Russia’s stubbornness could well be a negotiation ploy - Patrick Mercer

If Russia’s style of negotiation in the past is anything to go by, though, the situation may not be as bleak as it looks. The old, Soviet diplomatic approach was to make extraordinary demands and then stick to them blindly until the last moment. The strategy was to appear completely unbending and then make concessions which - compared with their earlier, steely stubbornness - might seem like significant breakthroughs.

Perhaps we’re now seeing this with Sergey Lavrov’s (Russia’s veteran foreign secretary) position. He won’t budge: all of his demands remain exactly where they always have been, the most outrageous of which is that Ukraine should hand over the final, unconquered part of the Donbas.

True, Russian troops are now threatening the southern flank of what’s called the ‘fortress belt’, but it’ll take months and thousands more lives if the Kremlin has to fight for it.

Now Moscow’s asking for the Donbas to be surrendered in its entirety. But this is the last bit of ground which is fully prepared for defence: the area bristles with trenches and redoubts - many of which are concrete lined - and if it’s given up the war comes even closer to Kiev and the west of the country.

Russia’s constantly attacking far behind the front lines in order to weaken morale. Yet capitulation of the Donbas would be a terrible blow - it would be viewed as an unforgivable betrayal of the hundreds of thousands who have already perished in its defence.

But I suspect this is a Russian gambit: they may give up on this ultimatum, apparently gracefully, but then there would be demands for lesser territories. In response, the Kremlin hopes that Volodymyr Zelensky might soften his stance - probably under US pressure - but if he were to bend and offer Ukrainian soil to Moscow, a whole, fresh hell would open up in front of him.

Little is said in the Western press about Ukraine’s nationalists, Azov, Right Sektor, Aidar and the like. Ideological purists, all of them have battle hardened, military components who’ve been in action since the fighting started in 2014. They are a very real political factor, despite having vanishingly few sitting MPs.

Etched on Mr Zelensky’s memory will be the events of October 2019. Whilst not on a scale with today’s conflict, fighting had been grumbling bloodily in the Donbas since 2014, the catalyst for which had been Russia’s occupation of the Crimea.

Russian speaking and sympathetic to Moscow, separatists had been complaining for years at what they called Ukrainian repression, calling for referenda, independence or even full integration with Russia. Then Kiev reacted by cracking down hard and discontent had quickly flared into fighting.

Newly elected on a ticket of halting this bloody confrontation in the Donbas, Zelensky proposed a troop withdrawal, elections and amnesties only to be met with widespread, powerful demonstrations. The crowds’ most common theme was that the new president was a “servant of the Kremlin” who was trying to “strike a deal with the devil”.

But, with Kiev and other nerve centres paralysed and mobs everywhere, the inexperienced Mr Zelensky had no choice other than to give way.

These same gentlemen are now, once again, extremely fractious about any compromise for peace. Loitering front and centre of President Zelensky’s mind will be the prospect of another skirmish with these muscular ultras - perhaps that’s one of reasons why his British bodyguards keep so close?

A further heat spot for the President must be General Zalushny whom he fired as commander-in-chief before kicking him sideways to become Kiev’s ambassador in London. Now this popular - especially with the extremists - and capable man hovers in our capital, watching and receiving visitors such as Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s all-powerful chief of staff.

It’s been asserted by well placed sources that in a meeting last November Yermak suggested to General Zaluzhny that he should formally join the president’s political team. Great pressure was being exerted by the US at the time for elections to be held in Ukraine and Yermak wanted to develop a united front between the two, powerful men.

Previously, the General’s sacking had been well handled by Zelensky: the two men made a good show of appearing to part on good terms. Zaluzhny, though, dodged joining the President’s gang, instead pledging that he would not criticize Mr Zelensky openly and wouldn’t spring any surprises on his office, saying to Yermak, “If I do decide I want to go into politics, you will hear it from me first, privately”.

Then these arrangements were put to the test last February after the extremely awkward meeting in the Oval Office between President Trump, J D Vance and Mr Zelensky. Ukraine’s President was made to look inflexible and less than helpful towards Mr Trump.

So, after the now infamous rumpus, it was rumoured that the White House was looking for someone more malleable to replace the current incumbent in Kiev. Within hours Mr Vance telephoned General Zalushny in London, but - fascinatingly - the General declined to take the call.

Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.