The war in Ukraine is two years old. Inside Geneva discusses the latest military developments in Ukraine, the chances of peace and where the war will go from here.
“Isn’t there a limit when there are so many civilian deaths so you as a state have a responsibility to stop?” asks journalist Gunilla van Hall.
How will this war end? Ukraine, with the West’s support, is fighting a regime that poisons, imprisons, and kills its political opponents.
Inside Geneva host Imogen Foulkes says: “Putin's dream of getting the whole country, if that's what he wanted, doesn't seem that achievable, and yet Ukraine getting its entire country back doesn't seem achievable either.”
What chance is there of a peace agreement? Does the United Nations have any role to play?
“With this particular cast of characters, it's not going to happen. With Putin on the one side and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and his entourage. They’re committed to victory whatever that is,” says Jussi Hanhimäki, professor of international history at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Is the West’s support for Ukraine waning? What could that mean for international stability?
“Russia is basically independent as far as acting in this war, whereas Ukraine is dependent. And I think of the question of Western fatigue and the radar now is on the Middle East,” concludes analyst Daniel Warner.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on the Inside Geneva podcast for the answers.
Please listen and subscribe to our science podcast -- the Swiss Connection.
Get in touch!
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
The war in Ukraine is two years old. Inside Geneva discusses the latest military developments in Ukraine, the chances of peace and where the war will go from here.
“Isn’t there a limit when there are so many civilian deaths so you as a state have a responsibility to stop?” asks journalist Gunilla van Hall.
How will this war end? Ukraine, with the West’s support, is fighting a regime that poisons, imprisons, and kills its political opponents.
Inside Geneva host Imogen Foulkes says: “Putin's dream of getting the whole country, if that's what he wanted, doesn't seem that achievable, and yet Ukraine getting its entire country back doesn't seem achievable either.”
What chance is there of a peace agreement? Does the United Nations have any role to play?
“With this particular cast of characters, it's not going to happen. With Putin on the one side and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and his entourage. They’re committed to victory whatever that is,” says Jussi Hanhimäki, professor of international history at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Is the West’s support for Ukraine waning? What could that mean for international stability?
“Russia is basically independent as far as acting in this war, whereas Ukraine is dependent. And I think of the question of Western fatigue and the radar now is on the Middle East,” concludes analyst Daniel Warner.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on the Inside Geneva podcast for the answers.
Please listen and subscribe to our science podcast -- the Swiss Connection.
Get in touch!
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, imogen Folks, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland, in today's programme. The onslaught began just before dawn, with a barrage of missiles on multiple targets right across the country.
Speaker 4:President Putin, stop your troops from attacking.
Speaker 3:Ukraine.
Speaker 5:Isn't there a limit when there are so many civilian deaths? So you as a state have a responsibility to stop.
Speaker 2:No, no, no.
Speaker 1:Putin's dream of getting the whole country, if that's what he wanted, doesn't seem that achievable, and Ukraine getting its entire country back doesn't seem achievable either.
Speaker 4:Putin started a war against Ukraine, against the whole democratic world. He wants to destroy my country, whoever tries to interfere with us and, even more so, to create threats for our country. Our people should know that Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never experienced in your history. With this particular cast of characters, it's not going to happen. We put in on the one side Zelensky and his entourage, the committee, to some victory, whatever that is.
Speaker 3:Ukraine's President, Fr Mirt Zelensky, has announced he has sacked the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces.
Speaker 5:President Joe Biden meeting with his national security team to discuss the military aid situation for Ukraine, with the US largely divided over funding to the war-torn Eastern European country.
Speaker 3:Russia is basically independent as far as acting in this war, whereas Ukraine is dependent, and I think the question of Western fatigue and the radar now is on the Middle East.
Speaker 1:Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Folks and in today's episode, it is who would have thought it? Two whole years since Russia invaded Ukraine. In that time, tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, towns in Eastern Ukraine have been bitterly fought over, some reduced to rubble, and Europe has seen its biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War. To assess where we are, or where we aren't, with this conflict, I'm joined by Yusie Hani-Macky, professor of International History at Geneva's Graduate Institute, ganylov Onholm, my fellow journalist here at the UN in Geneva she writes for Swedish newspaper Svenska Darkbladet and our regular analyst, daniel Warner. Welcome to you all. And, ganylov, I'm going to start with you because you know. Both you and I remember that day in 2022,. Early in the morning we heard about Russia's invasion and not long after that you were off to Ukraine to see what the humanitarian situation was. Tell us a bit about that. And at that point did you think you'd be sitting here now talking about two years of conflict?
