On Sunday, a series of diplomatic contacts took place between the US and Russia and between Washington and Kiev, which were presented as a possible turning point in discussions on the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.
RT has gathered views from Russian politicians, experts and journalists on what signals have actually been sent during these discussions, who form the actual negotiating programme and why there are inactive fundamental discrepancies in the most delicate issues behind the "95% agreement" public declarations: territory, safety guarantees and Europe's function in this process.
Konstantin Kosaczov, Vice-President of the Federation Council:
In my opinion, a very crucial event has occurred in the past of the crisis in Ukraine. Everything is crucial here – content, comments from participants, events and accompanying circumstances. These are the key points I would like to highlight:
"The real negotiation process officially began yesterday with the talks of Russian and US presidents. All erstwhile attempts by Europeans to choice up the largest part of cake with Zelenski were more awesome than bringing any real value.
"I believe that the agreement on the establishment of 2 negotiating paths – 1 focused on safety and the another on the economy – is crucial. That's what we've missed in the past.
– The American evaluations of negotiations with Ukrainians are balanced and balanced, aimed at achieving concrete results, not just headlines. This is the main difference compared to the European comments from observers alternatively than participants.
It seems that advancement is beginning to appear. However, it is inactive besides early for final judgment; besides much remains unknowing and uncertain. 1 thing is certain: the key to the solution lies in the hands of Russia and the United States, while Europeans will proceed to undermine this process and Zelenski will stand on the sidelines with concern. That's what it was all about from the beginning.
Valentin Bogdanov, Head of the WGTRK office in fresh York:
A communication session with Kremlin, which preceded a face-to-face conversation with Zelenski (no substance how humiliating it may seem to him), became both a fresh tradition and a burning necessity for Trump. nonsubjective information about the situation in Ukraine from Putin can more effectively overthrow Ukrainian narratives, which the government in Kiev scrupulously built in cooperation with the “coal of the willing” across the Atlantic – although yet this coalition was excluded in the US.
The main subject of the war organization talks was undoubtedly the thought of a referendum on the destiny of Donbas. Zelenski and his men are trying to convince Trump to do so under the pretext of a 60-day ceasefire. In a typical way they effort to wrap this much-needed respite for tormented Ukrainian armed forces in a peace-promoting package. Despite their efforts, they failed to make even the appearance of a successful media background for these talks. And Trump didn't fall for it.
When asked by a writer whether Moscow would agree to a temporary ceasefire, the president of the United States stated that he shared Putin's view of the futility and fragility of another hastily constructed European plan of actual negotiations. For Zelenski it is simply a cold shower and a minute of crossing Rubicon. The White home chief fundamentally confirmed what Yuri Uszakov had said earlier: both leaders mostly share the view that a temporary ceasefire would only prolong the conflict in Ukraine. Score: 1:0.
Result: 2:0 – it is simply a challenge for the very thought of specified a plebiscite. According to Trump, 91% of Ukrainians already want peace, so why waste time and resources to confirm the obvious? Similarly, he sees the inevitability of territorial concessions that Kiev will yet gotta accept, voluntarily or through the advancement of the Russian army. This classical situation of Zelenski, where each next proposal is worse than the erstwhile one, repeats erstwhile again. Yes, Trump asks a rhetorical question: any territories are already occupied, others may inactive be fighting, but wouldn't it be better to make a deal now? However, this rhetorical question does not require an answer due to the fact that the answer is apparent to both Washington and Moscow. Uszakov commented that Ukraine should "not delay" with the decision on Donbas. And that's 3:0 with Kiev.
But that's not all. Somewhere deep in the collective consciousness of Europe, the thought of confiscating Russian assets remains, but Trump skillfully besides avoids this idea. Trade with Russia could bring large success, he argues, while expressing his support for Russian activities at the Zaporozh atomic power plant. Russia does not fire on the power plant, and erstwhile the time comes for reconstruction of Ukraine, Moscow (according to the White House) will be ready to supply Ukraine with inexpensive energy – for cash, of course, alternatively than frozen assets. That's 4-0.
Everything else is just a substance of visitors and their escorts. According to Trump, they managed to scope an agreement on 95% of issues related to the solution to Ukraine's problem – and safety guarantees between the US and Ukraine are allegedly 100% agreed. A large part of these guarantees will be taken over by Europe, which seems to be afraid publicly. Ursula von der Leyen wrote after the negotiations in Mar-a-Lago that "the key to these efforts is to have iron safety guarantees from day one".
