The conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and separatist uprisings in Luhansk and Donbass, escalated into a full-scale invasion by Russia in February 2022. This war has already caused massive loss of life, infrastructure damage and worsened socio-economic conditions in both countries, with significant global geopolitical implications.

The Russo-Ukrainian war requires negotiations to end the conflict. International players, including major global powers, are heavily invested in the outcome, influencing both countries’ strategic considerations. This research examines negotiation options using a structured framework based on negotiation theories by Robert Mnookin and Gabriella Blum, analyzing interests, alternatives, potential outcomes, implementation likelihood, and associated costs.

• Positions and Prioritized Interests: Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, recognition of its pre-2014 borders, and compensation for war damages. Russia seeks Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of Crimea, and the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. External players like the U.S., EU, China, and the Global South have their own strategic interests, impacting the negotiation dynamics.
• Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA): Ukraine’s alternatives include continued military engagement and leveraging international support. Russia’s alternatives involve consolidating control over occupied territories and using economic leverage. Both face significant risks and limitations, influenced by the strategic interests of external players.
• Potential Gains and Losses from a Negotiated Agreement: Ukraine could gain from ceasing hostilities, territorial recovery, economic recovery, and humanitarian relief but might lose political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia could benefit from lifting sanctions, securing territorial claims, and reducing military expenditures but risks perceived weakness and unfulfilled broader geopolitical aims. The U.S., EU, China, and Global South also have significant potential gains and losses, making negotiations strategically important.
• Likelihood of Agreement Implementation: Ukraine has a high likelihood of implementing an agreement due to strong motivations and Western support but faces internal challenges. Russia’s likelihood is moderate, with motivations tempered by a history of non-compliance and domestic hardliners. The U.S., EU, and China show high likelihoods due to strategic interests, while the Global South has a moderate likelihood influenced by economic dependencies and neutrality pressures. An overall assessment of the implementation likelihood is, however, positive once the negotiations commence.
• Costs of Negotiations: Ukraine and Russia face high costs, including political, financial, and humanitarian dimensions. The U.S. and EU also face substantial costs but find them acceptable given their strategic interests. China’s costs are moderate and manageable, while the Global South faces high economic and humanitarian costs.
• Zone of Potential Agreement (ZOPA): Finding common ground requires identifying concessions without compromising core interests of the parties. Potential ZOPA elements include ceasefires, international peacekeeping, economic aid, and long-term negotiation frameworks balancing the interests of Ukraine, Russia, and external powers.
• Strategic Stalemate and the Role of External Powers: Currently, neither side is ready to compromise, creating a strategic stalemate. External mediation by global powers, particularly the U.S. and China, is essential for meaningful negotiations. Historical precedents like Korea and Germany provide useful frameworks for potential resolutions.
• Scenarios: Potential scenarios include a Korean-style ceasefire, a German-style comprehensive peace plan, a hybrid approach, continued stalemate, or a comprehensive peace plan mediated by global powers with the latter being the most plausible.

Despite significant contradictions, some common grounds exist, such as the shared interest in global stability and economic recovery. However, fundamental clashes remain, particularly regarding regional influence, territorial integrity, and Ukraine’s sovereignty and alliances.

Analysis of the Interests

Although the interests of Russia, Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, China, and the Global South in the ongoing conflict have significant contradictions, there are also potential common or at least partially common grounds^{[popup_anything id=”2905″]}, which can be used for starting the process of negotiations.

Common Grounds:

• Global Stability: All parties share an interest in maintaining global stability. This is essential for economic growth, international trade and regional security. Ensuring a stable international environment benefits all actors by preventing the conflict from escalating further and disrupting global markets.
• Economic Stability: There is a mutual interest in stabilizing the global economy. This includes supporting economic recovery and reconstruction efforts, particularly in Ukraine. Economic stability is crucial for rebuilding infrastructure, attracting investment, and ensuring the well-being of population affected by the conflict.

Partially Common Grounds:

• Strategic Security: While Russia and Ukraine have directly opposite views on security, there is a partially common interest in establishing security guarantees to prevent further escalation. External actors like the United States, the European Union, and China seek to balance these concerns to maintain global stability. They aim to provide security assurances that could satisfy both Russia’s need for strategic security and Ukraine’s demand for protection against aggression.
• Global Leadership/Stability: Russia aims to restore its status as a global power, while other actors seek to maintain or promote international stability and uphold international law. Although their methods differ, the shared goal of stability creates overlapping interests. External powers are keen to prevent the conflict from undermining global order and are interested in demonstrating leadership in managing international crises.

Contradictions:

• Regional Influence: Russia’s goal to expand its regional influence directly opposes Ukraine’s intentions to maintain sovereignty and prevent Russian dominance. The United States and the European Union support Ukraine in countering Russian expansion, leading to a fundamental clash of interests.
• Territorial Integrity: Russia’s control over Crimea and its support for separatist regions contradict Ukraine’s objective to restore its territorial integrity. The United States and the European Union back Ukraine’s territorial claims, creating a significant point of contention. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and involvement in the Donbas region are viewed as illegal by Ukraine and its Western allies.
• Sovereignty and Alliances: Russia demands Ukrainian neutrality and opposes Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and the European Union. In contrast, Ukraine seeks full control over its political and economic future, including the right to choose its alliances. The United States and the European Union support Ukraine’s ambitions, leading to a stark opposition between Russia and the Western bloc.

Potential ZOPA Elements

Despite the apparent impasse, several potential areas for negotiation can be identified that align with the strategic interests of both parties and external forces.

The following elements could form the basis of a ZOPA:

Ceasefire and Demilitarized Zones

• Ukraine: Gains immediate cessation of hostilities and stabilization of front lines, reducing further destruction and loss of life.
• Russia: Maintains control over currently held territories without immediate recognition, allowing a de facto situation that can be revisited in future negotiations.
• External Forces: The US and EU support a ceasefire to prevent further escalation, while China supports stability to protect its economic interests and international standing.

International Peacekeeping and Monitoring

• Ukraine: Ensures that any ceasefire is maintained and reduces the risk of renewed Russian offensives.
• Russia: Gains international legitimacy for its security concerns while allowing external monitors.
• External Forces: The EU and US provide logistical and financial support for peacekeeping operations, ensuring compliance and building trust. China and the countries of the Global South work with both Russia and Ukraine to create additional communication channels and modes of cooperation.

Economic and Humanitarian Aid

• Ukraine: Receives substantial economic aid for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance to alleviate the immediate crisis.
• Russia: Potentially benefits from partial easing of sanctions, specifically those that impede humanitarian aid and economic stability.
• External Forces: The EU and US lead reconstruction efforts, while China contributes financially and seeks economic opportunities in post-conflict reconstruction.