Speaker 5:No, I don't think I would sit here. Most Ukrainians don't think they would sit here right now either, and I was there actually just before the war broke out. And at that time in Ukraine people did not believe that they would actually do it across the border. And then I had to leave because all the flights were cancelled. Afterwards the war came closer and then we went back straight off.
Speaker 5:The war had started, to the center, to Kiev, to the south of Ukraine, and at that time people were really shocked, scared, but believed we are going to win, we will take care of this. They almost didn't believe that the Russians actually had come in, but they thought we'd go in to push them out. Then we came to when they got stuck in the mud, the Russians, and meanwhile there were weapons, there were aid, there were political rhetoric coming on to the Ukrainian side. So they got everything to believe we will win, we're going to succeed.
Speaker 5:And then I went back to Ukraine too when they liberated Sharkiv and Isium. And we came there just a few days after and people were jubilant. They said now you know, this is the beginning of the end. Everything was destroyed, it was bombed, destroyed. Awful People are suffering and some of them have been stuck in Russian-occupied territories for weeks, but they were sure we were going to make it. And then Kherson came also and we liberated too. They said, and there was this kind of we only have a little bit left, then we have taken back our country, even Crimea, and then things started to go bad. I left the country, and what I hear from people I'm in contact with in Ukraine now is that the mood is just getting darker and darker.
Speaker 1:You see, let me ask you that, because it's true, isn't it? Nobody quite expected Ukraine to put up such a fight, and they did, but where we are now seems like almost a First World War kind of attrition, shooting at each other from trenches, nobody really advancing or retreating, or a little bit here and there. So Putin's dream of getting the whole country, if that's what he wanted, doesn't seem that achievable. But Ukraine getting its entire country back doesn't seem achievable either. Are we able to at all think what Putin actually wants now? I mean, is this going to go on for years?
Speaker 4:So it's very difficult unless one has a direct line to Putin's brain and you don't.
Speaker 2:I'm disappointed.
Speaker 3:I know I've been working on that Finland's in NATO, so you lost yours.
Speaker 4:I know I lost my big chance, I guess, but it's very difficult, obviously, to see exactly what he wants.
Speaker 4:What he wanted, we don't even know that, and so what the current state of mind is is very difficult. I think what one can fairly confidently assume is that the minimum he wants is to avoid humiliation, to avoid defeat, to avoid the appearance of not achieving something from this two-year-long conflict that Russia initiated. And that's where we come to the point he was saying about the war, that the Attrition War and so forth. I think it's easier for Russia to keep it going. For Ukraine it is quite difficult, because Ukraine relies much more heavily on outside assistance, and so if he see cracks in the support chain that Ukraine has from NATO, particularly from the European Union, the United States and so forth, if there are more cracks on that support chain, then that's going to make life for the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian president and so forth much, much more difficult. For Russia, most of the war is distant, it's not in their homeland. It's very, very far away from the centers of power like Moscow, where life probably goes on more or less as it had.
Speaker 1:So we're, here.
Speaker 4:So we're here and so much of the country is somewhat immune to the effects of the war. Yes, we see sporadic demonstrations, mothers, wives, asking where our children, where our husbands, and so forth, but those are fairly well controlled by the government up to this point, two years after the war started, so there's not the sort of domestic once will against the war, whereas in Ukraine you can see that the lack of progress, the lack of sort of jubilation that Kunilova was talking about, the lack of any reason for jubilation, if that keeps going on and on, is going to be difficult and there will be more and more calls for some kind of compromise, some kind of deal that would end the immediate danger and immediate continued violence.
Speaker 1:Hands popping up all over the place. I'm Danny, I'm going to come to you first. I mean one of the things we talked about. What does Putin want? One thing we know he didn't want was NATO expansion. And yet, two years on, here we have UCs from Finland, gunillas from Sweden, proud new NATO members.