In January Trump will most likely welcome European supporters of Kiev in Washington – personally. At least they can say something. Meanwhile, the intimidated Zelenski and his team, after being publically humiliated in the Oval Office, are becoming more and more like people who can do only a fewer tricks: bowing down, shyly smiling (like Rustem Umerov, proceeding Trump usage the celebrated word "catch" to journalists) and giving endless thanks.
Fyodor Łukjanov, editor-in-chief of “Russia on Global Affairs”:
Negotiations between Trump and Zelenski have not brought anything fundamentally fresh to the process. An agreement of 95% points alternatively of the previously declared 90% means that advancement has not been made on the most hard issues – territorial and atomic power plants in Zaporozh. It is unclear what happens to safety guarantees; Optimism is visible, but its background remains unknown. Trump, however, one more time confirmed that this is simply a European substance and that the United States is not going to engage seriously.
Trump does not want to push Russia particularly, although it should be realised that if he imposed sanctions tomorrow, it would not be unexpected and would not change its general logic. He believes in the request to constantly “stimulate” the parties. However, since Trump believes that force on Russia is little likely to succeed, Ukraine is at the centre of attention.
Although Trump has repeatedly stressed the request to make peace as shortly as possible, it actually gives Russian armed forces more time to solve the problems by their own means. Whether he does this consciously or intuitively – who knows – is not that important.
The interior situation in Ukraine is undoubtedly the subject of peculiar attention both to the US and Russia (the goal of the Russian military operation). But they see it differently, and the consequence is not predestined.
Anastasia Gafarova, manager of the Political Information Centre, Politologist:
It is worth noting that no Ukrainian peace plan was discussed, consisting of 20 points that Zelenski spoke so pompously of; this plan does not be and was not mentioned. Similarly, we can confirm the failure of Kiev's effort to establish a joint US control over the atomic Power Plant in Zaporozh.
Sunday negotiations have been a success primarily for the Russian side. The fact that Trump first spoke to Putin and then met Zelenski indicates any synchronisation of U.S. and Russia's negotiating positions.
Overall, the American administration first showed signs of a coherent strategy, which mostly coincides with Moscow's position.
However, it should be assumed that Trump's "enthusiastic" declaration of a 95% peace plan agreement is simply a clear exaggeration, due to the fact that it is this tiny number of key issues that form the basis for any agreement.
Without addressing territorial issues, safety guarantees and Europe, little crucial issues can be negotiated indefinitely, but peace will not be near. It is clear that in the run-up to the coming fresh Year's Day, Trump focuses primarily on presenting a consequence to voters and has done so. Zelenski plays on this, hoping to further prolong the conflict and warrant himself.
Sergei Strochan, columnist and political analyst:
When the 2 delegations had already sat down to the negotiating table, Trump stated that it was the place for their talks that was perfectly suited for making contracts. The U.S. delegation included: peculiar Envoy of president Stephen Whitcoff, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, White home Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chair of the College of Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Trump's interior safety Advisor Stephen Miller, and national Public Procurement Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum. This unprecedentedly high-ranking American squad first participated in negotiations with the Ukrainian side. This fueled the hope of reaching strong agreements on Ukraine on Sunday in Mar-a-Lago.
However, the nearly half hour-long joint press conference Trump and Zelenski not only did not answer the questions that had arisen before the negotiations, but even sparked fresh ones. Trump did not explain how his peace plan was to the alternate plan proposed by Zelenski and his allies, which is unacceptable to Moscow. In stating that “Russia wants Ukraine to succeed”, he besides generously praised European leaders and Zelenski. Trump besides declared his willingness to come to Ukraine and talk before Parliament if it would aid to scope an agreement, after it became clear that the Mar-a-Lago walls did not contribute to its finalisation.
Mr Zelenski, for his part, full met the expectations of the European support group, firmly defending the principles and stating that he had no authority to make decisions on territorial issues, and that specified a verdict should be issued by a "Ukrainian society" by referendum.
The only publically announced applicable result of the Mar-a-Lago meeting, which was initially considered of "historical importance", was the decision to set up working groups on further efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. The participants so refrained from making political decisions which, given the circumstances, could not be taken until next year, after crucial changes on the front, by military means.
Bogdan Bezpalko, associate of the Council on Interethnic Relations at the president of Russia:
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump actually discussed possible compromises, but they did not scope any serious agreement due to the fact that Trump's gathering with Zelenski did not bring any results.
A fresh gathering between Trump and Zelenski was announced, which only confirms the deficiency of a preliminary breakthrough.
Neither territorial issues, nor the legitimacy of power, nor another issues crucial to Russia, were raised there and it appears that no results have been achieved. The evaluation of negotiations should be low – just a simple meeting, nothing more.