Temporary Administrative Arrangements

• Ukraine: Accepts temporary administrative control arrangements for the occupied regions, under international supervision, without ceding sovereignty.
• Russia: Maintains administrative control in practice, satisfying domestic political imperatives.
• External Forces: The US, EU, and China support these arrangements as a pragmatic step to prevent further conflict while laying the groundwork for future negotiations.

Long-term Negotiations Framework

• Ukraine: Agrees to a structured negotiation process that includes security guarantees and potential pathways for the future status of contested regions.
• Russia: Participates in long-term negotiations that could potentially lead to internationally recognized solutions, ensuring its strategic interests are safeguarded.
• External Forces: The US, EU, and China act as guarantors of the negotiation process, providing diplomatic support and pressure to ensure adherence to agreed frameworks.

In reality, the most likely scenario will involve a combination of ceasefire agreements, international peacekeeping, economic and humanitarian aid, and a framework for long-term negotiations. Such approach would align with the interests of Ukraine, Russia and the external powers. This combination can be also divided in terms of timelines:

• Short-term: A ceasefire and demilitarized zones monitored by international peacekeepers, coupled with economic and humanitarian aid, can provide immediate relief and stability.
• Medium-term: Temporary administrative arrangements under international supervision can help managing contested regions without forcing either side to concede on core territorial claims.
• Long-term: A structured negotiation process with security guarantees and the potential for future status resolution supported by major global powers will ensure a sustainable peace.

Russian positions/demands

• Cessation of Military Action: Russia insists that Ukraine must cease all military activities.
• Neutrality in Constitution: Ukraine must amend its constitution to ensure neutrality, explicitly rejecting any aims to join military blocs such as NATO.
• Recognition of Crimea as Russian Territory: Ukraine must acknowledge Crimea as part of Russia.
• Recognition of Separatist Republics: Ukraine must recognize the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

These demands were stated several times by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, who emphasized that Ukraine was aware of these conditions^[24] and claimed that fulfilling them could halt the invasion “in a moment”.^[25]

Ukrainian positions/demands

• Russian Withdrawal: Ukraine insists on a complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, including the Donbas region and Crimea, which are currently occupied^[26] by Russian forces.^[27]
• Security Guarantees: Ukraine seeks international security guarantees to prevent future aggression. This would involve guarantees from multiple countries, including the U.S., U.K., China, and France.^[28]
• Territorial Integrity: Ukraine demands recognition of its full territorial integrity as per its internationally recognized borders prior to the Russian invasion in 2014.
• Compensation and Accountability: Ukraine also calls for compensation for war damages and accountability for war crimes committed during the conflict.^[29]

The above sets of contradicting demands or positions led to the current impasse, which both sides seem to be unwilling to overcome. However, a closer look at the underlying strategic interests of the two sides of the conflict combined with the interests of external players can potentially identify common grounds, which can then serve as starting points for the peace talks.

Russian Interests:

Russia’s regional influence is primarily driven by its desire to reassert its status as a major global power, a status it perceives as rightfully its own. This ambition includes maintaining control over former Soviet states and countering Western influence, particularly from NATO and the European Union. By exerting influence over Ukraine, Russia aims to establish a buffer zone against NATO expansion, thus ensuring the security of its western borders.

Strategic security is another critical interest for Russia. This encompasses preventing NATO’s eastward expansion and ensuring that Ukraine does not pose a military threat. Russia’s focus on strategic security is rooted in historical fears of encirclement and the necessity of protecting its borders from potential adversaries. Control over strategic areas, such as the Black Sea, is essential for Russia’s military capabilities and regional influence.

Maintaining control over Crimea is vital for Russia due to its strategic importance. Crimea provides critical access to the Black Sea, it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet and its geographical location strengthens Russia’s military positioning. Control over Crimea along with support for separatist regions of Donbass and Luhansk destabilizes Ukraine and prevents its joining NATO and integration into other Western institutions.

Additionally, Russia seeks the lifting of economic sanctions imposed by Western countries in response to its actions in Ukraine. These sanctions have significantly impacted the Russian economy, affecting financial markets and energy exports. Economic relief from sanctions would help stabilize the Russian economy, improve living standards, and restore international trade relations.

Ukrainian Interests:

Ukraine’s primary interest is maintaining its internationally recognized borders, including the territories of Crimea and the Donbas region. This interest represents the fundamental need for national sovereignty and respect for the international law. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region challenge Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which is crucial for national unity and the protection of its citizens.

Another core interest for Ukraine is sovereignty, which involves retaining full control over its internal and external affairs without external interference. This includes the right to decide its own alliances and political direction, such as its aspirations to join the European Union and NATO. Sovereignty is vital for Ukraine’s political stability and independence from Russian influence, which has historically been a contentious issue.

Ensuring the safety and security of its citizens is a top priority for Ukraine. This encompasses both internal security against separatist movements and external security against aggression from Russia and potentially Belarus. Security guarantees from international actors could play a significant role in addressing this interest, as evidenced by discussions around potential NATO membership and bilateral security agreements with various countries.

Economic stability is another major interest for Ukraine, which has been severely impacted by the ongoing conflict. The war caused significant damage to infrastructure, disrupted trade, and deterred foreign investment. Achieving economic stability is vital for the reconstruction of the country, improving the quality of life for its citizens, and reducing dependency on foreign aid.

Having defined the parties’ interests as well as those of the external global powers, it is necessary to examine the Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for both Russia and Ukraine. Clear understanding of best alternatives for each side will provide insights into starting negotiation positions and potential leverages that both countries can use in the process. Analysis of BATNA points would also identify the potential risks or disruptions they face if their most favorable alternatives outside the negotiation do not work out as planned.

Ukraine’s BATNA:

Analysis:

• Military Engagement: Ukraine can continue its military operations against Russian forces. This involves seeking increased military aid, training, and intelligence support from NATO and other Western allies.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Sustainability: Prolonged military engagement will eventually affect Ukraine’s resources and morale of the troops. There are limits to how long international support, in terms of both political will and material aid, can be sustained.
  • Escalation Risks: Continued conflict causes risk of further escalation, which can potentially draw NATO countries into a direct confrontation with Russia with unpredictable consequences.
  • Western Support Uncertainty: Political changes in NATO countries could lead to fluctuations in the level of support Ukraine receives. Any significant reduction in support would weaken Ukraine’s military position.

• International Support: Ukraine can use diplomatic channels to ensure the continuation and tightening of economic sanctions against Russia. This strategy aims to politically and economically isolate Russia further and increase the chances of Ukraine to withstand and repel the Russian military pressure.