Speaker 3:There are two words, a legend that have been used that I find fascinating. First, gunilla talked about wind and it's interesting to imagine any of the two sides winning. And Zelensky's 10 point peace plan where he wants outside, he wants all of the Russian troops away, the restoration of Ukraine's territory, the release of all prisoners, etc. That's not going to happen. On the other hand, russia's not going to get the territory, probably that it wants, but the language is not there and UC used the term compromise. For the moment we don't have a roadmap, we have no even negotiations. The Swiss and other 82 other countries and organizations had meetings in Davos, malta, copenhagen and Jeddah of national security advisors, but the Russians weren't there.
Speaker 1:No, I mean, these were, these were cosmetic exercises, I'm afraid to say I'd yeah but what?
Speaker 3:what means is that if UC is talking about a compromise, we don't see negotiations to get to a compromise. So, in a sense, not only on the field of their stalemates militarily, but also diplomatically, were in a stalemate.
Speaker 1:Well, I wonder whether I mean we see cracks in in the West. Hungary resisted NATO expansion. Can we call Hungary the West? Who knows it's Hungary, it's the warband. But we also see divisions in the United States about how much to support Ukraine. And I wonder whether we're also in a stage where in English there's this phrase up a hill without a ladder, that there've been so many repetitions of unconditional support for Ukraine. Invasion should not be rewarded in any way, which none of us would really argue with. But yet, at the same time, this conflict is not going anywhere. Can you hold your hand?
Speaker 5:No, yes, I want to say. When you spoke about compromise and I interviewed the vice prime minister of Ukraine the other day and I said to her another Ukrainian officials are into you too. What about a compromise? What about perhaps Donbas, luhansk, donetsk you give that up in order to keep the rest and maybe be welcome in NATO or EU in the future? And the answer I get is like no way. We're going to get all of the foreback to Netsk, luhansk, kherson, sapodisha and Crimea. And then I said but what about? Isn't there a limit when there's so many civilian deaths? So you as a state have a responsibility to stop to accept the compromise. No way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think it's very, very difficult, isn't it? Because there is one aggressor, certainly in 2022. Obviously, there'd been tensions and sporadic violence before that, but there is one key aggressor, that's Russia in 2022. Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. And yet, at the same time, you and I, both women, both mothers we were saying the other day but these people will always have to live next door to each other. You cannot tow Ukraine out into the Atlantic. They will always be neighbors. So where do we find this? You see, I think you wanted to say something.
Speaker 4:So actually, on that point, so somebody who grew up in Finland so yes, we couldn't take the country anywhere either and somehow survives. And so, of course, if you think back and in terms of debates following 2014 with Crimea and all of that, let's talk about the Finlandization of Ukraine, neutralization of Ukraine as a solution for Ukraine. Maybe you know that may now, in retrospect, seem as something to it. However, of course, we can then look at all the different historical elements in Ukraine is not Finland and so forth, so we can very easily sort of these sort of analogies. They always have a limit to how far you can go. What I was going to really say is in terms of the compromise and the possibility of breaking those diplomatic deadlocks and so forth. In the end, at the moment, with this particular cast of characters, it's not going to happen. I think that's clear with putting on the one side Zelensky and his entourage, the committee, to some victory, whatever that is, however they define it whatever the cost and so forth.
Speaker 4:at least that's the rhetoric. Maybe they don't mean it, but that's what keeps them going, that's what gives gives the sort of rationale to the whole process. So I think when you're going to see perhaps some change in that is when something breaks domestically, either in the Ukraine or in Russia or both, when, if that's going to happen I don't know, but it's very, you know, Ukrainian democracy, there's going to be elections, etc, etc. The war will have an impact on that. They may be candidates proposing a different alternate course with costs to Ukrainian, you know, territorial integrity, etc. Perhaps, etc. Putin is not going to live forever, although it's sometimes seen he might. However, he doesn't have the same kind of domestic democratic considerations. Perhaps.
Speaker 3:He has an election coming up.
Speaker 4:He has an election coming up.
Speaker 1:Who's it that he will win? Well, that he is most likely to win.
Speaker 5:With a landslide.
Speaker 4:perhaps we can put a yeah, I wouldn't bet against him in this election 90 percent or 95. It's a tough call.
Speaker 3:But I would come back to the asymmetry, you see, and Gunilla, russia is basically independent as far as acting in this war, whereas Ukraine is dependent, as Imogen said, and I think the question of Western fatigue, I think about Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State of the United States.
Speaker 1:Exhausted, I'm sure.
