Is Ukraine ready to compromise for peace?
25:45 Share

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Crassie Twigg, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body.

To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts. An O'Reilly Auto Parts gift card is the perfect gift for that hard-to-buy-for person. Give the gift of convenience from O'Reilly Auto Parts. Hello, I'm Lucy Hockings. From the BBC World Service, this is The Global Story.

The conflict in Ukraine, already a grinding war of attrition, has seen unprecedented escalations this week. A weekend of heavy bombardment from Russian missiles and drones targeting Ukraine's electricity infrastructure. The Biden administration will soon provide Ukraine with anti-personnel landmines. Ukraine has fired U.S. long-range missiles into Russia for the first time. The Kremlin now responding with a possible nuclear threat. As the prospects of a victory grow dimmer,

President Zelensky has raised the possibility of a negotiated peace. We must do everything so that this war ends next year, through diplomatic means. So against these soaring tensions and with a new president about to enter the White House, could Kyiv and Moscow strike a peace deal in 2025? What would each side want from a settlement?

What would it mean for the people of Ukraine and Ukrainians living on Russian-occupied land? With me today is the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams, who is in the city of Dnipro.

We're recording this podcast on Thursday morning. And Paul, I know it was a noisy and slightly terrifying night with Russian strikes on the city. You're obviously pretty sleep deprived, but give us a sense of what it's like there today. Well, it was a bit of an interesting one because, you know, we've been quite busy since we've been here.

And there have been sirens going off quite a bit and the odd power cut too, particularly in the wake of that large scale attack on the energy infrastructure a few days ago. But this morning at about five o'clock or a little after, we were woken up by the first of a series of loud explosions. The first I've heard actually since we've been here yesterday.

some of them very, very loud indeed, and it went on until about 8 o'clock or so. There's some debate about whether or not Dnipro experienced, for the first time in this war, a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. There's some disagreement about whether or not that's what it was, but certainly something very large exploded, not too far from the city centre, a little distance from where we are now.

And it sent us all running down to the basement and we went up and down the stairs for quite a while this morning. So, yeah, apologies if I sound a little sleep deprived. We're so pleased that you're able to join us because I think most people would say it feels like there's been an escalation this week, Paul.

You know, with the US giving Ukraine permission to use these attackams, these long range missiles against Russia and the landmines as well. And then we saw President Putin lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. These felt like quite big developments. Can you run us through exactly what happened this week and how things unfolded? Look, we are in a period when everyone is sort of got an eye on

what happens next year when Donald Trump takes over in the White House. And so from the Biden administration, we have seen a kind of concerted effort to push aid through the door as much as possible of the stuff that's already being pledged.

and to change policy in certain key regards. And obviously, the decision on the attack comes, something that Britain had certainly been urging the US to do for some time. That was a significant moment, followed more or less inevitably by a similar British decision on the use of the Storm Shadow cruise missile.

Neither of those in and of themselves represent game changers. They are designed to try and enable Ukraine to withstand Russian counteroffensives initially in the Kursk region, which, of course, is that area of Russia that Ukrainian troops have been occupying since that lightning offensive back in August. And I think the feeling here is that with Russian troops bolstered by as many as 10,000 North Korean soldiers,

possibly, you know, poised to launch a counteroffensive, that Ukraine needs to be given whatever it takes to try and resist that. Because Kursk, that bit of territory is regarded as a likely bargaining chip for some kind of future negotiations. So they want to try and allow or help Ukraine to keep hold of it. And also, of course, to stem the tide of Russia's advance all up and down the Eastern Front, which has been an advance that's been going on pretty much all year. And that

helps to explain the other decision that the Americans took this week, which is the provision of anti-personnel mines, something that obviously caused a great deal of concern among human rights activists.

The Ukrainians argue, frankly, we have no choice. This is a matter of life and death. The Russians are gradually taking over more and more territory at a faster and faster pace. And one of the very few reliable ways of slowing down that advance is the rather strategic use of these landmines. You talk about the advance, Paul, but big picture, what is the situation on the ground now?

when we know from groups like the Institute for the Study of War, they say Russia has gained almost six times as much territory in 2024 as it did in

in 2023? Yes. I mean, you know, 2023 was a pretty bad year for the Russians. In fact, from the latter part of 2022, they were very much on the back foot. And we saw Ukraine regaining territory in several places. Then, of course, that all sort of sputtered to a halt with the failed summer offensive that the Ukrainians tried to launch last year. That really didn't work out at all, was a bit of a disaster.

And then ever since then, Russia has sort of recouped, has learned from its early mistakes, has adopted all sorts of new strategies, has started using some fearsome weaponry, including the glide bombs, which are launched from well inside Russian territory and cause havoc for Ukrainian troops on the front line.