Potential Disruptions:

1. • Sanctions Evasion: Russia was consistently trying to mitigate the impact of international sanctions through alliances with countries like China and others in the Global South. These alternative economic partnerships can undermine the effectiveness of Western sanctions, which coupled with the decreasing military aid from the West to Ukraine can potentially lead to Ukraine’s defeat at the battle lines.
   • International Consensus: Maintaining a unified international front on sanctions is extremely complex as each country might have its own strategic calculations and priorities. Therefore, as time goes on, some countries may advocate for easing sanctions to resume economic relations with Russia, particularly if they suffer economically from the sanctions themselves.
   • Sanctions Fatigue: Over time, some Western countries might experience “sanctions fatigue,” where the domestic economic impact of sanctions leads to pressure to reduce or remove them.

• Economic Stability and Resilience: Ukraine can focus on strengthening its internal economic resilience through reforms and international financial aid, ensuring the sustainability of the war effort and post-war recovery.

Potential Disruptions:

• Economic Dependency: Over-reliance on international financial aid could create vulnerabilities if global economic conditions change or if donor countries shift their priorities. First signs of such situation have become evident when the United States Congress delayed approval of the aid package to Ukraine in early 2024.
• Domestic Challenges: Implementing comprehensive and meaningful economic reforms during an ongoing conflict is practically impossible. Corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies and political instability can obstruct any changes or set the reforms off-course.
• Infrastructure Damage: Ongoing conflict has already caused significant damage to infrastructure. The process is still in progress with the extent of the damages is expected to grow. This affects economic performance now and recovery efforts after the war. Rebuilding is an extremely costly and time-consuming process, which would divert resources from immediate war needs.

Russia’s BATNA:

Analysis:

• Military Persistence: Russia can continue its military operations to consolidate control over the occupied territories and potentially expand further.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Military Stalemate: Prolonged conflict can lead to a military stalemate, where neither side makes significant advances, leading to high casualties and resource depletion without clear gains. This is a clear possibility taking into consideration the actual casualties on the battlefield. Sooner or later, Russian public will start asking questions about the missing and killed in action soldiers. The ability to recruit new soldiers will be seriously hampered. Compensation of lack of personnel can be done only through the use of advanced, more effective and devastating weapons. Production of such weapons and ammunition would require drastic increase of expenditures, which can send the Russian economy into turmoil.
  • Resistance and Insurgency: Increased resistance from Ukrainian forces and potential insurgency in occupied territories could make it difficult for Russia to maintain control and expand further.
  • Domestic Backlash: Sustained military efforts can lead to domestic discontent, especially if economic conditions worsen and casualties increase. This can pressure the Russian government to reconsider its strategies.

• Economic Leverage: Russia can use its energy supplies and other economic ties to create divisions among European countries dependent on Russian gas and oil, weakening the unified Western stance against it.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Energy Diversification: European countries are actively seeking alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on Russian gas and oil. Successful diversification efforts will weaken Russia’s leverage.
  • Economic Sanctions: Ongoing and potentially new economic sanctions from Western countries can continue to strain the Russian economy, reducing the effectiveness of its economic leverage.
  • Market Volatility: Fluctuations in global energy markets can impact Russia’s ability to use energy supplies as a reliable economic weapon. Lower energy prices reduce the economic benefits Russia can derive from its resources.

• Strategic Alliances: Russia can strengthen alliances with countries in the Global South and other non-Western nations to counterbalance Western sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Geopolitical Shifts: Changes in the geopolitical landscape can influence the commitment of these alliances. For instance, economic pressures or shifts in domestic politics within allied countries can lead to less support for Russia.
  • Competing Interests: Even among non-Western nations, there are varying interests that may not always align with Russia’s objectives. This can limit the effectiveness of these alliances in countering Western actions.
  • Global Condemnation: Continued military aggression and human rights violations can lead to broader international condemnation, even from countries traditionally sympathetic to Russia, reducing the strength of these alliances.

Other Parties’ Best Alternatives

As was indicated earlier, external forces also play a significant role in shaping the negotiation process and often act as mediators. Understanding their BATNAs is equally important, as their own best alternatives outside a negotiated agreement can influence the dynamic and ultimately the success of the peace talks.

United States’ BATNA:

Analysis:

• Military Aid: The U.S. can continue providing substantial military aid to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, training, and intelligence support. This aid ensures Ukraine can sustain its defense and potentially regain lost territories.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Sustainability and Cost: Prolonged military aid is putting additional burden on the economy and drains U.S. financial resources. It affects the political will, particularly if domestic opposition grows or economic conditions worsen for the general public during the election year.
  • Escalation Risks: Increased military aid risks escalating the conflict, potentially drawing the U.S. into a more direct confrontation with Russia.
  • Supply Chain Issues: Global supply chain disruptions could affect the timely delivery of military aid and equipment, reducing its effectiveness on the battlefield.

• Economic Sanctions: The U.S. can maintain and potentially increase economic sanctions on Russia, aiming to weaken its economic and political stability.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Sanctions Evasion: Russia’s ability to mitigate sanctions through alternative economic partnerships with countries like China, India, Iran and others in the Global South can reduce their effectiveness.
  • Global Economic Impact: Sanctions can have unintended negative effects on global markets, including energy price hikes, which can create economic pressures on U.S. allies and partners.
  • International Consensus: Maintaining a unified international approach to sanctions is a very difficult task. Diverging interests among allies might lead to inconsistent enforcement and potential weakening of the sanctions’ regime, which would make the whole concept of punitive sanctions obsolete.

• Diplomatic Unity/Coherence of International Actions: The U.S. can lead international diplomatic efforts to isolate Russia globally while rallying support for Ukraine among allies and partners.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Geopolitical Rivalries: Competing interests among international actors, such as some members of the European Union, China, and other global powers, can undermine diplomatic unity.
  • Alliance Fatigue: Sustained efforts to isolate Russia might lead to “alliance fatigue,” where continuous diplomatic pressure affects relations with some allies, which would reduce their overall effectiveness.
  • Emerging Global Issues: New global crises or geopolitical shifts can divert attention and resources away from the Ukraine conflict, weakening the focus on diplomatic efforts against Russia.

European Union’s BATNA:

Analysis:

• Military Aid: Continue providing military hardware, ammunition, and intelligence to Ukraine, and training its soldiers and command staff. Such aid is often provided to the detriment of the EU countries own defense capabilities.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Resource Constraints: Some EU member states have expressed concerns^[74] that providing extensive military aid to Ukraine could deplete their own defense capabilities. For instance, German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht highlighted that Germany must reserve some of its military resources to ensure its own defense capabilities due to years of underinvestment in its military forces. This sentiment reflects growing concerns within the EU about balancing support for Ukraine with national defense needs.^[75]​​
  • Political Will: Differences in political priorities and public opinion among various member states may impact the continuity and scale of the military aid. There is pressure on leaders like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to increase military support despite internal resistance and concerns about their own defense readiness​​.^[76]
  • Logistical Challenges: Coordinating and delivering military aid efficiently across multiple member states and into an active conflict zone presents logistical challenges.