Speaker 3:Exhausted and spending a lot of time in the Middle East. And the radar now is on the Middle East. And you're thinking of February, you're thinking of the second year, the anniversary, people, but actually people are not going to spend that much time thinking about solving this problem. So it's not on the burner front burner. And there is a problem for Ukraine. And Zelensky continues to travel around saying don't forget me, but there is a certain diplomatic fatigue on the part of the West. That doesn't mean that the West is going to abandon him. But, on the other hand, how many irons can you have in the fire at the same time? And I just think about Blinken and other people in the State and Defense Department and the CIA, whatever how busy they must be. And Ukraine is not an obsession now, and certainly not an obsession for the election in 2024 to be president of the United States. This will not, in my opinion, not be a major issue.
Speaker 1:This was a question I had actually how strong do we think the resolve of the so-called West is now? I mean not just the political resolve. We see a lot of, as you say, attention deflected now, understandably, to the Middle East, which probably at the moment is much more dangerous and volatile than anything that could happen in Ukraine right now. But what about the economic resolve? Because we read that Western Europe is like do we have any more weapons, do we have any more cash?
Speaker 5:No, we don't produce enough. We can't even keep up with the production to give. What they need is artillery. We can't keep up with the production in the Europe, in the US and, as you said, I think that is a problem, and also the money it costs a lot. How much money are we going to spend on Ukraine? It's like the war there. It's a black hole and the opinion is changing in Europe, in the US. Ukraine is very far away from most Americans. It's a country that I don't even know where it is on the map.
Speaker 3:There are not enough Ukrainian voters in the United States to make a difference.
Speaker 5:So no, I think it's really.
Speaker 5:And as you said, the attention has turned away. It's two years now. When Zelensky does his tour around the world and goes, he's not being welcomed as he was in the beginning. Remember when he came to the US the first time, he was like the hero in Congress. Now they barely Can you come? No, you can't come. He canceled. He had a briefing that he canceled because he realized he wasn't going to be seen as much of a hero as he used to be seen, so he's less attractive when he goes around to his world tours. The world attention. Of course we have Middle East, we have Gaza, Israel, but that is also now spinning into Iran, into Yemen, iraq, syria. It's really, it looks really bleak. It could become something much bigger, something that has a much bigger global impact. So I think this is a big problem for Ukraine. It's a bonus for Putin. He's very happy about what's going on in Gaza and Israel.
Speaker 1:And we see Zelensky. You say he's not feted anymore the way he was in the first months after this, After the invasion. We're seeing the tensions and stresses and strains inside his own government, aren't we?
Speaker 4:Right. So I mean, I think that's, and it sort of builds up on what I was saying earlier about the domestic issues. But the other thing I was actually going to say is, in terms of the West, or the support base for Ukraine outside of Ukraine, is that it really depends where you are. I visited Finland last week and there's no question, this is the number one issue. So there are parts of the NATO land in which this is really serious. This is where what counts. In the and so forth, there will be support. If you need to increase production, we do that and that you know.
Speaker 4:You can find the history is there. You know Russia is seen as the sort of permanent threat and that will never change, at least not for a while. So this is sort of fuel, put sort of more fire on that particular burner and I think that is there. But unfortunately, these places are unfortunately for Ukraine. The United States is not one of these places, the United Kingdom is not one of those places, france isn't really one of those places and those are the country and Germany to an extent is, but is a special case in its own way. So where the money is, where the production is, where all the support has to come from. In a sort of big sense, those are the places where cracks are and doubts have risen and where Zelensky is not the same hero he perhaps was two years ago, and that's a problem.
Speaker 5:It's very true. I see that in Sweden, as you said to being Swedish, that of course for Sweden to Finland in a war. But Sweden to Russia is the big. There is a fear of Russia. There is a worry that they will come next If they, if we let them, take what they have in Ukraine, next they will come to, well, moldavia and Georgia, and then Sweden or Finland, and now we're going to be part of NATO. So that would perhaps help us. But, as you said to Finland and Sweden, we are not central players in the world.
Speaker 3:But I mean with all due respect to my Swedish and Finnish friends. As someone said, russia is a regional power. To some extent, this particular Russia-Ukraine conflict is a regional conflict, whereas, as Imogen said, the conflict in the Middle East is potentially a world conflict. Having said that, I can't imagine that the Western countries, nato etc. Will allow Russia just to win.
