The Times: Before crucial talks, Ukraine was deprived of two of its strongest arguments
28 March 09:38
The agreements between the United States, Russia and Ukraine on a ceasefire at sea and a halt to attacks on energy infrastructure are not in Ukraine’s interests at all. In fact, they deprive it of any strong arguments before decisive negotiations and practically drive it into a dead end. This is stated in the article by The Times columnist Edward Lucas “Trump’s Poor Deal Puts Europe in a Deadlock”, Komersant ukrainskyi reports.
The main agreements of the latest talks, as we have been informed, concern security guarantees in the Black Sea. However, as the author points out, this is not critically important for Ukraine, as it has already managed to push the Russian fleet out of the waters and guarantee safe grain exports. On the contrary, any concessions that would allow Russia to return its naval forces to the western part of the Black Sea or to impose restrictions on Ukrainian sea routes, in particular through the mechanism of “checks” on military imports and exports, would be in favor of Moscow, not Kyiv, the article emphasizes.
Presumably, Ukraine considered this agreement as a possible lever of influence on Russia in case it violates the terms of the ceasefire. However, as the author notes, such a tactic would make sense only if the United States actively pressured the Kremlin. Instead, the benefits for Kyiv look rather symbolic, while Moscow is granted significant concessions. In particular, we are talking about possible assistance in accessing world markets for agricultural exports, restoring access to ports and payment systems for relevant operations.
Phillips O’Brien, an expert at the University of St. Andrews, points out that these provisions could actually open the way for Russia to return to the international financial system. He emphasizes that under such conditions, any Russian companies will be able to return to normal trade in the West under the guise of agricultural trade.
Another preliminary agreement is to stop attacks on energy infrastructure. However, as Lucas notes, despite the talks, Russia continued to launch massive strikes on Ukrainian civilian targets using drones, without provoking a strong reaction from Washington. At the same time, Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries and warehouses, which are key to the Kremlin’s military machine, are under threat of being banned. This, according to the author, deprives Kyiv of another important tool of pressure.
In other words, the author argues, Trump is starting to rehabilitate Russia, and Ukraine is being deprived of its two strongest cards – superiority in the Black Sea and the ability to launch long-range strikes on Russian infrastructure that works for the army. According to Lucas, this significantly weakens Kyiv’s position before possible future negotiations on a broader ceasefire.
It is also emphasized that the Russian side insists that the conditional ceasefire will come into force only after certain sanctions are lifted. The EU is currently refusing to take such a step and states that it can consider this issue only after the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine. However, as the journalist emphasizes, this position puts both Ukraine and Europe in a difficult position before the White House. According to him, they are actually being forced to choose between signing the agreement or risking being accused of “inciting war” and threatening global food security.
At the same time, the article considers a possible scenario in which Trump, facing European resistance, may reconsider his position. Lucas suggests that Putin may eventually start to get on Trump’s nerves. However, the chances of this happening are estimated to be low. Firstly, because of Trump’s desire to conclude a high-profile peace deal, secondly, because of his administration’s general disdain for European allies, and finally, because of Europe’s strategic dependence on American nuclear, military, and intelligence support. This, according to Lucas, is what makes the latest agreements particularly dangerous for Ukraine and the rest of Europe.
Читайте нас у Telegram: головні новини коротко
Chronicle of US-Russian negotiations
on February 18, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Assistant Prime Minister Yuri Ushakov met in Saudi Arabia with an American delegation, represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Volz, and Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff.
After the talks, the US State Department reported that the delegations agreed to “eliminate irritants” in bilateral relations and continue to work on preparing talks on Russia’s war against Ukraine.
The two sides also agreed to appoint high-level groups for further talks on Ukraine.
Jackie Heinrich, a Fox News correspondent at the White House, reported that the United States and Russia discussed a three-stage peace plan for Ukraine, which consists of the following stages
- A ceasefire.
- Holding elections in Ukraine.
- Conclusion of a peace agreement.
on February 27, negotiations between the Americans and Russians continued in Istanbul. According to the Russian side, they discussed the normalization of diplomatic relations. The Kremlin also allegedly demanded the return of 6 properties that had been seized from Russians in the United States in 2016-2018, and also proposed to resume air travel.
on March 13, Putin met in Moscow with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. The parties have not yet made any statements about the results of this meeting, except for the words of Trump’s national security adviser Mike Volz that there are grounds for cautious optimism.
on March 25, the United States agreed with Ukraine and Russia to ban attacks in the Black Sea.
Trump’s proposals to Putin
According to inaccurate information from former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul(he used the word “allegedly”), Trump offered Putin (McFaul’s wording is retained)
- ukrainian territory;
- ukraine’s non-membership in NATO;
- no American soldiers in Ukraine;
- withdrawal of American soldiers from Europe, including from frontline countries;
- easing of sanctions.
Putin, according to McFaul, has not offered anything yet.