• Economic and Humanitarian Support: Providing economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine to support its war effort and mitigate the humanitarian crisis.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Economic Impact: Prolonged financial aid places pressure on the economies of member states, especially those already facing economic problems or public opposition to large expenditures.
  • Aid Distribution: Ensuring that aid reaches the intended recipients effectively and efficiently can be obstructed by the bureaucracy, EU organizational inefficiencies and, in some cases, even corruption.
  • Donor Fatigue: Over time, member states may experience donor fatigue, leading to reduced financial support and humanitarian assistance.

• Energy Diversification: Increasing efforts to diversify energy sources and reduce dependency on Russian gas and oil, which will eventually minimize Russia’s economic leverage.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Developing Infrastructure Issues: Building and upgrading the existing infrastructure for alternative energy sources requires significant investment and time.
  • Supply Chain Issues: Ensuring stable and sufficient alternative energy supplies from other sources is a major challenge due to a highly competitive nature of the global market.
  • Economic Costs: The transition to alternative energy sources may lead to higher short-term energy costs, affecting both consumers and businesses.

• Diplomatic Unity/Cohesion of Activities: Ensuring cohesion among EU member states in their stance against Russia, maintaining a unified front in diplomatic and economic measures.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Divergent Interests: Different member states have varying levels of economic ties with Russia and different political priorities, which can lead to disagreements and a lack of cohesion.
  • External Pressures: External influences, such as lobbying by businesses affected by sanctions or diplomatic pressure from non-EU countries, can impact the unity of the EU stance.
  • Domestic Politics: Changes in government or public opinion within member states can lead to shifts in national policies, affecting the overall unity of the EU’s approach.

China’s BATNA:

Analysis:

• Economic Engagement: China continues to engage economically with both Russia and the West, maintaining its strategic partnerships and economic interests without fully committing to one side.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Sanctions and Trade Restrictions: Increased sanctions or trade restrictions^[77] from the West, particularly the U.S. and EU, could disrupt China’s economic relations and compel China to choose sides more definitively. Reports indicate that while China has provided economic support to Russia, it has faced increasing pressure and scrutiny from Western powers regarding its level of engagement​.^[78]
  • Global Economic Instability: The ongoing conflict and global economic instability could affect China’s trade routes and supply chains, impacting its economic growth and trade balance. This instability could deter investment and complicate economic planning.
  • Internal Economic Pressures: China’s own economic challenges, including a slowdown in growth and the need for substantial domestic reforms, could limit its capacity to maintain robust economic engagement with Russia and the West simultaneously​.^[79]

• Diplomatic Mediation: Positioning itself as a neutral mediator in the conflict to enhance its global leadership role while avoiding direct confrontation with Western powers.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Credibility and Neutrality: China’s perceived neutrality is questionable due to its economic support for Russia, which could undermine its role as an unbiased mediator. Despite efforts to present peace plans and mediate, Western and Ukrainian skepticism remains high.^[80]
  • Geopolitical Risks: Engaging in mediation efforts while maintaining close ties with Russia could strain China’s relationships with Western countries and impact its global diplomatic standing.
  • Domestic and International Pressure: Balancing domestic political pressures and international expectations could challenge China’s ability to effectively mediate without appearing biased or self-serving.

• Resource Security: Ensuring access to Russian energy resources and Ukrainian agricultural products by maintaining balanced relations with both countries

Potential Disruptions:

• • Supply Chain Disruptions: Prolonged conflict could disrupt supply chains, affecting China’s access to critical resources. For instance, China’s imports from Russia include significant energy supplies, and any instability could impact these imports​.^[81]
  • Western Sanctions Impact: The imposition of stricter Western sanctions on Russia could indirectly affect China’s resource security by complicating financial transactions and logistical operations involving Russian resources.
  • Market Volatility: Fluctuations in global commodity prices, driven by the conflict and economic sanctions, could affect the cost and availability of resources for China.

Global South’s BATNA:

Analysis:

• Neutrality and Non-Alignment: Maintaining a neutral stance in the conflict to avoid being drawn into the geopolitical struggle between the West and Russia

Potential Disruptions:

• • Pressure from Major Powers: Countries in the Global South face significant pressure from both Western nations and Russia to take sides, making it difficult to maintain a truly neutral stance. This was evident^[82] in the abstentions by India and South Africa at the UN General Assembly votes condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine​.^[83]
  • Economic Dependencies: Many Global South countries rely on economic ties with both Western nations and Russia. Disruptions to these relationships due to political pressure can affect their economies and force them into more explicit alignments​.^[84]

• Economic Stability: Advocating for a peaceful resolution to prevent global economic disruptions, particularly in food and energy markets.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Market Volatility: Ongoing conflict causes instability in global markets, particularly affecting the prices and availability of food and energy. Countries in the Global South are particularly vulnerable to such disruptions, as seen with increased food and fuel crises exacerbated by the conflict​​.^[85]
  • Continued Conflict: Prolonged conflict without resolution can lead to sustained economic instability, affecting both domestic economies and international trade relations. This instability makes it challenging for these countries to maintain economic growth and stability​.^[86]

• Development Focus: Securing continued development aid and economic support from global powers, ensuring that their development agendas are not sidelined by the conflict.

Potential Disruptions:

• • Shifts in Aid Priorities: The global focus on the Ukraine conflict may divert attention and resources away from other critical development issues in the Global South. There is a risk of reduced development aid as donor countries reallocate funds to support Ukraine​​.^[87]

Global Economic Conditions: Worsening global economic conditions, driven by the conflict, could lead to reduced financial support and investment in development projects. This shift impacts the ability of Global South countries to pursue their development goals effectively.^[88]

Each party stands to gain significantly from a negotiated settlement but also faces potential losses that could complicate the process. Therefore, each party has to measure and evaluate the ratio between potential gains and losses that the negotiated agreement or the negotiation itself might have.

For Ukraine:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: For Ukraine, the gains outweigh the losses if the negotiations lead to the cessation of hostilities, so there will no loss of life or destruction of the infrastructures, economic aid and recovery as well as possibility of territorial recovery in the future. The main losses are in the form of compromised sovereignty, but these are balanced by the immediate humanitarian and economic benefits.

Overall conclusion: More Gain.

For Russia:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: The gains from sanctions relief and securing territorial claims provide immediate economic and strategic benefits. However, the perceived weakness and limitations on future ambitions represent significant strategic losses.

