tagesschau24: Mr. Reisner, many observers say that one shouldn't expect too much from the negotiations in Abu Dhabi. Why not?
Markus Reisner: We have to keep in mind two meetings that are important. This is the foreign ministers' meeting of the G7 countries in Paris. The main focus here will be on Ukraine's grain exports across the Black Sea, but preliminary discussions regarding the negotiations will also take place. And there are the specific negotiations in Abu Dhabi, where there are still uncertainties about who should actually sit at the table and, above all, whether the European Union will also have representatives.
What is interesting about these negotiations? This is actually the first time in a long time that there is a chance that an agreement can be reached. I warn against mentioning the word peace just yet, but at least a ceasefire can result. The background is that Ukraine is under great pressure, on the one hand from the Russian Federation's attacks on its critical infrastructure, but above all, and this is crucial, from the fact that the USA - and the USA is the kingmaker - has clearly made it clear that it wants to end this conflict. At what price is the big question.
“Trump still has some options in foreign policy”
tagesschau24: Could something change due to the changed balance of power in the Senate and the House of Representatives after the midterms in the USA, because many Democratic politicians say they want to oblige Trump to help Ukraine more?
Reisner: I would be careful. You have to consider the American system and the options that the president has, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, there will certainly be drastic events that will also affect Trump and his administration. The president still has some options when it comes to foreign policy. And Trump has also announced that Ukraine will ultimately have a different shape than it has in the past, which suggests that there will be concessions to Russia.
What is also interesting at this point is the promotion of talks about a so-called new security architecture for Europe. It's about the question of what security relationships Russia, Europe and Ukraine should have in the future. And the Ukrainian president warns that there could be a second Yalta. By this he means that the major powers, i.e. the USA, China and also Russia, decide on the security architecture of the Europeans without the Europeans having a say. And that would be fatal.
"Ukraine must remain as a sovereign state"
tagesschau24: But can President Zelenskyj actually rely on President Trump, who has already stabbed him in the back several times?
Reisner: That is the crucial question. You can see that the relationship between the two is very broken. At the beginning it was obvious, then it was somewhat hidden. But there is a dependency here, especially when it comes to, for example, the transfer of reconnaissance data, but also the transfer of important anti-aircraft missiles of the “Patriot” type.
I'll give you three key words that are important. These are the key words: sovereignty, territorial integrity and credible security guarantees. And Zelensky is trying to put these three key questions on the table in order to have honest negotiations. Whether this will succeed remains to be seen.
At this point I would also like to refer to Ukraine's 20-point plan, which has been in place for years, where sovereignty should, in principle, be emphasized first and foremost. Because Ukraine, and that must be the goal, must remain as a sovereign state.
“There has to be a win situation for both sides”
tagesschau24: If we talk about freezing the conflict, then Vladimir Putin has always insisted that he get the entire Donetsk area. Will he even agree to anything less?
Reisner: That's the big question. You must also not forget that Russia has already recognized the four oblasts in question, plus Crimea, as part of Russia's statehood. That means he owes a certain debt to the Russian population and that is why he insists on the situation we have.
It is true that of the four oblasts, Luhansk is already almost entirely owned by Russia. But Donetsk is the area where there is still a significant portion that is not yet in Russian possession, while in the case of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Russia would also understand that a kind of compromise could arise here through the division of the oblasts by the Dnieper River. I'm not even talking about Crimea at this point.
But the point is that Russia needs to show something that it can sell to the population to justify that it was worth all these sacrifices. And in the next few weeks and months we will hopefully see some negotiating skills that will produce a result that will allow both sides to get out of this situation while saving face.
There has to be some kind of win situation for both sides to sell, otherwise there will be no agreement. And as Russia has also announced, it appears to be prepared to continue the attacks until the end, as Putin keeps saying.
“Time is running out for both sides”
tagesschau24: If there is no solution now, then on the one hand we will have a Ukraine whose energy infrastructure is constantly being bombed. But on the other hand we have a Russia, at least that's what the numbers suggest, which is losing more and more soldiers. How long can Russia keep this up?
Reisner: It has to be said clearly that both sides are running out of time. On the one hand, we have successful Ukrainian attacks on refineries and Russia's critical infrastructure. And Russia knows it cannot sustain these attacks forever.
On the other hand, we also have escalating attacks by the Russian Federation on Ukraine's critical infrastructure. And it is clear that Ukraine's critical infrastructure has been hit much harder and harder than Russia's critical infrastructure. This means that, unless there is now a massive increase in attacks from Ukraine, Russia can simply hold out longer in terms of these attacks than Ukraine can.
Added to this is the demographic situation of both countries. Russia has an estimated population of between 145 million and 148 million, 130 million of whom are ethnic Russians. There is enormous defense potential there. And you see that the Russians can still recruit around 35,000 to 40,000 soldiers per month.
Ukraine, on the other hand, has suffered incredible bloodletting. At the beginning of the 1990s, Ukraine had 54 million inhabitants. Now it is estimated that there are between 29 million and 33 million people in the country. Of course it has a significantly reduced defensive potential. It would need between 20,000 and 30,000 men per month to be brought to the front. But you often only manage between 8,000 and 9,000. And here you can also see that the demographic situation does not speak for Ukraine.
And that puts both sides under enormous pressure to act. But one can clearly assume that Russia currently has the strategic initiative. One must not be deceived by the successes at the tactical operational level. They are certainly spectacular, but the war is currently not being decided at the front, but at the strategic level. And that means, above all, for the population: Is the state able to protect me - or not?
