Evolving from a position in which it was forbidden to even discuss – let alone advocate for – negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, now, every day, now, we see in the MSM multiple takes on how these once unacceptable talks could evolve.
So, yesterday (16), we’ve come to the point where even the über-Globalists from the Council for Foreign Relations, in the Foreign Policy news site, are not only analyzing the upcoming negotiations, but – surprisingly – now defend a modus operandi in which the US Donald J. Trump administration sidelines Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his team, focusing the beginning of the talks only in the Russian side.
That’s some seismic shift, and speaks to how desperate the situation really is for the Kiev regime.
Director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Anatol Lieven writes on Foreign Policy about at what stage, and on what issues, Ukraine should be involved in the process:
“The first and most fundamental goal of the talks (as in all such negotiations) will be for each side to clearly establish, on the one hand, its vital interests and absolute and nonnegotiable conditions and, on the other hand, what points it is prepared, in principle, to compromise on. It may be, of course, that the nonnegotiable positions of the three sides are fundamentally opposed and incompatible. If so, peace negotiations will inevitably fail, but we will not know this until these issues have been explored.”
The three parties in this historic but challenging negotiations involved are of course Ukraine, Russia and the United States.
But the opening stages of the negotiations, Lieven believes, should be held between the United States and Russia.
“Certain aspects of an eventual agreement will require Ukraine’s full assent, and that without this assent a settlement isn’t possible. These aspects include the terms of a ceasefire, the nature and extent of any demilitarized zones, and any constitutional amendments guaranteeing the linguistic and cultural rights of Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine.”
One future sticking point is that Russia demands ‘legal recognition’ of the regions it conquered and that voted to be a part of the Federation – as opposed to a mere ‘acceptance’ of the facts on the ground.
Lieven notes that China, India, and other key Russian partners do not agree with this demand.
“The second nonnegotiable issue [for Ukraine] is Putin’s demand that Ukraine withdraw from the territory it still holds in the four provinces of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed.”
The article makes the very reasonable point that ‘it cannot be asked by Washington to give up more territory without a fight’.
However, the Foreign Policy article argues, other basic questions are up for the US to decide: such as limits on the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as which Western sanctions to lift or suspend as part of a deal.
Another US call is whether to accept a new NATO member.
Finally, it’s an American decision about what security guarantees can and should be given to Ukraine after the settlement, and whether peacekeeping troops from Europe should be allowed in.
“However, everything that I have heard from Russians tells me that this is just as unacceptable to Moscow as NATO membership itself and would therefore make agreement impossible. Moreover, European countries would agree to send their troops only if they had an ironclad guarantee from Washington that the United States would intervene if they were attacked. This, in effect, punts the decision back to Washington—not Kyiv, and not Brussels, Warsaw or Paris.”
One very positive aspect of this article is that Lieven acknowledges that Russia’s motives for the war extend way beyond Ukraine.
The whole security relationship between Russia and the West needs fixing, and a European security architecture that takes vital Russian interests into consideration.
“It may be that either the Putin administration or the Trump administration—or both—will refuse to compromise and that talks will accordingly collapse. Testing this, however, will be an extremely complex and difficult process, requiring patience and diplomatic sophistication on both sides. It would be extremely foolish to expect either Russia or the United States to put all their cards on the table at once.
Because this process will be so difficult, the sad but unavoidable truth may be that if Ukraine takes part in the talks from the start, progress toward a settlement will become completely impossible. Every prospective compromise will immediately be leaked and will cause a firestorm of protest in Europe, in Ukraine, in the U.S. Congress, in the U.S. media, and perhaps even from Russian hardliners.”