Overall conclusion: Balanced, slightly more Gain.

For the United States:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: The gains in global leadership and strategic focus are substantial, but they must be balanced against the potential loss of geopolitical standing and domestic political fallout. This is a major consideration due to upcoming elections and already declared positions of the opposing political sides in the United States regarding the manner of how the war in Ukraine must be handled.

Overall Conclusion: More Gain.

For the European Union:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: The EU stands to gain significantly in terms of regional stability and economic recovery, although these gains come at the potential cost of diminished geopolitical influence and internal cohesion.

Overall Conclusion: More Gain.

For China:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: The economic and diplomatic gains are significant, with increased global influence and secure resource access, outweighing the potential disruptions from market volatility and diplomatic pressures.

Overall Conclusion: More Gain.

For the Global South:

Gains/Losses Ratio Assessment: The gains in maintaining neutrality, economic benefits, and development focus are significant, although they are challenged by potential pressure to align and aid diversion.

Overall Conclusion: More Gain.

When considering the implementation of a negotiated agreement between Ukraine and Russia, several factors such as practical aspects of trustworthiness and enforceability must be evaluated in order to provide a clear assessment of how likely each party is to honor and implement any agreements reached during the negotiations. The analysis must also incorporate the “realpolitik” considerations, which refer to a pragmatic approach to politics, focusing on practical and material factors such as internal political dynamics, economic dependencies as well as external pressures rather than moral or ideological considerations.

To simplify the assessment, the analysis of likelihood of potential agreement implementation is presented along the three main categories: Trustworthiness of the Parties, Safeguards and Enforcement Mechanisms as well as Monitoring and Soft-Enforcement Initiatives.

Ukraine:

Analysis:

• Motivations: Ukraine is likely to be highly motivated to honor an agreement that promises cessation of hostilities, keeping the territory and potentially even recovering lost areas as well as continue receiving economic aid. The country’s priority is restoring sovereignty and securing international support for reconstruction.
• Challenges: However, Ukraine’s internal political dynamics, including the pressure from nationalist factions, could challenge the government’s ability to make and uphold compromises.

Safeguards and Enforcement Mechanisms:

• Penalties for Non-Performance: Clear penalties, such as the automatic imposition of sanctions or stopping the arrival of aid would ensure compliance. These could include financial penalties and restrictions on specific types of international aid.
• Third-Party Enforcement: International bodies like the OSCE or UN could be involved in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the agreement, ensuring that both sides adhere to the terms.
• Arbitration Processes: Binding arbitration clauses would specify procedures for resolving disputes, potentially involving international courts or agreed-upon legal systems.

Monitoring and Soft-Enforcement Initiatives:

• Diplomatic Engagement: Continuous engagement with Western allies, including the EU and US, would help sustain the agreement and provide diplomatic support.
• Economic Pressure: Economic aid and incentives from international donors would be counter-checked against Ukraine’s adherence to the agreement.
• Military Component: The presence of international peacekeepers or monitors could help stabilize the situation and ensure compliance.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Government Control: President Zelensky currently enjoys a strong mandate and control over the parliament, which increases the likelihood of implementing potential future agreements. However, nationalist factions and public opinion can heavily influence his decisions.^[89]
• Military Influence: The Ukrainian military’s stance on any compromise will be critical as they are the ones directly involved in the conflict.
• Western Support: Uninterrupted and consistent economic, military and diplomatic support from Western partners, particularly the US and EU, can help enforce and sustain any agreements reached​.^[90]

Conclusion: Ukraine has a high likelihood of implementing a negotiated agreement due to strong domestic desire to end the war and backing from the Western allies. President Zelensky’s government holds significant control over the parliament is highly motivated to end the conflict, maintain and regain territory and secure international aid for economic recovery. However, the influence of nationalist factions and public opinion demanding restoration of full sovereignty restoration present a major obstacle. The presence of international monitors, binding arbitration processes and diplomatic engagement from the EU and US make the prospects of adhering to any agreement more realistic and probable.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: High Likelihood of Implementation

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: As of May 20, 2024, the constitutional term of presidential authority for Volodymyr Zelensky has expired.^[91] According to a growing group of legal experts, political analysts, and international observers, Zelensky risks becoming illegitimate. The Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that elections cannot be held during martial law, which is currently in force due to the military aggression by the Russian Federation. However, there are no provisions in existing legislation that clearly define whether the incumbent president can remain in office with all respective powers. This legal vacuum has led to various interpretations and debates about whether Mr. Zelensky is the legitimate president or if he has usurped power, potentially turning the country into a dictatorship.

The answer to this legal dilemma must be provided by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. However, the court cannot convene because judges have not yet been appointed.^[92] Meanwhile, international perspectives on Zelensky’s legitimacy vary. Russia and several of its allies insist that Zelensky is illegitimate, while Western partners, including the United States, send ambiguous signals regarding his recognition as the legitimate president. This ambivalence raises questions about who is authorized to sign any agreement on behalf of Ukraine and whether the entire Ukrainian government has the authority to discuss such matters.

As of May 25, 2024, the Ukrainian people fully recognize Zelensky and his powers. However, it remains to be seen how Ukraine’s external partners will address this issue.

Russia:

Analysis:

• Motivations: Russia’s primary motivation would be lifting sanctions and securing its territorial claims. The Kremlin may view an agreement as a means to stabilize its economy and reduce military expenditures.
• Challenges: Russia’s history of not honoring international agreements, such as the Minsk agreements, raises questions about its commitment to any new deal. The government’s domestic narrative, which often frames concessions as weaknesses, may further complicate the adherence to an agreement.

Safeguards and Enforcement Mechanisms:

• Penalties for Non-Performance: The automatic re-imposition of severe economic sanctions and international isolation could serve as deterrents against non-compliance.
• Third-Party Enforcement: Involvement of international monitors to verify compliance with the terms of the agreement in the field.
• Arbitration Processes: Use of international arbitration bodies to resolve disputes and ensure that decisions are respected and enforced.

Monitoring and Soft-Enforcement Initiatives:

• Diplomatic Engagement: Continued diplomatic engagement with global powers, including potential mediators like China, to ensure compliance and facilitate dialogue.
• Economic Pressure: The threat of continued or enhanced economic sanctions to ensure Russia adheres to the agreement.
• Military Component: Monitoring of troop movements and withdrawal by international observers to prevent violations.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Domestic Control: President Putin’s strong control over Russian politics and media can help him frame any agreement favorably​​.
• Economic Pressure: The ongoing economic strain due to sanctions might push Russia towards seeking relief through agreements.
• Military and Security Services: The influence of hardliners within the military and security services can affect the adherence to agreements as they see such development as concessions.

