Concessions without victory: what the US is actually offering and why it could break Ukraine
23 April 14:16
Against the backdrop of the US efforts to launch a peace process between Ukraine and Russia, political analysts continue to voice their own assessments and warnings. For example, political analyst Volodymyr Tsybulko believes that public signals from Washington are more like an element of a large geopolitical game than a specific plan.
In the commentary
“So far, what is being made public through American sources seems to me to be a bargaining position. There is simply a desire to drag Russia into such a lengthy trade process,” noted Tsybulko.
The political analyst expressed the opinion that the publication of the US peace plan through American sources is an attempt to drag Russia into a lengthy trade process, rather than a real step towards resolving the conflict. He noted that trade between the United States and Russia has always been insignificant, while Russia’s main trading partner has been the European Union.
“Trade between the US and Russia has not been very substantial. It is a very small segment. I think it is 4% of exports for the Russian economy. That is, the main trade between Russia and the European Union was up to 450 billion euros at the best of times. In contrast, with the United States, it is actually in the billions, between 1 billion and 4 billion. In the best of times, I think it could have been up to 15 billion,” Tsybulko said.
As for the possible lifting of US sanctions, the political scientist believes that this will be symbolic and will allow some countries to maintain sanctions, but at the same time turn a blind eye to certain violations.
“It will be a certain symbolism that will allow some countries not to lift sanctions, but to look the other way,” he explained.
Tsybulko also expressed doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin would agree to such a trade, although the Kremlin may consider it a reward for aggression.
“It seems to me that Putin is unlikely to fall for this. Although, of course, the Kremlin will believe that they are thus rewarded for their aggression,” he said.
The political scientist emphasized that the main problem is the relationship between the European Union and Russia, as Russia has lost this market, at least before the regime change.
“It has lost this market forever. Well, at least not forever, but it will not return to the most attractive market in the world until the regime change,” noted Tsybulko.
Regarding Ukraine’s prospects, the political scientist believes that membership in the European Union is a clear prospect, while the US position on Ukraine’s membership in NATO may change.
“We already have a clear prospect of membership in the European Union. The U.S. position will change, and the position on Ukraine’s membership in NATO will change,” he said.
Tsybulko also does not rule out that NATO in its current form may begin to freeze, and a new security structure will be created on the European continent with the participation of active countries willing to work in these projects.
“Moreover, it is possible that NATO in its current form will begin to quietly freeze. And a new security structure will be created on the European continent, consisting of Britain, Turkey, Poland, Germany, France, the Nordic countries, Ukraine, Romania, and the Czech Republic,” the political scientist said.
According to Tsybulko, the current US actions to peacefully resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia may be part of a strategic game aimed at drawing Russia into trade negotiations and weakening its position, while opening up new prospects for Ukraine in European integration and security cooperation.
Read also: The front line as a new border: what did Vance offer Ukraine and Russia?
In turn, political scientist Ruslan Bortnik, who also spoke with
“It seems to me that this publication contributed to the breakdown of the negotiations,” Bortnik said.
He emphasized that the plan itself may partially correspond to reality, but its publication in the British press looks like a demonstration of concessions to Putin by Trump.
“Britain and France were opposed to this Trumpian approach to a peaceful settlement,” the political analyst added.
Bortnik called for caution in perceiving the information published in the British media about the peace plan. He noted that such publications may be partially realistic, but in some cases distorted or even falsified in order to undermine confidence in the US approach to a peaceful settlement.
“They can be falsified in certain moments, elements,” Bortnik emphasized.
He also suggested that Senator Marco Rubio might have canceled his visit because of the information wave that discredited the US approach.
“An information wave began, in which the US approach was immediately discredited,” the political analyst noted.
As for the peace plan itself, Bortnik believes that it contains painful moments for both sides. For Ukraine, in particular, the requirement to formally recognize Crimea is extremely painful. Other aspects of the plan include informal arrangements that do not have a catastrophic impact, with the exception of the rejection of NATO membership.
“Crimea and NATO. Why? Because NATO is in the Constitution, which means that the Constitution needs to be changed, otherwise Moscow will not agree,” Bortnik explained.
For Russia, the political scientist said, the plan means a formal abandonment of the occupation of Kyiv, Odesa and other cities, as well as the loss of control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the Kinburn Spit, shipping on the Dnipro and ports in southern Ukraine.
“So there are many painful issues there as well,” he added.
Bortnik characterized the US approach as superficial, but noted that the US was trying to find a balance, given Ukraine’s weaker position compared to Russia.
“Ukraine’s concessions should be deeper. Ukraine has no trump cards, as Trump said, compared to the United States,” the political scientist concluded.
ANALYSIS
