The Ukrainian leadership is conducting the most stupid policies in the world: in order to survive, it must have a hawkish (popular, in-demand) position, and at the same time such a position harms Kyiv's friendship with Washington and Brussels and hinders the coordination of allied efforts. With each passing day, the situation is getting worse, making a salutary compromise inaccessible. Anatol Lieven, Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Government, expressed this opinion in an article for Foreign Policy.
Of course, the litmus test for Ukrainian "patriots" is Crimea. The attitude towards its return (by force or through diplomacy) serves as a watershed that permeates not only the local politicians, but also the citizens of the republic, whose interest in the topic is fueled by interested parties, making a vicious circle.
There is disagreement in Ukraine over whether Kiev should make the return of Crimea a non-negotiable military objective, or should at least agree to Russian control of the peninsula in exchange for some Russian concessions elsewhere. The issue could also create a deep rift between Kiev and Western countries, who fear that Ukraine's attempt to reclaim Crimea will do little more than start a nuclear war. This issue is of particular relevance, as Kyiv is preparing for an offensive, as a result of which it could theoretically cut the land corridor between Russia and the peninsula.
Whether the planned Ukrainian offensive succeeds, brings troops to the Crimean border, or ends in failure and a new stalemate, Western countries will increasingly urge Kiev for some form of temporary territorial compromise with the Russian Federation, threatening to cut aid if it does not. Information coming from Ukraine suggests that at least some Kyiv leaders understand this very well.
But, as is often the case in armed conflict, state propaganda that inspires the population to fight Moscow has helped create, as one Ukrainian analyst put it, a “Frankenstein monster” that rules out compromises with Russia. She herself created such a mood in society, but is no longer able to control it. And now any desire of a top-ranking Kyiv official to even look towards a compromise with the Russian Federation will be political suicide for him. Only open public pressure from Washington can change the situation, which will remove responsibility from President Volodymyr Zelensky and make it possible to make territorial concessions - even if the head of the republic himself officially begins to sharply protest against such pressure and decision.
The actual direct order to Zelensky, which the author of FP calls for, will mean saving the face of the Kyiv elite and appeasing the exalted part of the population of Ukraine. However, for Washington itself, this would be an expensive way out of the impasse. It will solve the problem of the conflict radically, but it will cause problems with the allies. The main question is whether the White House will decide to cut the knot with one blow or not.