And of course, coupled with that, these occasional nationwide attacks on the country's infrastructure. So Russia has definitely been on the front foot.

And I think, you know, the outgoing Biden administration and Ukraine's other allies want to try to the extent that this is possible to redress the balance. Whether that is actually possible, it's hard to tell because these weapons, the attack and the storm shadows are impressive weapons. But you need a lot of them to make a big difference.

Bluntly, Paul, can we say that this is an attritional war that just can't be won, that Ukraine is outmanned, they are outgunned? And this expression that people use, it's now about the side that loses fastest. Ukraine can't win this. It does feel a bit like that, yes. And you're absolutely right to highlight that outmanned expression.

because quite apart from the issue of weaponry, the issue of manpower is absolutely critical. The Ukrainians are having a really, really hard time mobilizing the kind of manpower that they need.

And of course, Russia, which has used tens of thousands of prison inmates and now, of course, has brought its North Korean allies into the fight. They have not inexhaustible supplies of manpower, but vastly superior supplies of manpower. And they use that manpower in such a sort of brutal way.

A lot of these troops are, frankly, disposable from the Kremlin's point of view, provided that the momentum is still forward. Whereas Ukraine goes to great lengths to try and preserve the lives of its precious soldiers. And that puts them at a terrible disadvantage. And it's a disadvantage the Russians are exploiting. And so I think, you know, a combination of that.

sort of dismal reality on the battlefield and the knowledge, the understanding, the awareness that something is going to change soon in Washington. All of that has begun to focus minds on what next year might bring and whether finally at some point we

everyone will have to sit around the table and strike a deal. The question is, of course, what will that deal look like? I mean, he's using his last few weeks in power, Joe Biden, to help Ukraine. And I know you've been speaking to people in Dnipropetrovsk about what their concerns are around the Trump presidency. What sort of things have they been telling you? Well, you know, it might surprise people to hear just a sort of a creeping, I don't want to say optimism, but some hope

that somehow things will be different under Donald Trump, because frankly, they've got pretty fed up with the drip feed of support that they have had from the West, enough to stay in the fight, but not enough to win the battle. Ukrainians are pretty fed up with this slogan often banded around by Western leaders that, you know, we're in this for as long as it takes. I believe we'll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine.

as long as it takes. And again, we will remain at Ukraine's side for as long as it takes. We need to ensure that Ukraine has what is needed for as long as it's needed to win this war against Putin.

What on earth does that mean? The West has never really, until now, defined what the end result should be. And maybe with Donald Trump, we're going to get a little bit of clarity on that, even if it means, you know, some painful compromises. So I think the last three years have just ground people down so much that

that they cling to the hope that perhaps a change of administration could lead to a change of approach. Maybe Donald Trump will lean on both sides and that some kind of deal might be possible. Any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now. If they made a bad deal, it would have been much better. They would have given up a little bit and everybody would be living and every building would be built and every tower would be

aging for another 2,000 years.

Of course, they're also aware of the language that many of the people around Donald Trump, including his vice president, J.D. Vance, use about what a deal might look like, you know, with casual references to Ukraine giving up all hope of regaining Crimea and the Donbas. You hear this argument far less, but at the beginning of the war especially, you would hear an argument that we had to throw Vladimir Putin back to the 1991 borders.

Well, we don't hear that argument so much anymore. Why? Because it was preposterous then and it's preposterous now. They know that some difficult decisions are looming.

And do you think that was reflected a bit by President Zelensky last week when he did actually say Ukraine must do everything it can to ensure that this war ends next year through diplomatic routes? It's the first time we've kind of heard him say that clearly, Paul, that he's looking perhaps at some kind of negotiation or a settlement of some sort.

Well, of course, that was President Zelensky's attitude before the war began. I mean, he tried to reach out to Vladimir Putin. They met once in December 2019. I suspect that by then, Mr. Putin was already eyeing a military solution to the problem. He probably saw President Zelensky as lacking seriousness and determination. He obviously underestimated him in that regard.

And he saw Ukraine as weak and therefore the conquering. So talk of a diplomatic solution didn't completely go away after the invasion began. There were talks that sputtered in the early months of the war. But since then, it has all been about Ukraine's right to defend its sovereign territory and regain its 1991 independence borders, regain everything that has been lost, not just in the last three years, but in the last 10 years.

But now, you know, reality has set in. And while Mr. Zelensky might harbor a desire to see that ultimate return to sovereign boundaries, he knows that it's not going to happen, at least not in the short term.

What about Russia? How eager would the Kremlin be to pursue a deal? Well, I asked our Russia editor Steve Rosenberg for his thoughts. Hi Lucy. So here's the view from Moscow. Vladimir Putin claims that he wants peace and that he has always been open for peace talks. And he's not.