Conclusion: Russia has a moderate likelihood of implementing a negotiated agreement. The motivations to lift economic sanctions and secure territorial gains are strong, particularly given the economic pressures from the already imposed sanctions. President Putin’s control over the political system and media allows him to present the agreement favorably domestically despite potential resistance from military hardliners.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: Balanced with Moderate Likelihood of Implementation.

Other Parties:

As indicated earlier, external parties play a significant role in Ukraine’s fate by mediating and advising the Ukrainian leadership on various developments. These external parties have vested interests in the implementation of potential negotiated agreements. However, unlike the main two sides of the conflict—Ukraine and Russia—the external parties cannot be subjected to enforcement processes in the same way as the two countries, which are supposed to reach a negotiated agreement. Instead, the third parties will be providing and ensuring safeguards and enforcement. As such, these points will be briefly mentioned in the respective tables to highlight what can be done by each party rather than what mechanisms can be used to enforce them.^{[popup_anything id=”2907″]}

The United States:

Analysis:

• Motivations: The U.S. seeks to maintain or increase its global leadership role, support Ukraine, and manage its strategic interests in Europe and beyond​​.
• Challenges: Domestic political divisions and varying levels of bipartisan support can impact the consistency of U.S. policy.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Bipartisan Support: The level of bipartisan support for Ukraine influences U.S. actions. Current support remains uncertain but can be subject to change​. Currently, the GOP side has considerable reservations regarding the aid for Ukraine, particularly financial assistance for the war effort, which many republicans believe is futile. Potential victory of Donald Trump may completely change the views regarding assistance, however, should an agreement be reached – the new (old) US administration is likely to continue the general policy and support the implementation of negotiated agreements.
• Strategic Interests: The U.S. aims to counter Russia while managing its global leadership role, balancing actions in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
• Public Opinion: American public opinion influenced by economic considerations and media portrayal affects political decisions.

Conclusion: Strategic US interests and global leadership role enhance the likelihood of implementing agreements, although domestic political changes could present considerable risks.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: High Likelihood of Implementation.

European Union:

Analysis:

• Motivations: The EU is motivated by the need for regional stability, energy security, and economic recovery. The conflict has significantly impacted the EU, and its resolution is in the EU’s strategic interest​.
• Challenges: Differing national interests and political priorities among member states can hinder a unified approach to enforcement and compliance.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Political Unity: The EU’s ability to maintain a unified stance and consensus as to how to continue relations with Russia and Ukraine will critical due to different national interests​.
• Economic Considerations: Member states heavily impacted by the conflict economically will push harder for agreements that ensure stability and recovery.

• Public Opinion: European public opinion, especially in countries hosting refugees or facing economic strain, will influence political leaders’ actions.

Conclusion: The European Union has a high likelihood of supporting and enforcing a negotiated agreement due to its significant interest in regional stability, energy security and economic recovery. While internal differences among the member states present considerable challenges, the overall motivation to stabilize the region and reduce economic problems is strong.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: High Likelihood of Implementation.

China:

Analysis:

• Motivations: China aims to maintain economic stability, enhance its diplomatic standing, and secure access to Russian energy and Ukrainian agricultural products​.
• Challenges: Balancing its relationships with both Russia and Western countries can be difficult. China’s economic dependencies and geopolitical ambitions may sometimes be at odds with the need to appear neutral and unbiased.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Economic Dependencies: China’s significant trade relationships with both the West and Russia demand a careful balancing act​. Disruptions could impact China’s economic growth.
• Diplomatic Strategy: China’s aim to position itself as a global leader requires careful navigation of its role in the conflict.
• Domestic Stability: Maintaining domestic economic stability is a top priority for the Chinese government and the approach towards international agreements.

Conclusion: China’s strategic interest in maintaining economic stability and its global leadership ambitions support the likelihood of implementing agreements despite the diplomatic balancing act between Russia and Ukraine.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: High Likelihood of Implementation.

Global South:

Analysis:

• Motivations: Countries in the Global South seek to maintain neutrality and political stability, ensure economic benefits from stable global markets, and secure continued development aid​​.
• Challenges: The Global South faces significant pressure from major powers to take sides, which can strain their neutral stance. Economic dependencies on both Western nations and Russia add to the complexity.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Economic Dependencies: Many Global South countries depend on both Western and Russian economic ties complicating their stance​​.
• Development Needs: Ensuring continued development support amidst global shifts in priorities is critical.
• Diplomatic Relations: Balancing relations with major powers while maintaining neutrality is challenging.

Conclusion: The Global South has a moderate likelihood of supporting and implementing a negotiated agreement due to the importance of maintaining neutrality, political stability and securing economic benefits from stable global markets. However, these countries face significant pressure from major powers to take sides, which complicates their neutral stance. Ensuring continued development aid and economic support is probably a dicisive factir for their compliance.

Assessment of Implementation Likelihood: Moderate Likelihood of Implementation.

The costs of negotiations for each party whether directly involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict or those in a position to influence the sides and the course of potential negotiations are manifold. They are not only financial or material. They represent very different domain – the political reputation and legitimacy of the state power in both countries. Such costs are, perhaps, the most significant predicament for the Russian Federation and Ukraine in their decision making process regarding the potential negotiations.

For Ukraine, the main costs are reputational and diplomatic with significant domestic pressures to maintain a hardline stance. This is because the Russian invasion is perceived in Ukraine as an armed aggression of an oppressive and barbaric regime against a young democracy and independent state, which already caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and huge devastation of the country. The future of the Ukrainian state and the entire nation is at stake.

In Russia, the so-called “Special Military Operation” is viewed by the public as a war with fascists and nationalists, who “forcefully and boldly seized control of otherwise friendly and brotherly” Ukraine. Therefore, Russia faces huge domestic legitimacy costs and global reputational effects while its position as one of the world powers is also at stake.

Other parties view the conflict as a challenge to the international security, economy and the way of things that settled globally after the WWII on the one hand, and as an opportunity to promote each party’s individual strategic interests, gain financially or politically, and in the case of some members of the Global South, simply move to another level of global affairs, declare about their ambitions and demonstrate strategic relevance, on the other hand.

The following are analytical points on the costs of potential negotiations for each party including some Realpolitik considerations to provide a more comprehensive context.

Ukraine:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Military Expenditure: Continuous military spending drains national resources, diverting funds from other essential sectors including pension fund, social wellfair, medicine and education​​.
• Economic Disruption: Prolonged negotiations without resolution can extend economic instability, affecting trade, investment, and growth​.

Reputational:

• Domestic Perception: Concessions, especially on territorial integrity, could be seen as a betrayal by the public and nationalist factions, undermining the government’s legitimacy​.
• International Standing: Any perceived compromise might weaken Ukraine’s standing as a sovereign nation fighting for its rights, potentially affecting future diplomatic leverage.

