“You don’t have the cards right now,” U.S. President Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the now infamous Oval Office Scolding that further unraveled the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.
That meeting, which both parties had presumably intended to be a victory lap heralding an agreement to give the U.S. valuable mineral rights in exchange for U.S. support for Ukraine, was one of the most extraordinary negotiation meltdowns in international relations history. And on camera!
The question now – what next? And how can we evaluate the winners and losers and twists and turns that will invariably take place in these highly consequential and complex negotiations.
We should track and judge them based on two factors: 1) the parties’ goals and interests; and 2) their Plan Bs.
1. The parties’ goals and interests
Four main parties have vital goals and interests in these negotiations: Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and Europe. What are their major interests, can a peace deal satisfy them, and will any party “win” or “lose” in the end?
Ukraine. Ukraine has an interest in a secure, long-term reliable peace that recognizes its pre-Russian invasion territorial integrity, protects it from future Russian military action, and gives it sufficient resources to rebuild a country devastated by three years of war.
Importantly, President Zelenskyy was explaining its interests in a secure peace that prevents Russia from re-invading when the Oval Office meeting went off the rails. Articulating your fundamental interests and needs is a common and crucial effort in all negotiations.
U.S. U.S. interests have been aligned with Ukraine’s ever since Russia invaded (for the second time) three years ago. That’s why the U.S. has, on a largely bipartisan basis, provided Ukraine with around $120 billion worth of aid (not $350 billion as President Trump keeps saying).
These interests include, at a minimum, preventing state actors like Russia from invading peaceful neighbors and engaging in war crimes in an effort to expand its territorial footprint. In short: maintaining a peaceful and stable world order along internationally recognized borders.
But President Trump does not appear to believe in the critical nature of these interests. By calling Ukraine’s elected president a “dictator,” refusing to call Russia’s Putin the same (despite it being true), and having the U.S. vote against a U.N. measure recognizing the reality that Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump’s main interests now diverge from the U.S.’s past interests.
So what does Trump prioritize instead? Perhaps not surprisingly given his business background and financial deal-making, Trump seems to prioritize economic resources for the U.S. above almost all else. This explains his mineral rights negotiation with Ukraine. He also, according to numerous reports, desperately wants the credit and world acclamation for getting a peace deal.
Europe. Europe’s goals and interests almost completely align with the past U.S. interests and Ukraine’s. After all, they know they will be next in line if Russia walks away feeling like its invasion succeeded and thus continues its expansionist military aggression.
Russia. Why did Russia invade Ukraine in the first place? According to Putin, it largely sought to reconstitute the power and sphere of influence it enjoyed after World War II and before the Soviet Union disintegrated. In short: start to regain its empire.
It also has vital economic interests at stake as a result of the U.S. and Europe-imposed economic sanctions on Russia due to its invasion. Importantly, these sanctions have had a very negative impact on Russia’s economy and now represent a powerful lever to try to bring Russia to the table and end the fighting.
So where do these interests align, if anywhere? For the last three years, there was no real common ground. War resulted.
But now? Watch for some combination of the parties’ interests satisfied by the following, which was largely laid out recently by conservative New York Times’ columnist David French in “There Is a Way Out in Ukraine.”
A secure demarcation line like between North and South Korea near the current front lines backed up by French and British armed forces on the ground plus a significant infusion of Western aid to help Ukraine rebuild. And Russia gets the economic sanctions lifted and pretty much all of its territorial war gains.
With this option, the following major interests get satisfied:
- everyone gets an end to the war and death and destruction;
- Ukraine keeps the majority of its territory and gets French and British military security that Russia would not invade again plus the resources to rebuild;
- Russia gets its territorial war gains and its economy back on track;
- Europe gets some reassurance that Russia will not invade Ukraine again or invade other countries; and
- Trump and the U.S. walk with some mineral rights and looking like the peacemaker.
When will this happen?
That’s the subject of my next column and largely depends on how the parties evaluate their changing war leverage, or Plan Bs (a peace deal being Plan A).
Latz’s Lesson: Watch the Ukraine peace negotiations by evaluating the parties’ fundamental goals and interests – especially as their war leverage on the ground changes.
* Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation, a national negotiation training and consulting company that helps individuals and organizations achieve better results with best practices based on the experts’ research. He can be reached at 480.951.3222 or Marty@LatzNegotiation.com.