And when the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz telephoned him the other day, Putin told him, I refer you back to my peace proposal from June. But here's the thing. That so-called Putin peace initiative read more like an ultimatum to Kiev. The Kremlin leader had demanded that Ukraine withdraw fully from the four Ukrainian regions that Russia has partially occupied,

plus recognise Crimea as Russia, plus pledge not to join NATO, and one more thing, the West would have to scrap all the sanctions it imposed on Russia. This would be peace very much on Russia's terms.

Now, what about the Russian people? Well, nearly everyone I talk to here, whether in Moscow or further afield, says they too want peace because although the Russian authorities try to create this sort of parallel reality and make it seem as if life goes on as normal, people here can see that things are not normal. A lot of Russian soldiers have been killed. The Russian economy is under pressure. Prices in the shops keep rising. Interest rates are at 21%.

There are regular Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian towns and cities, the shelling of towns near the Ukrainian border, and Ukrainian troops still control a chunk of territory in Russia's Kursk region. This is clearly not a normal situation. Of course, it's far worse for people in Ukraine.

where the scale of death and destruction and human suffering resulting from the full-scale Russian invasion is enormous. But the Russian people are feeling the effects of this war too.

So we heard from Steve there about what President Putin would want from a peace deal. The thing is, Paul, it's all on Russia's terms. Surely Ukraine and the West are not going to go for this kind of deal after three years of fighting. No, absolutely not. It is an ultimatum. It's not a proposal. And of course, it is what you would expect.

from Vladimir Putin. You're not going to really hear any kind of constructive proposal before the negotiation process has even begun. He set out his stall very clearly.

And of course, it involves not just holding on to the territory that he currently controls around 18 percent of the country, but actually even more, including areas like Kherson, which Ukraine managed to retake two years ago. And of course, there's absolutely no suggestion there that Vladimir Putin is even willing to recognize Ukraine's right to exist. So, you know, what exactly is there to talk about?

We're a long way from a situation in which two sides have set out anything remotely resembling a set of proposals for a peace deal. And Paul, of course, NATO leaders' concerns, concerns in Europe too, that any kind of deal that President Putin agrees that is favourable could also embolden him to invade other countries. You know, that's something which often gets sort of...

wafted away as scaremongering. But it is what people in places like Poland and the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, it is what they fear really genuinely. Vladimir Putin regards them, at least the Baltics, that is, as part of the old Russian empire. And if he feels that the overwhelming application of force is all that's required for him to get his way and gobble up independent countries, then

then can we, further away from Russia, honestly say that we know what he might do next, that we know what the limits of his ambitions are? For those countries close to Russia, that's not a gamble they're willing to take. So we've looked at the past week of escalations between Ukraine and Russia, the possibility raised by President Zelensky of a negotiated peace. Next, we'll find out what the people of Ukraine think about the future of the war.

I'm Crassi Twig, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body. To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

This is The Global Story. We bring you one big international story in detail five days a week. Follow or subscribe wherever you listen.

With me is our diplomatic correspondent, Paul Adams. Paul, when you speak to Ukrainians, after everything that they've been through over the past three years, the fact that we're entering another winter where there'll be massive cuts to the electricity, so they're going to be cold. In some cases, they'll be hungry. Many people have lost family members during the war, whether it's on the front line or

or elsewhere. What is the feeling at the moment about ending this war? Of course they want an end to it, but do they want a negotiated peace or do they want victory?

A lot of the Ukrainians I've met in the last few days are just simply exhausted. And that's because a lot of them are people who are fleeing still from the fighting in the east. We were on a train yesterday bringing some of those evacuees from the east here to Dnipro and on to other places in the country. And I mean, my God, they are just shattered.

They have a thousand yard stare. They've got pathetic bundles of belongings with them. They stink because they haven't washed for days or weeks and they've got no idea when or even if they're going to go back to their homes, some of which, of course, are being blown up in the in the latest fighting. So they are as bleak as you can get.

When you look at the opinion polls, of course, opinion polls that don't take account of that 10 to 12 percent of Ukrainians population who are currently living under Russian occupation.

Then around 52 percent, this was one recent poll conducted by Gallup, 52 percent of Ukrainians said that they would like to see their country negotiate and enter the war as soon as possible. And about half of them, in other words, around 25 percent of the total sample, said they were willing to make unspecified territorial concessions. Now, there are other polls that suggest that there is still a stiffer resolve than that.

But I think there's a clear trend from February 2022 on to now of a gradual move towards a desire for a quick settlement, even if that means painful concessions. Not surprisingly, support for a quick end of negotiations is strongest here in the east, including here in the city and the region of Dnipro, because these are places that really have borne the brunt of the

of the war. One thing that keeps coming up is the question of ceding territory to Russia. Ukrainecast, which is another BBC podcast I present on, has followed the lives of many Ukrainians from the very first day that Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

And this week we had a special episode to mark a thousand days of war. We spoke to a couple of those people, including Olga, who's in Kherson, and Vitaly, who's in Kiev. The BBC asked them if they'd accept a peace deal that gave up land in Ukraine. I think that we cannot leave any of our land to Russia, because it's not only land. There are people there. And being in occupation, I understand how it is being occupied under Russia's control.

