War in Ukraine — all options open to Russia

The world is witnessing a surge in shuttle diplomacy as President Trump tries to deliver on his promise of ending the Ukraine war. Earlier this week, US envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin for four hours in St Petersburg. Though there is no official word yet about the outcome of the meeting, it is being said that the Russian president agreed not just to a ceasefire but to permanent peace also.

Meanwhile, American envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg, in an interview, spoke about a 'reassurance force' comprising British and French troops that could establish a zone of control in the western part of Ukraine. He also suggested that the Russian army could remain in the occupied East Ukraine under this arrangement.

However, the envoy was quick to refute the content of the interview and said he was misquoted. He clarified that he was only suggesting a 'post-ceasefire resilience force' and was in no way referring to the partition of Ukraine.

To an independent analyst and a follower of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the American envoy's statements reflect: one, like in any ceasefire arrangement that is agreed, there is a likelihood of deployment of troops from European countries on Ukrainian soil; two, Russian occupation of Eastern Ukraine would most likely remain as it is during the period of any ceasefire.

Considering that the Russian president has already demanded that the UN take over Ukraine to organise democratic elections there, one can safely assume that if any ceasefire does materialise, it will hinge on the presence of either the UN or European troops deployment in Ukraine.

President Putin considers the current Ukrainian regime led by President Zelensky as illegitimate. Zelensky had suspended the presidential elections due in 2024, as martial law was imposed at the start of the conflict in 2022.

Putin has also demanded a new election in Ukraine as one of his conditions for the ceasefire. This demand stems from a likely Russian belief that President Zelensky is currently an unpopular leader, and if he goes to elections, then he is unlikely to win a second term.

Also, Valerii Zaluzhnvyi, the former commander in chief of the Ukrainian army who is currently posted as Ukraine's ambassador to London, is President Zelensky's closest rival. Being pro-Russian, he is seen as a leader whose electoral win will be in the long-term interest of Russia. President Zelensky must also make this critical strategic choice of whether and if he should hold elections while his country is at war.

Given his nature, it is most likely that the determining factor for holding elections for him will be how sure he is about his chances of winning the second term. A reflection of that can be seen in the results of the poll conducted in March by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, which found that 78% of Ukrainians opposed holding elections after even complete settlement of the war.

However, the same poll suggested that the number of people who trusted the president had gone up to 71%. This was after he stood up to the American president and vice president's verbal onslaught in the Oval Office, which he is considered to have handled well. So, the call for elections is a slippery slope for President Zelensky, as 6 or 7 million Ukrainians have been displaced during the war, and if they also become part of the electoral process, no one knows what the outcome of the Ukrainian elections would be if elections are ever held.

President Putin has also walked out of the Black Sea grain deal, which was agreed between Russia and Ukraine last year. Russia has its longstanding reservations about the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.

As a condition for a ceasefire in the Black Sea, Russia demands lifting of sanctions on Russian Banks, insurance companies, ports and ships. Russia considers that the Black Sea grain deal has unilaterally benefited Ukraine while Russia has not been able to export any of its agricultural and fertiliser goods.

The Black Sea acts as the lynchpin to Russia's southern strategy, and Russia would go to any extent to ensure that the Sea does not become a NATO lake. In any future showdown with NATO in Europe's southern flank, Russia will not be able to prevail without dominating the Black Sea. The Russian Black Sea fleet can only launch cruise missiles if the Black Sea Russian fleet is provided with relative safety in the water body.

The missile threat from the Black Sea can become a potent threat only if Russia exercises extensive sea control. If this assumption is correct, then the control over the Black Sea may become one big reason why Russia may not agree to a ceasefire as desired by the American President in the near term.

Dominance of the Black Sea will not be possible unless Russia acquires and holds the Ukrainian port city of Odessa. Historically, Odessa was established as a seaport by Catherine the Great on the land conquered from the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century. Later, it became Russia's second most revered and important port city after St Petersburg.

During the Soviet period, it was an important Russian naval base and was the fourth largest city of the Russian Empire after Moscow, St Petersburg and Warsaw. Known as the Pearl of the Black Sea, Odessa might just become the jewel in the crown that President Putin might wish to have after the huge cost Russia has paid to fight the war in Ukraine.

So, as an independent analyst, while the world is busy and focused on how and when the ceasefire might result or when the war in Ukraine may end, President Putin might just surprise the world and also take the Ukrainian port City of Odessa. After all, he did take Crimea in 2014 and is now in possession of and holding the Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine.

The US and its NATO allies relied on predatory geopolitics, initiated NATO's encroachment on the East and drew post-Soviet countries away from the Russian sphere of influence. In response, if President Putin is challenging their primacy in the post-Soviet space, is this a matter of surprise?

The proof of the pudding is in its eating. Nothing is certain in a world that the US leads in breaking international laws, and what can be right for the US and its client state, Israel, in Gaza and the Middle East cannot be wrong for President Putin in Ukraine. Who knows this may be exactly what Putin might be thinking.