analysis
Russia and Western states can agree on a prisoner exchange – is this an indication that talks on ending the war against Ukraine are also possible? Experts point to significant differences.
While the planes carrying prisoners exchanged between Russia and Western countries were in the air, shells continued to hit eastern Ukraine, and tanks and Russian units advanced in the area around Pokrovsk, among other places. Yesterday showed once again that the war has lost none of its intensity, and the losses on both sides are high.
But despite all the confrontation, Russia and Western states are continuing to negotiate with each other and may agree on a solution to the prisoner exchange issue. Is this an indication that more is possible, that negotiations on an end to the war against Ukraine or at least a ceasefire are also conceivable? Can one agreement give momentum to other efforts?
Contacts not completely broken off
In fact, the fact that there are contacts between Western states and Russia during the war is nothing new. Even after the start of the full-scale war of aggression in February 2022, both sides have successfully held talks on individual issues, for example on the export of grain via the Black Sea. There have also been prisoner exchanges between Russia and the USA before.
Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Center for East European Studies, also points to “far larger prisoner exchanges” between Russia and Ukraine in recent years, which, however, “never had a signal character for the course of relations” between the two states.
Umland therefore sees no sign that Thursday's successful exchange could advance efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement to the war. Russia and the states involved had a concrete “mutual interest” in an agreement: “The West wanted to get these Western citizens and Russian opposition politicians out. Putin needs arrested and detained Russian agents to be released for the internal functionality of his system.”
The war aims remain unchanged
Sabine Fischer, Russia expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, also noted that the exchange shows “that there are still channels through which the West and Russia can get in touch.” It is also important that Ukraine and Russia “carry out prisoner exchanges at regular intervals.”
But she also stresses: “But that does not change the situation in Ukraine, where the positions of the aggressor Russia and the defending Ukraine remain irreconcilable – because Russia does not deviate from its goal of destroying Ukraine.”
The current military developments in Ukraine support this attitude, says Fischer. “Since Russia, which has not yet achieved any of its war aims, is currently in a comparatively favorable military position, there is no reason for Putin to show a willingness to compromise.”
Ukraine, in turn, would come to the negotiating table militarily weakened – these would be “bad conditions for negotiations”.
Umland, on the other hand, cannot derive any reason from the military situation for an increased willingness to talk. The Russian army's territorial gains are still marginal overall. And only a clear advantage for one side or the other can increase the pressure on the weaker side to be prepared to make concessions. But that is not the case at the moment.
The hurdles of the constitution
Umland also points to a fundamental problem. The inclusion of Ukrainian territories into Russian territory in September 2022 limits Putin's options for concessions. He sees “no scope for rapprochement” here – the Russian president is “a prisoner of the constitutional amendment”.
Sabine Fischer states that the constitutional amendment has “fundamentally changed” the situation. This also limits the scope of potential international mediators such as Turkey, explains Sabine Fischer – even if the country “remains one of the few international actors that could be considered as mediators”.
Russia is demanding that Ukraine cede more territory, as Russia currently only partially controls the regions it claims. This is unacceptable for Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelensky recently pointed out in several interviews. Zelensky emphasized that the Ukrainian constitution defines the country's territory precisely and that a two-thirds majority would have to be passed in order to cede territory. In addition, another article of the constitution requires that territorial changes must be approved by the population in a referendum.
“The rulers do not officially have the right to give up their (Ukraine's) territories. The Ukrainian people must want this,” said Zelensky. It is currently unlikely that this will happen. Polls in Ukraine show that the population is still very willing to defend their own country against the aggressor Russia.
And politics?
There is therefore no indication that the prisoner exchange could affect efforts to bring about peace in Ukraine. US security adviser Jake Sullivan had opposed such considerations on Thursday. He sees no connection between the negotiations about the prisoners and possible diplomatic efforts to end the war, Sullivan said in Washington – “from our point of view, these are running in separate directions.”
In any case, efforts to reach a diplomatic settlement of the war are “a much more complex issue” than the execution of an exchange, Sullivan said, dampening any such consideration.
Sabine Fischer sees the “very reduced contacts” compared to the pre-war period as merely a basis for initiating an exchange. The length and complexity of the negotiations, their interruption after the death of Alexey Navalny – all of this shows at the same time “how difficult communication with the unjust state of Russia is”.
