Missiles, military drills and NATO: How diplomacy could defuse a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine

Show Caption

WASHINGTON – Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed to hit pause on the drumbeat of a possible war with Ukraine on Tuesday with an announcement that he is ready to engage in security talks with the U.S. and NATO, raising the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

President Joe Biden and other U.S. officials expressed skepticism about Putin's diplomatic overture, even as they welcomed the renewed commitment to a negotiated solution to the standoff. Biden noted that Russia still has 150,000 troops amassed near Ukraine's border and the U.S. had seen no evidence of a drawdown.

Foreign policy experts called the developments encouraging but said the path to a diplomatic solution remains fraught and Putin's true intentions are far from clear.

“Putin is keeping his options open,” said William Pomeranz, acting director of the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute, a Washington-based think tank dedicated to Russian and Eurasia research. “I think he’s keeping the West guessing, and we will not know what his intentions are until he declares them.”

Here's a look at the geopolitical sticking points and how they might be hashed out: 

The starting points and flashpoints

The Russian leader said he was willing to discuss limits on missile deployments and military transparency but said he would not budge on Russia’s insistence that Ukraine and other former Soviet nations be barred from membership in the NATO alliance.

Putin’s remarks came after talks with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and as Russia’s defense ministry said it had started pulling back some troops taking part in military exercises near Ukraine’s border.

At the White House, Biden expressed optimism that a diplomatic solution could be found, saying there are “real ways to address our respective security concerns.”

“We're proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures,” he said. The measures, he added, would apply to both Russia and to NATO allies in order to “advance our common security.”

But, Biden emphasized, the U.S. is not willing to sacrifice “basic principles,” including that nations have a right to sovereignty and can choose their own alliances.

Ukraine’s future membership in NATO has been a key flashpoint. . The U.S. and other Western nations say they won’t back down from the alliance’s “open-door policy” that any nation wanting to become a member can apply. Putin insists Ukraine must never be allowed to join.

Even so, Putin’s remarks suggest there is room for compromise, or “off-ramps” in diplomatic lingo, in other areas, such as missile deployments, military transparency and other confidence-building measures.

Even if it works, diplomacy is going to be a slow process given the level of mistrust in both Washington and Moscow, said Michael Kimmage, a history professor who specializes in U.S.-Russia relations at Catholic University of America and visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

"From the American side, in particular, any concession that Putin would make, anything that he would put his name to, is going to be regarded with a lot of mistrust," Kimmage said. "He's not a trustworthy man. And he's not going to engage in the kind of conventional diplomacy the U.S. does with Germany and with its partners.”

More: Biden threatens devastating sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine. Here's what that might look like.

Missile deployment negotiations

One area of compromise that could help stabilize the relationship is arms control and nuclear proliferation, an issue that is in the best interest of both countries, said Kimmage, who worked on Russia-Ukraine issues at the State Department during the Obama administration.

"You can build trust, you can build relationships and because these issues are technical and not really political in nature, they're also easier for these two countries to work on," he said.

One topic on the table is possible limits on intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

The U.S. has said it is open to discussing the future of certain missile systems that were covered under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The pact, signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, required the two countries to eliminate nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.

Former President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2019, citing Russian violations of the agreement.

With Russia now suggesting it is willing to address the U.S. concerns, “that’s an area that could be a clear basis for a negotiation,” said William Taylor, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Pomeranz stressed that missile deployment negotiations would likely be a long process. “If Putin is looking for an immediate solution, I don’t think arms control will satisfy him,” he said.

While such talks could delay the crisis in Ukraine, “I'm not sure Putin wants to have a slow-moving crisis,” Pomeranz said. “I think he wants an answer fast. And that would mean that a long, protracted missile negotiation may not be in the cards.”

More: Why is the White House releasing US intelligence on Putin's moves in Ukraine? Behind the unusual strategy

Military transparency 

Greater transparency in military drills is an area where there could be compromise and one where there’s precedent, Taylor said.