They suppress, they torture, they kill. People just disappear. Can you imagine what will happen to people in the occupied areas? That's why the end of the war means that all our territory is free and all our territory is Ukrainian. It's a very delicate, very sensitive question to all of us Ukrainians, of course. But I do think we have to be realists.

we have to evaluate what our position or where our troops stand as the peace negotiations open. They will open inevitably. But I am not prepared to say at this moment which of the territories we should be prepared to concede and what territories we should not be prepared to concede.

Paul, Olga mentioned there the immense danger faced by Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied territory. What would happen to them if a deal was struck where they were left under Russian rule? Well, for the time being, they'd end up being absorbed into Russia.

You can be sure that everything about Russia, Russian culture, Russian currency, everything Russian would be rapidly imposed on them. People in Crimea and the Donbass have been living with this for the past 10 years and subjected to an awful lot of state propaganda designed to

to gradually instill in them their sense of Russianness, something that, of course, many of them felt as part of their rather mixed identity before this war began. Some people will accept it, willingly or grudgingly. Other people will flee. Some will resist. But I think unless they're offered a chance to have their say on the future, Ukraine will be very reluctant to let them go.

President Zelensky is known the world over now, Paul. He really has become the face of the conflict for many, his courage, his resilience, his resolve. But his presidential term technically expired in May. They're not going to have elections because there's a war going on. It's too hard to hold elections.

But how do Ukrainians feel about President Zelensky at the moment? Does he still have their backing? Well, he wasn't popular at all before the war began. His popularity then shot up as he showed the kind of resolve and leadership that he's now become famous around the world for. We defeated Russia in the battle for minds of the world. We have no fear.

Nor should anyone in the world have it. Ukraine's gained this victory and it gives us courage, which inspires the entire world. But it's never been sky high. There are a lot of people who have never really taken him seriously because of his background in entertainment.

They grudgingly, in some cases, respect him for having not fled and having stayed and having rallied international support.

But they don't necessarily believe that he is the right man to lead them when the war is over. You know, the kind of fate of Winston Churchill after World War Two. The head of his presidential office says elections will take place as soon as the war ends. And I think most polls suggest that Ukrainians are willing to let him stay there until it's over. He would likely face some challenges.

interesting opponents. One person who has been mentioned is the former head of the military, Valery Zoluzhny, who it is thought President Zelensky sacked because he feared that he was harboring political ambitions. There aren't too many other people who perhaps have the necessary stature to

But I think Vladimir Zelensky's post-war political fortunes could be complicated. Paul, President Zelensky has said he wants the international community to help pay for reconstruction efforts when the fighting eventually does stop.

Is he that person who has that clout, that political capital around the world to make that happen? And is there a sense that the world is going to deliver, that the international community will stand by Ukraine even after the war ends and provide those kind of funds? I think the imperative for that is pretty strong. And while Mr. Zelensky may have his detractors here, and I mean, he does have detractors abroad as well, I think he is still held in sufficiently high regard

abroad that people will want to reward him and Ukraine for the defense of democracy in Eastern Europe, for confronting a global bully, for blunting Russia's territorial ambitions. I mean, the price that Ukraine has paid has been so colossal.

that I think the international community will feel it is absolutely vital that it rallies around. And, you know, there are lots of people who are already here discussing economic recovery, discussing things like renewable energy, reviving the country's agriculture and industry and so forth. I think it'll also be regarded not just as a kind of economic necessity, but as a key component in shoring up

Ukraine to ward off any future Russian aggression. So I think for all sorts of reasons, people will want to be in here, making sure that Ukraine emerges as the kind of prosperous European leaning power that it should be and could still be. Paul, I hope you managed to catch up with some sleep at some stage and that the night is a bit quieter. Thank you so much for joining us. Good to talk to you.

And thanks so much to you for listening. If you want to get in touch, email us at theglobalstoryatbbc.com. You can also send us a message or a voice note on WhatsApp. Our number is plus44 330 123 9480. All of those details are also in our show notes. Wherever you're listening in the world, this has been The Global Story. Thanks for having us in your headphones. Goodbye.

I'm Crassi Twig, and on the documentary we zoom in on the backstory of the Syrian militant group that led a coalition of rebels to take control of Aleppo. Once an offshoot of al-Qaeda, HDS rebranded itself in its desire to be seen as a credible governing body. To listen to this episode of The Global Jigsaw, where we look at the world through the lens of its media, search for the documentary wherever you get your BBC podcasts.