharkiv oblast, significant restrictions remain, hindering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself effectively. The tragic loss of Iryna Tsybukh serves as a reminder of the immense sacrifices being made in Ukraine’s fight for survival amid the war.