One avenue for that would be to revive an agreement on conventional forces originally signed in 1990 near the end of the Cold War.

The pact, known as the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, established limits on certain categories of military equipment in Europe and mandated the destruction of excess weapons. It also obligated the parties to provide notification of changes in the number of armaments and equipment and provided for mutual inspections.

Russia suspended its participation in the treaty in 2007, accusing the West of building up its armaments in Europe.

A new agreement could require NATO and Russia to notify each other when they are planning military exercises, allow for each country to send inspectors to observe those exercises and even impose constraints on how close to the shared border those exercises could take place, Taylor said.

“Right now, we see all of these Russian forces on the border of Ukraine,” he said. “They say it’s an exercise. But they didn’t tell us it’s an exercise. They won’t let us observe it. If this kind of treaty had been in effect, then there would have been a lot less concern about an invasion.”

More: Why is Vladimir Putin threatening Ukraine? Respect, fear, power at play in Russian leader's motivations

European security and stability

Any serious diplomacy also would have to address where Ukraine fits in relation to Europe, a major sticking point for both NATO leaders and Putin, Kimmage said.

"If Russia pulls back, it may be the case that a lot of people feel  incentive to make progress and work on the future of Ukraine for the sake of the country," he said. "So it can be a normal country and not a sort of poker chip that the great powers are competing over."

On the most ambitious level, diplomatic talks could also broach European security and the instability that exists along the border between Russian and European spheres of influence. Kimmage points to unrest in Belarus in the summer of 2020 as an example of the potential conflict that could erupt in other countries in the region.

"If we can figure out a way to make Europe safer, more stable, more secure and to get Russians to buy into that, that will have been the best that you can hope for in that situation," he said.

Ukraine's standing in Europe could be addressed in existing negotiations, including an informal forum set up by French, German, Russian and Ukrainian diplomats, or by reviving the Minsk peace agreement, reached between Moscow and Kyiv in 2015 in an effort to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

"The potential diplomatic agenda is almost too big to describe in a three-step plan at this point," said Dan Baer, the acting director of the Europe program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who served as the U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

"I don't think the events of the last 48 hours do anything other than raise possibilities,," he said of Putin's choice of diplomacy or invasion.

Baer pointed to the ongoing cyberattacks on Ukrainian banks and the Duma passing resolutions to recognize rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine as independent states as examples of how the Kremlin continues to "stir the pot of pretext and positioning for kinetic action.”

Any diplomacy can only succeed if Putin draws down Russian troops in the next month or two, Kimmage agreed.

"They can't be on a sort of war footing like this forever," he said. "This is the window that the Russians have. So I think you prepare for the worst to happen."

More: How the Nord Stream 2 pipeline became a bargaining chip in the crisis between Russia and Ukraine

Skepticism in Ukraine

Any diplomatic solution is likely to be viewed skeptically at best in Kyiv unless the Kremlin changes its long-term demands for influence in eastern Europe.

“Even if he removed the Russian tanks, the Russian meddling has continued,” said Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon, a scholar of Ukrainian and Russian history at the University of Pennsylvania.

Ukrainians have endured years of direct conflict with Russia, St. Julian-Varnon noted, with the latest crisis being seen as part of a broader pressure campaign that includes constant cyberattacks, online disinformation campaigns, economic pressure and fomenting conflict in Ukraine’s eastern states.

“We need to think past the troops leaving the border and what can we do to support Ukraine, but also make it very clear to Russia that any kind of meddling in Ukrainian domestic politics is unacceptable,” St. Julian-Varnon said.

Michael Collins, Courtney Subramanian and Matthew Brown cover the White House. Follow Collins on Twitter @mcollinsNEWS, Subramanian @cmsub and Brown @mrbrownsir.

More: Better trained, better equipped: What you should know about Russia and Ukraine's militaries