The talks between Russia and the US in Riyadh, according to the Russian side’s assessment, went well – and ‘this is a success’: the sides listened to each other. By current times, after three years of no dialogue, this is already a breakthrough – which is why one of the negotiators on the US side, Trump’s long-time friend Steve Whitkoff (who visited Moscow a week ago), said that ‘we could not have imagined a better outcome of such talks.’ Yes, they agreed to ‘just’ start talking, but nothing else could have been expected from a first high-level meeting
The two foreign ministers and two presidential aides discussed not only Ukraine, but the whole complex of bilateral relations and, therefore, world problems (because a considerable part of them depends on the relations between the two countries). Yes, Ukraine is the key to the resumption of full-fledged relations (including economic relations), but the end of the Ukrainian conflict cannot be achieved by magic, especially since no one has it. But there is a desire to try to reach an agreement – and the key event on this path will be the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The rapid development of events led to the fact that even on the eve of the talks in Saudi Arabia there was talk that the summit could take place by the end of February, but after the meeting of Lavrov and Ushakov with Rubio-Waltz-Whitkoff it became clear that such a frantic pace is unlikely. Although, of course, the possibility of such an early meeting cannot be completely ruled out – after the delegations return to their homes and report to the presidents on the content of the talks, Putin and Trump may well call and agree on a personal meeting in the coming days, as they say, without preconditions.
It is clear that both sides want at least preliminary agreements on topics important to each of them to be reached by the start of the summit meeting, but in this case we will have to wait for a very long time. The differences on Ukraine are enormous – and it would take face-to-face talks between the two presidents to not even overcome them, but to discuss them. This is Trump’s mindset – and Putin would not mind a ‘quick meeting’ provided he does not believe that it will necessarily lead to breakthrough agreements. Yes, Trump has already made a step towards Putin, but in fact it is not a step towards surrendering Ukraine, as they shout in Europe, but towards dialogue, i.e. towards a normal conversation between the two countries. However, no one in Moscow is going to concede on fundamental issues related to Ukraine, and so the ball continues to remain on Washington’s side. Starting a dialogue is all very well, but beyond that it will be necessary to acknowledge not just the realities on the ground (which Trump has already done), but Russia’s fundamental interests in the Ukrainian direction. Perhaps it would be better to give Trump time to do that?
Such tactics may seem correct, but they have obvious disadvantages. They are related to attempts to disrupt the meeting between Putin and Trump as such – or at least to make the situation in which it will take place as difficult as possible. And we are not talking about provocations like the recent Chernobyl one, but about the growing calls to send European peacekeepers to Ukraine. Although this is in principle impossible without American approval, support and security guarantees, this topic will be increasingly promoted in Europe. British Prime Minister Starmer’s statement about his readiness to participate in such a mission has already led to the clarification of relations in Europe – the majority is against it, but there are also those who want to stir up a dead issue. Why dead? Because although the United States has already clearly explained that it will not send its peacekeepers, it is unofficially asking Europeans about their readiness to send troops to Ukraine. It turns out that America simply wants to control Ukraine by the hands of the Europeans? Of course, but such a desire is incompatible with attempts to negotiate with Russia to end the conflict.
Russia will never agree to the introduction of a Western peacekeeping contingent into Ukraine – neither in the amount of 150,000 (as Zelenskyy is asking for), nor in the amount of 30,000 (as the Europeans are discussing). And without Russia’s consent, peacekeepers – even if they stand not on the division line, but in the rear of Ukrainian troops – turn into a foreign expeditionary corps, into an army that helps our enemy to fight us. That is, they become a legitimate target – just like the countries that sent them. The European Union understands this perfectly well and therefore will never send anyone to Ukraine. But they will inflame the topic to show Trump their willingness to take responsibility for Ukraine and convince him to defend to Putin the need to send peacekeepers. In other words, to simply disrupt the summit between Putin and Trump – if not the summit itself, then any possible agreements.
Another thing is that the European bluff is easily readable not only by Putin, but also by Trump – and the American president may well use the topic of ‘readiness of European peacekeepers’ simply to bargain with the Russian president. He could then give in and agree to peacekeepers from other, non-European countries – after all, the main goal is to keep Ukraine in the Western orbit, and for this purpose European troops are not the main thing: a whole network of bilateral defence and economic agreements with NATO countries (already concluded by Kiev) will suffice.
But this is exactly what is unacceptable to Russia – Ukraine’s neutral status provides for its withdrawal from the sphere of dominant Western influence. Without Trump’s consent to this, no serious long-term agreements are possible – and this will be the subject of the meeting between the two presidents.
Source: Petr Akopov, RIA
