International coalition's attempts to conclude Ukraine conflict appear advantageous to Russia, yet contrasting signs surface
In the opulent halls of Kremlin, St. Peter's Basilica, and the Oval Office, discussions around ending the Ukraine conflict have taken place. Initial signs suggest a potential deal favoring Russia, with President Trump harshly criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, echoing Russian viewpoints, and implying Kyiv would have to concede territory and forgo NATO membership. The optics, at least, have been beneficial for the Kremlin.
However, no solid proposals have been agreed upon, and Trump's messages have been inconsistent, raising questions about a deal materializing anytime soon. A recent agreement granted American access to Ukraine's mineral resources, potentially enabling continued military aid under ongoing Russian attacks. Zelenskyy hailed this as the first fruit of his meeting with Trump.
One benefit for Russia is the resumption of conversations with Washington after years of strained relations, not only about the war but also various other global issues. Russian officials and media have emphasized that Ukraine is but one item on a broad agenda shared by the two superpowers. Trump and Putin have discussed not just Ukraine but the Middle East, stopping the spread of strategic weapons, and even arranging hockey matches between the nations.
Russian state TV declared that a meeting between Putin and Trump envoy Steve-Witkoff marked the beginning of a new global structure being built by Moscow and Washington together. Petrov, a senior research fellow with the New Eurasian Strategies Centre think tank, noted that this shows Putin already gained part of what he sought: the illusion of Russia as an equal world power.
Trump has stated that Crimea, illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, would remain with Russia, and outline propositions proposed to Kyiv reportedly included allowing Russia control over occupied Ukrainian territories. Trump and Zelenskyy had a contentious meeting in February, with Trump criticizing Zelenskyy for rejecting the idea of ceding land and hinting that Ukraine would never join NATO.
These statements reflect long-held Russian positions, suggesting Trump's administration's stance mirrors Kremlin's. Greene of King's College London remarks that so far, everything seems a victory for Russia. Yet, all the talk has been mere rhetoric, with peace terms still unclear.
Both Russia and Ukraine have demands that would be hard to reconcile in any peace settlement. Ukraine refuses to cede any land and desires robust security guarantees against future attacks, possibly involving peacekeepers from various European nations. Russia demands control over seized territories, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and Kyiv to "demilitarize," or significantly downsize its military force. This could pose an issue because a strong army is crucial for Ukraine's defense.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov added to the complexity by stating that international recognition of regions annexed from Ukraine by Russia was "imperative" for a peace deal. Achieving this, however, remains uncertain, given that many countries have denounced the annexations as violating international law. Some analysts believe Putin wants to prolong the war and keep making gains on the battlefield.
Greene noted that the success of the U.S. withdrawal from the peace effort depends on the role Europe can play. If Trump abandons the peace process and continues his attempts at normalizing relations with Russia, lifting sanctions, this would be a considerable victory for Putin. However, it's not guaranteed, as there are numerous congressional sanctions tied to the Ukraine conflict.
The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor, Sergey Radchenko, believes getting both sides to accept a deal will be difficult, and a lot hinges on the willingness of Europe to step up and fill any gaps in U.S. aid. In the end, the outcome on the battlefield if the U.S. walks away from the negotiations remains uncertain.
- The discussions in the Kremlin, St. Peter's Basilica, and the Oval Office, primarily focused on ending the Ukraine conflict, have evoked a national law perspective, as initial signs point towards a potential deal favoring Russia.
- Despite the implicit agreements, no solid law proposals have been reached, raising questions about the deal materializing in the world's political landscape due to inconsistent messages.
- A recent agreement granted American access to Ukraine's mineral resources, which may potentially lead to continued military aid and peace in the face of ongoing Russian attacks, as per President Zelenskyy's statement.
- Russian officials and media assert that Ukraine is but one item amongst various global issues on the shared agenda between Moscow and Washington, with discussions extending to the Middle East, strategic weapons, and even sports events.
- Russian state TV applauded a meeting between Putin and Trump envoy Steve-Witkoff as the initiation of a new global structure, saying it showcases Putin gaining part of what he sought: the illusion of Russia as an equal world power.
- Trump's administration's proposed peace conditions echo long-held Russian viewpoints, hinting at potential compromises that may not sit well with the general news landscape, as they would require Ukraine to cede territory, forgo NATO membership, and downsize its military force.
- Analysts like Greene of King's College London suggest that Putin may want to continue the war to make further gains and prolong the conflict, complicating the materialization of a ceasefire and peace settlement.