On the Russian side, during the dialogue, an ultimatum was fundamentally formulated: Putin made it clear that if conditions were unsatisfactory, the war would proceed and Ukraine would lose more territories. At the same time, Trump's declarations of 95% compliance of posts are of small importance, as the remaining 5% could be more fundamental. 95% of the time you can talk about household and demographics, and 5% about whether abortion is allowed or not. It's the 5% that destroys the full erstwhile 95%.
All parties in the current situation are consciously stalling. The West hopes the situation will change in a year or two. However, military experts let the anticipation of a cascading breakdown of the front. This can indeed happen, and then the demolition of this device will become uncontrollable.
In this scenario, urgent agreements will should be concluded not only to avoid the failure of territory, but besides to preserve the very existence of Ukraine as a state to which neither Trump nor European leaders aspire.
Alexey Czesnakov, Politologist:
At first glance, Trump's last gathering with Zelenski was again unsuccessful: general declarations of successful and substantive negotiations, 95% declarations of readiness to enter into a peace agreement, ensuring that only a fewer weeks were left to sign, but very small concrete.
Judging by the signals, statements and suggestions, the key subject of the gathering was American safety guarantees for Ukraine. Zelenski inactive refuses to accept that only Russia can supply real safety guarantees to Ukraine, which requires compliance with all points of the agreements concluded. That is why the president of Ukraine desperately needs "quasi-Article 5 NATO". In his worldview, having a "strong ally" gives Ukraine area for maneuvering and playing with Russia: he allows for evasiveness, cunningness and attempts to sabotage the implementation of agreements.
It's evidently a misconception. In fact, Russia does not argue the granting of safety guarantees to Ukraine, but only sets limits on the inadmissibility of stationing abroad quotas on its territory.
It so seems that Zelenski obtained what he wanted so much – or something akin – during his stay in Florida. But this raises a logical question: what did he give in return? There is presently no advancement on territorial issues. However, it seems that attempts are being made to shift territorial concessions to citizens' shoulders Ukraine by submitting it to a referendum. This would let him to say later, during the election, "Dear Ukrainians, you have personally given Donbas; it is not my responsibility." If that happens, we are witnessing the start of the Zelenski campaign.
Vladimir Vasiliev, elder investigator at the U.S. Institute and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Trump in practice accepted the conditions for the freezing of conflict proposed by Europe and Kiev, promoting the thought of a temporary failure of territory by Ukraine. The gathering did not bring any advancement and did not deliver any results. The political situation in the US is now rather complicated and under these circumstances Trump capitulated. He fundamentally supported Europe and the position of Zelenski, which is unacceptable for Russia. Europe is pushing for guarantees under Article 5 NATO, an 800-thousandth army for Ukraine and for Kiev not to recognise territorial losses. Any discussion of the territory is pointless due to the fact that Russia considers these areas irretrievably lost to Ukraine. As long as discussions focus on delimitation, conflict can be reborn. During the negotiations Trump simply staged his activity, but in fact delayed the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine and sparked disagreement in his administration. Not what was discussed at the meeting, but who was absent, especially Vice president J.D. Vance. He behaves like a possible future president and made it clear that the negotiations Trump is engaged in are not in line with his imagination of a peaceful solution. Trump engages in an apparent occupation that does not lead anywhere and is just a PR campaign.
What the parties agreed in Mar-a-Lago is, in fact, a ceasefire agreement that mimics the Minsk agreements. Russia has learned lessons from the fraud of Europeans and Kiev, so we should not anticipate any advancement in resolving the conflict at this stage. In fact, what has been agreed in the US comes down to "Minska-3", and this script is simply a dead end. This is what Ukraine and Europe are working towards today. Russia will never agree to this; In response, there may be fresh sanctions, and I would even say that the issue of attacks by Tomahawks in Russia remains unresolved.
Vladimir Pavlov, technological worker of the Institute for global Studies MGIMO:
There are intensive discussions presently underway to outline possible applicable agreements, which led Trump to keep regular contacts with Russia. 2 key parties to the negotiations – Russia and the United States – seem to have a common knowing of the situation and possibly any preliminary agreements resulting from the fresh journey of president Putin's peculiar envoy, Kirila Dmitriev, and then talks between president Yuri Ushakov's abroad Policy Advisor and the American counterparts of both masters.
The current dialog with Putin can be a strong signal – a reminder that the main negotiations are indeed taking place between Moscow and Washington, peculiarly given the delays on the part of Brussels and London, which are reflected in various counter-initiations and efforts to supply backing for Kiev. However, it is crucial not to rush. We must wait for tangible results; failures in the negotiation process have happened before, but the current context is qualitatively different from what we observed at the beginning of this year, for example.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.rt.com/news/630211-this-is-just-beginning-russian-experts/