Diplomatic:

• Alliances and Support: Negotiations perceived as unfavorable might strain relationships with Western allies, who have provided significant support​​.
• Negotiation Fatigue: Prolonged negotiations can lead to fatigue among international supporters, potentially reducing future aid and diplomatic backing​.

Human Dimension:

• Humanitarian Crisis: Continued conflict exacerbates the humanitarian crisis, with civilians suffering from displacement, casualties, and lack of basic necessities​.
• Social Cohesion: The strain of ongoing conflict can fragment societal cohesion and increase internal divisions​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Zelensky’s administration faces pressure from nationalist factions and the general public, which can influence the negotiation outcomes​.
• External Politics: Balancing the interests and demands of international allies while maintaining sovereignty and holding on the national interests is high cost​.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Internal Stability: President Zelensky must manage nationalist factions and public sentiment that demand no territorial concessions. He needs to balance these pressures with the necessity of making pragmatic compromises to end the conflict.
• Western Support: Ukraine’s heavy reliance on Western military and economic aid means aligning negotiation strategies with the interests of key allies such as the U.S. and EU. This dependency could limit flexibility but also provides a significant buffer.
• Military Situation: The ongoing battlefield dynamics will heavily influence Ukraine’s negotiating position. Successes can bolster its stance, while setbacks may necessitate greater concessions.

Conclusion Regarding Costs:

• Financial/Material: High but manageable due to substantial international aid.
• Reputational: High due to potential backlash from nationalists and public opinion.
• Diplomatic: Medium, as prolonged negotiations can strain alliances.
• Human Dimension: High due to continued humanitarian crises and social fragmentation.
• Political: High due to internal pressures and the need to balance international alliances.

Assessment: The costs for Ukraine are high but acceptable with strong international support and careful internal management.

Russia:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Economic Sanctions: The continued imposition of Western sanctions severely impacts the Russian economy, restricting growth and access to international markets​.
• Military Spending: Maintaining military operations in Ukraine incurs significant costs, diverting resources from other national priorities​.

Reputational:

• Domestic Image: The government’s portrayal of the conflict as a defense against fascism must be maintained. Any perceived failure or significant concession could undermine Putin’s legitimacy​.
• International Perception: Failure to achieve stated goals might diminish Russia’s global standing and its perceived power​​.

Diplomatic:

• Global Isolation: Continued aggression leads to increased isolation from the international community, impacting diplomatic and trade relations​​.
• Strategic Alliances: Straining relationships with key partners like China if the conflict drags on or is seen as a strategic failure​.

Human Dimension:

• Casualties and Morale: High casualties can affect public morale and lead to domestic unrest​.
• Economic Hardship: The broader population suffers from economic sanctions and reduced quality of life due to prolonged conflict​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Maintaining control over the political narrative and dealing with internal dissent, especially from hardliners, presents significant challenges​​.
• External Politics: Navigating international pressure while attempting to maintain alliances and strategic interests requires careful diplomacy​​.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Economic Sanctions: Sanctions severely impact the economy, creating a strong incentive to negotiate for their removal. However, achieving this requires concessions that may be politically costly.
• Domestic Politics: Russia must tacle hardliners and a public fed nationalist rhetoric. Concessions perceived as weaknesses could destabilize his regime.
• Strategic Goals: Russia’s non-negotiable goals, such as maintaining control over Crimea, complicate finding common ground. Changing the strategy is very costly as it requires internal rearrangements and alignments of the Russian elite.

Conclusion Regarding the Costs:

• Financial/Material: High due to sanctions and military expenditures.
• Reputational: High as concessions could undermine domestic legitimacy and international standing.
• Diplomatic: High due to increased isolation and strained alliances.
• Human Dimension: High with significant casualties and economic hardships.
• Political: High due to internal dissent and the need to maintain control.

Assessment: The costs for Russia are high and difficult to manage, but with tight domestic control, they can be handled.

Other parties

The costs of potential negotiations are a factor not only for the two warring sides, but also for the international mediators, concerned parties and friends of Ukraine. Similarly to other parameters of the analytical framework, costs are combined with realpolitik considerations. The involvement of international mediators and allies brings with it both strategic and economic stakes. These external forces often bear substantial financial, political, and diplomatic costs, which influence their willingness and long-term capacity to support and enforce any potential agreements.

United States:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Aid Expenditure: Continuous financial and military aid to Ukraine represents a significant expenditure​.
• Economic Impact: Global instability affects the U.S. economy, influencing trade and energy prices​.

Reputational:

• Global Leadership: Perceived failure to effectively manage the conflict might impact the U.S.’s global leadership role​.
• Domestic Perception: Public opinion on foreign intervention and aid can affect political support domestically​.

Diplomatic:

• Alliance Strain: Differing opinions among allies on the extent and nature of support can strain relationships within NATO and the EU​.
• Geopolitical Focus: The conflict diverts attention from other strategic areas, such as the Indo-Pacific​.

Human Dimension:

• Military Involvement: Any escalation involving U.S. troops could lead to casualties and public backlash​.
• Humanitarian Responsibility: Ensuring humanitarian aid and support for displaced populations requires ongoing commitment​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Domestic political divisions can impact the consistency and support for foreign policy decisions​.
• External Politics: Maintaining international alliances and leadership while managing the conflict requires significant diplomatic effort​.

Realpolik Factors and Considerations

• Global Leadership: Maintaining its role as a global leader and supporting international law is crucial. Effective conflict management aligns with these objectives but requires careful handling of alliances and domestic politics.
• Economic Impact: Global instability affects the U.S. economy. Stabilizing the region could be economically beneficial.
• Domestic Politics: Bipartisan support for Ukraine exists, but domestic divisions could affect long-term commitment.

Conclusion Regarding the Costs:

• Financial/Material: High but manageable within broader strategic interests.
• Reputational: Medium with potential impacts on global leadership if conflict management is perceived as ineffective.
• Diplomatic: Medium with the need to balance alliances.

• Human Dimension: Medium with potential for military involvement and humanitarian responsibilities.
• Political: Medium due to internal political divisions and the need for consistent foreign policy.

Assessment: The costs for the United States are high but acceptable, given its strategic interests and global leadership role.

European Union:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Economic Sanctions: Sanctions against Russia impact EU economies, particularly those dependent on Russian energy​.
• Refugee Support: The influx of Ukrainian refugees places a financial burden on EU member states​.

Reputational:

• Cohesion Challenges: Differing views within the EU on handling the conflict can affect the union’s cohesiveness and global standing​.
• Human Rights Stance: Compromises on human rights issues related to the conflict might damage the EU’s reputation​​.

