Anatol Lieven, a prominent Russia expert and director of the Eurasia Programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, recently shared his insights on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Speaking with host Steve Clemons, Lieven explored the complex landscape that Ukraine, Russia, and the United States must navigate to achieve a lasting ceasefire. His compelling analysis serves as a clear reminder of the danger Ukraine’s leadership faces by refusing to adjust its territorial ambitions to match reality on the ground.
Lieven also drew attention to a dangerous trend among many advocates of continued, realistic support for Ukraine to the West’s long-term agenda. He argued that Ukrainian leaders need to accept the reality that these territories are gone. It is this recognition, he argues, that is critical to moving beyond and toward a sustainable resolution to the decades-long conflict. Lieven’s assessment is that Russia has re-calibrated its long-term strategy, “giving up” on full occupation of Ukraine as their original goal.
The technocrat assumes that Russia should have the capacity to solidify its territorial advances. They recommend accepting a ceasefire based on today’s front lines as a smart negotiating position. This position provides a realistic basis to achieve a cessation of hostilities. It would allow the parties to freeze their gains, preventing more ambitious military objectives that might result in additional bloodshed and devastation.
In looking at Europe’s place in the conflict, Lieven was cynical about Europe’s ability to help broker peace. He further stated that Europe has no real offers to negotiate with. He added that there’s little political will to secure an effective ceasefire. This absence of any serious intervention, drastic or otherwise, means that the United States remains the key country in any conceivable deal.
Lieven called the proposal offered by the United States an “unfortunate compromise.” He wants to see both Russia and Ukraine agree to the proposed deal. It’s a crucial first step on the road to any kind of peace. There’s no reason why both nations can’t begin the rebuilding process in earnest. Second, it will support positive local economic and societal stabilization after decades of conflict.
The exchange, as you’ll soon discover, reveals dramatic differences in outlook and understanding of the complex forces that are currently at play in the region. With each passing day of the conflict, the need for a new approach is more obvious for Israel, Palestine, and the wider world.