Speaker 1:So, in a sense, maybe everybody's looking for a compromise. I mean to win quietly. What does it mean to win? I mean this is what I said about being up a hill without a ladder is that Western leaders have said Putin's not getting an inch, not one inch of Ukraine. So it's going to be very hard to craft some kind of deal that gives him even an inch, and I can understand why they don't want to. Aggression shouldn't be rewarded, but at the same time as conflict is going on.
Speaker 3:There were parts of Ukraine, of Crimea, that we could argue were very Russian, and again we could also point out that Russia has always needed warm water ports. So there is certain things in the Crimea that can be negotiated, but on the other hand, to count to you, Zelensky has said we want everything back. So both of them have made declarations that don't lead to any form of compromise.
Speaker 1:But we're going to end up like South Ossetia frozen conflict, I mean that's what it's starting to feel like. I don't think it's going to be a deal.
Speaker 5:I don't think it's going to be any sitting around the table and having negotiation. Let's sign a compromise Putin there, zelensky there. No, I think it's going to be a frozen conflict and then it's going to be a matter of fact.
Speaker 2:With actual fighting and continuing to send American tax money in there.
Speaker 3:Trump.
Speaker 5:I think the money will slowly but surely dry up. I mean, I fear what that could be. And then what happens is it's going to be the stalemate we've seen last year. It's not moving on the battlefield and those four provinces in Crimea might just have to stay like it is.
Speaker 3:That's a hot conflict. It's still a hot conflict.
Speaker 5:That is true. It's not frozen, but it's a matter of fact. It's going to be frozen. It's going to be like it is on the battlefield. Nothing will move on either side, and then the world attention will turn away. And will we just accept it like it is?
Speaker 1:Well, what choice do we have? Can I just enter the kind of maverick specter of Donald Trump into this conversation? I've said very boldly you could end this Ukraine.
Speaker 2:You could end this Ukrainian-Russia war in 24 hours. Yeah, how so? I know Zelensky very well and, as you know, I get along very well with Putin. I would tell Putin got to settle. I would tell Zelensky you got to settle. I would tell one you're going to load up with money. I tell the other you're not going to get any money. I would get a settlement in 24 hours.
Speaker 1:You said, danny, ukraine is not going to be a factor in the presidential elections in 24. I agree with you. Ukraine is a very long way from America's traditionally American voters, not that interested in foreign policy unless their guys are dying. But Trump has said he will end it in 24 hours, so there is the possibility, whether voters are interested or not, that American support for Ukraine will stop this year.
Speaker 3:Ava Jeanne, with all due respect, you have to be one of the few people in the world who actually listens to what Trump says and believe he's actually going to do what he says he's going to do.
Speaker 1:Well, the people who are around him say the same thing and I honestly, rationally, I don't think, judging by his last sojourn in the White House, that even if any rational people join his team, they will last very long.
Speaker 3:I just don't see the Congress abandoning Ukraine. I don't see the American political system giving into Russia and just saying, okay, take whatever you want.
Speaker 4:Just to add on what Danny was just saying. Trump has said an awful lot of things that are total off the cuff, and then he changes his mind. Nato is obsolete was one of his favorite sayings in the 2016 election and throughout his presidency, in fact. And where is NATO now? It enlarged during the Trump presidency already, and now it's enlarged again after that. So we shouldn't read too much into the rhetoric, which clearly is aimed. I think Trump has a certain genius of winning elections, of winning voters to his side. It's not a rational choice often, but he somehow he has managed to get over 70 million Americans to vote for him in 2020. So that's quite something, and I think he knows how to play to the voters, and part of that game is seems to be saying absolutely crazy things that have no sort of basis.
Speaker 3:Sorry. He has one basis that he thinks he has a personal relationship with Putin that will allow him to solve the problem, as he has a relation with North Korea, etc. Etc.
Speaker 4:I think that's probably part of this crazy idea that he can just pick up the phone, call Vladimir Putin say look, let's make a deal. You can have the bits and pieces you occupy and I'll pull the plug on Ukraine.
Speaker 4:Congress the fact that, yes, the United States is the main supporter of Ukraine, but not the only the European Union. It was an awful lot of support to Ukraine. The problem that seems to trump. While he may become president, be somewhat popular in the United States, his star is not very high in the rest of the world, particularly among the countries that are part of the so-called West. He is seen as well as he is, a disruptor and a problem.