Diplomatic:

• Internal Division: Prolonged conflict and differing national interests can lead to internal divisions within the EU block​.
• Global Influence: The EU’s ability to influence global politics might be diminished if it is seen as ineffective in resolving the conflict​​.

Human Dimension:

• Refugee Crisis: Managing the humanitarian needs of refugees while maintaining social stability is a significant challenge​​.
• Economic Disruption: Prolonged conflict affects economic stability and growth within the EU​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Balancing the differing interests of EU member states and maintaining unity presents a continuous challenge​.
• External Politics: The EU must manage its global diplomatic relations and maintain its stance on international law and human rights​​.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Internal Cohesion: Maintaining unity among member states is vital, given varying dependencies on Russian energy and perspectives on the conflict.
• Economic Stability: The EU must manage the economic impact of sanctions and diversify energy sources.
• Humanitarian Concerns: The refugee influx and humanitarian crisis require a coordinated response.

Conclusion Regarding Costs:

• Financial/Material: High with significant economic impacts from sanctions and refugee support.
• Reputational: Medium due to cohesion challenges and potential damage to human rights stance.
• Diplomatic: High with potential internal divisions and reduced global influence.
• Human Dimension: High with ongoing refugee crisis and economic disruption.
• Political: High due to internal interests and the need to maintain global diplomatic relations.

Assessment: The costs for the EU are high but manageable with adequate commitment of economic resources and political will.

China:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Trade Disruptions: The ongoing conflict affects global markets, impacting China’s trade with both Russia and the West. This disruption can hinder China’s economic growth, especially given its dependence on stable global markets​​.
• Economic Relations: Balancing economic relationships with both Russia and the West incurs costs such as economic consequences from sanctions or retaliatory measures​.

Reputational:

• Global Perception: China’s stance on the conflict affects its global image, particularly in terms of its neutrality and leadership role. A perceived bias towards Russia could damage its reputation as a neutral mediator​​.
• Belt and Road Initiative: The conflict affects China’s strategic initiatives like the Belt and Road, which rely on stable international relations. Ongoing instability can jeopardize investments and infrastructure projects in the affected regions​, particularly in the Black Sea basin.

Diplomatic:

• Balancing Act: Maintaining neutrality while engaging diplomatically with both sides requires careful maneuvering. China needs to ensure that its actions do not alienate either Russia or Western nations​​.
• Strategic Partnerships: Ensuring that alliances, particularly with Russia, do not negatively impact relations with Western nations is a delicate task. Diplomatic missteps could lead to strained relationships and reduced influence​​.

Human Dimension:

• Domestic Stability: Economic impacts of the conflict can affect domestic stability and public opinion. Rising costs and market instability can lead to internal discontent and pressure on the government​​.
• Global Humanitarian Role: China’s role in providing humanitarian aid and supporting conflict resolution impacts its international standing. Effective humanitarian efforts can bolster China’s reputation as a responsible global leader​​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Balancing internal political stability with external diplomatic strategies requires careful management. The Chinese government must ensure that its international actions do not provoke domestic backlash or weaken its authority​.
• External Politics: Navigating international pressures while maintaining strategic partnerships and global influence is crucial. China must balance its economic and geopolitical interests to avoid isolation or conflict with major powers​​.

Realpolik Factors and Considerations:

• Strategic Neutrality: Maintaining a balanced stance between Russia and the West maximizes strategic interests without full commitment to either side.
• Global Economic Stability: China’s economic growth relies on global stability, making conflict resolution important.
• Domestic Stability: Ensuring domestic economic stability is crucial to avoid internal unrest.

Conclusion Regarding Costs:

• Financial/Material: Medium due to trade disruptions and balancing economic relationships.
• Reputational: Medium with potential impacts on global image and Belt and Road Initiative.
• Diplomatic: Medium with challenges in maintaining neutrality and managing strategic partnerships.
• Human Dimension: Medium with domestic stability and humanitarian role considerations.
• Political: Medium due to balancing internal stability and international pressures.

Assessment: The costs for China are medium and manageable considering its economic strength and long-term strategic diplomacy.

Global South:

Analysis:

Financial/Material:

• Economic Instability: The conflict disrupts global markets, affecting food and energy supplies crucial for many Global South countries. These disruptions can lead to increased prices and shortages​. For some of the countries this may cause serious economic and social problems.
• Development Aid: Resources may be diverted away from development aid to address the conflict’s consequences. This diversion can offset long-term development goals and economic growth in some regions​.

Reputational:

• Non-Alignment Stance: Maintaining a non-aligned stance while managing international pressure affects the credibility of Global South countries. Perceived bias or indecision can weaken their diplomatic standing​.
• Global Influence: The perceived inability to influence major global issues can impact their standing in international forums.

Diplomatic:

• Pressure from Major Powers: Balancing relationships with both Western countries and Russia is a major diplomatic challenge. Some of Global South countries will need to any kind of pressures without appearing to favor one side​​.
• Alignment Shifts: Shifts in alignment due to external pressures can affect longstanding diplomatic relationships. These shifts can lead to instability and reduced trust among international partners​​.

Human Dimension:

• Humanitarian Impact: The conflict exacerbates food and energy crises, impacting the well-being of populations in the Global South. These crises can lead to increased poverty and social unrest​​.
• Development Focus: Ensuring continued focus on development is another major problem for Global South long-term stability. These countries will need to carefully play with sponsors or investors in order to balance immediate humanitarian needs of Ukraine due to the war with ability to attract aid and ensure sustainable development for themselves​.

Political:

• Internal Politics: Domestic stability can be threatened by the economic and social effects of the conflict in Ukraine, so the governments might need to manage internal pressures while maintaining international diplomatic relations​ at the same time.
• External Politics: Neutrality and non-alignment of Global South are likely to be complex while dealing with major powers. This, in turn can affect their sovereignty​​.

Realpolitik Factors and Considerations:

• Neutrality and Non-Alignment: Maintaining neutrality avoids entanglement in major power conflicts but requires balancing international aid dependencies.
• Economic Dependencies: Food and energy supply disruptions represent significant risks, which would require careful management.
• Development Goals: Balancing immediate humanitarian needs with long-term development will be difficult.

Conclusion Regarding Costs:

• Financial/Material: High due to economic instability and diversion of development aid.
• Reputational: Medium with challenges in maintaining non-alignment stance and global influence.
• Diplomatic: Medium with pressures from major powers and alignment shifts.
• Human Dimension: High due to food and energy crises and development focus.
• Political: Medium with domestic stability and neutrality balance.

Assessment: The costs for the Global South are high but manageable with continued diplomatic engagement and strategic balancing.