Speaker 1:Although it would be fascinating to be fly on the wall in the capitals of Europe right now, or, say, september, october, when preparing, like Trump incoming again. I would love to have their conversations.
Speaker 5:I mean but one. If you want to look a bit more on the positive side, is that it could be well. There are cracks, also usually saying within the political top level in Ukraine. There are cracks, there are start to be political tensions and it could be that someone else would come instead of Zelensky, who is not so focused on absolutely getting everything back, who is more willing to have some kind of compromise, to give something up. At the same time, there are F-16 flights, fighter planes coming into Ukraine. They could perhaps make a difference, because there are certain weapons that you can use on the fighter planes that could be efficient. Could they somehow break through this band leading to the Black Sea and cut off the tongue that Russia occupies? That could make a huge difference. If you see these three things together the fighter planes, another precedent and some success on the battlefield then perhaps we could see another solution.
Speaker 1:One thing I needed to bring in, because we're very geopolitics here, but we're actually in Geneva. We haven't talked. I mean, where is the United Nations in this? You know, we've got an awful lot of conflict, as we said, we mentioned the Middle East, but has the UN got any role to play here? I'm going to ask you all whoever wants to go first can go first.
Speaker 5:I have to say first, humanitarian wise, they're doing a very important, great job in Ukraine. I mean, so many people are living and eating and dressing and breathing today because of age on the UN.
Speaker 1:Their homes have been winterised, all this kind of thing. But that is the humanitarian branch. Is that increasingly the only significant part of the UN these days?
Speaker 4:I think the short answer is probably yes, but at the same time I would say that's not insignificant. That is hugely important in terms of saving lives, I mean. Ultimately, however, when we have conflicts such as this, such as the one in Gaza and so forth, what is the UN's role? How can the UN play a meaningful diplomatic role? The answer is who knows? Because if you have a Security Council permanent member as being a major player in a conflict, that immediately diminishes the possibilities that, say, the Secretary General or his office can play in terms of mediating, because the power of the veto and all the rest of it is always hanging over this.
Speaker 4:So that is where I think what we see is the limits that the UN chart, the places upon the institution itself by the very virtue of the veto in the Security Council. Can that be changed? Should it be changed? That's a whole other conversation. I don't think there is a miracle cure for that, but at the moment the solution will not come from the UN to do the war in Ukraine. I think I'm pretty confident about that that it's most likely to come from within Ukraine, from within Russia or from the key players that can have an impact on the policies of those two countries.
Speaker 3:I mean just for information. Guyana will chair the Security Council in February and they are calling for talks on Ukraine in the Security Council as part of the two years and saying that you know they're trying.
Speaker 5:They try.
Speaker 3:They try, but again, I think you see and Gunilla realize that with the veto in the Security Council, the question of peace and security coming out of New York is not there, whereas the humanitarianism coming out of Geneva is really the band-aids. But we're not dealing with the root causes.
Speaker 1:Well, that's the problem, isn't it? And that's where we come back to, you know, the United Nations. It was supposed to and again it's another program, I guess but it was supposed to deal with these root causes. It's failing to do so increasingly, as we saw it in Ukraine, but also now in the Middle East. The humanitarian arm is coming in for a lot of criticism and they're asked to take sides and can't. That's also another program, because we're almost at the end of this one.
Speaker 5:It could also be said that it's prolonging the conflict because the humanitarian aid is going in and then there's less incentive for others to solve it. Well, this is you, and takes care of it.
Speaker 1:This is true, but, on the other hand, you know, aid agencies can't just stand back and say, well, you're going to have to suffer just to get these guys around the table. They can't do that, especially as the guys were in charge. Right now, we're just not going to do it, whether it's in Moscow, or Kiev, or or Jerusalem, frankly, or Gaza City. Final question, then it's not been the most cheerful of conversation, so I do think it's interesting that we've had a bit of real politic brought to this conflict, which, two years ago, we were still all thinking he's not going to do that, he's not going to invade. And here we are. Where do we think we're gonna be in a year? There are a lot of elections taking place in 24. Powers could shift. There's the states, there's European elections, there's the UK, india, there's Russia. Now, some of these are foregone conclusions, but others are Not. I'm gonna reverse around the table and start with you, dan.
Speaker 3:I tend not to give predictions, having predicted that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 when they are gone, which everyone reminds me of.
Speaker 3:I Think it's very difficult to think that the stalemate will continue, with the loss of lives that are going on and the money involved and everything else. It's just impossible to think that we're gonna just keep throwing People and material into something that will go on for another year. But on the other hand, I see no compromise and I see no process to find a compromise. That's what worries me the most. People in Geneva, I know, tried to get the Russians and the Americans and the Ukrainians down at the table, off the record, and they wouldn't come. So the process getting to a compromise is not even there. And those four meetings of national Security advisors, as everyone recognizes as going nowhere without Russia.
Speaker 5:Good, nilla. Well, I'm sorry and, to agree, I think we're gonna be more or less in the same Situation in one year, perhaps with an even weaker Ukraine. They will continue to defend, so Russia will perhaps not take more than that they've taken, but I don't think they're going to advance to be able to take more, because they lack weapons, they lack money, they especially lack manpower. They need half a million soldiers. They don't have, and men, if they can, they're leaving the country. No one wants to fight. So I think it looks quite bleak. Perhaps Ukraine will be encouraged by the EU, nato, saying we're going to take you into our club, and that could give them some hope long term. But it looks like Putin will stay. It looks like perhaps Trump will win, and then I think this situation we might have to discuss again in one year.
Speaker 4:You see so I'm guessing, and I'm guessing that there will be a slightly less intense war of attrition going on in a year's time, alongside a beginning of some form of negotiation, because, as Danny said, it's hard to believe that anybody and but I think the pressure will be not coming from the Russian side, it will be coming from the, the Western side, for on Ukraine to do something.
Speaker 4:The landscape will be under immense pressure to to do something to, you know, bring back normality to Ukraine, if in some form or another, and so I think there will be some kind of negotiations. The rhetoric is unlikely to change too much in a year, but I think there's. This has to be some movement, because the appetite and the money and the sheer ability to provide the raw material to fight the war and so forth for Ukraine is it depends on outside factors, and those outside factors are not, at the moment At least, don't seem to be in their favor. The one thing that may change that whole scenario is the summer. The summer is always Big offensive happens. Maybe and I don't know, that at the moment looks very unlikely that there'll be a major offensive either way coming this this summer, but that may, may change maybe the prospect of a Trump presidency will Produce a massive outpouring of military assistance to Ukraine, so they can launch a massive, I don't know.
Speaker 4:We'll see. There's a lot of Unpredictable elements as well, but safe bet is that there will be a conflict. They would be unresolved. But I think people will be looking for solutions of not the total, comprehensive peace arrangement but some form of Temporary way of freezing it in a way that doesn't keep costing this endless loss of life and suffering.
Speaker 5:There's so many dead.
Speaker 1:So many have died, so many have been wounded, so many have lost their homes. A recent estimate by UK and US Intelligence services put the combined Russian and Ukrainian casualty figures dead and wounded soldiers and civilians at close to half a million. The Red Cross as a staggering 10 million Ukrainians have been displaced. Unesco has assessed the damage to Ukraine's culture and tourism at three and a half billion dollars.
Speaker 1:Most wars, history tells us, end not in total victory, but at the negotiating table. Is that where this war is now going, despite Russia's unprovoked aggression and Ukraine's determination to defend its sovereignty? We hope this episode of Inside Geneva has offered some insight into where this conflict stands two years on. My thanks to UC Honey, mackey, gunilophon Hall and Daniel Warner for their time and their analysis. If you enjoyed this edition of the podcast, do join us next time when we'll be taking a deep dive into UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, now mired in allegations from Israel that some of its staff in Gaza support Hamas and Suffering massive funding cuts as a result, we'll talk to UNRWA's commissioner general, to the head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, who has warned that cutting UNRWA's money will have catastrophic consequences for Palestinians, and we'll hear what Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva told member states about the organization.
Speaker 1:And Check out some of our previous episodes of Inside Geneva, including in-depth interviews with the men and women doing what's called the UN's toughest job UN Human Rights Chief. You can find us, subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva from Swiss Info, the international public media company of Switzerland, available in many languages as well as English. Check out our other content at wwwswissinfoch. I'm Imogen folks. Thanks again for listening and do join us next time on Inside Geneva.