The first direct conversations between Ukraine and Russia should have announced a new era of diplomacy to resolve the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II. Instead, its context, brevity and limited results gave skeptics more reason to doubt Moscow wants peace.
The three conclusions – an exchange of prisoners, new talks about the meeting of their presidents and the elaboration of a vision of a ceasefire for both parties – seem like progress.
But prisoners’ exchanges occur regularly, Ukraine has already said it wants an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the air, in the sea and on the ground, and had already proposed direct conversations between Volodymyr Zelensky and its Russian homologist Vladimir Putin. Russia rejected these two ideas, but on Friday it said that it would consider them again.
Diplomacy traveled a long distance this week to return essentially to scratch – to the starting point on Saturday. In Kiev, Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland required an unconditional ceasefire for a month and published an image of the leaders of the five countries on the phone with Trump, announcing their support for ceasefire, but also announcing what Paris called “massive sanctions” if Russia rejected the demand.
Six days later, on Friday, they published a photograph of the same five men, gathered again around a phone, this time in the capital Albanian, Tyran, talking to the US President. Emmanuel Macron claimed to be “unacceptable” that Russia will continue to ignore the respite. British Prime Minister Keir Stmerer argued that Putin “has to pay the price for avoiding peace.”
Delegations from Ukraine and Russia gathered this week in Istanbul (Murat Gok/AP)
The symmetry between demands and images was remarkable. Last week, Trump made an impressive “dipo-ginastic”. Putin ignored the demands of respite and suggested direct conversations in Istanbul. Zelensky stressed that he would meet Putin in this same city and Trump offered to be an intermediary. Still, the Russian President rejected everything except a team meeting, causing the US President to get any sense of urgency to add that Putin was never present without him in Istanbul, apparently concluding that “nothing will happen” about Ukraine before meeting the head of Kremlin.
We don’t know how European leaders dealt with Friday’s call, with a macron worried in the center, but certainly had to remember the US president of the promises made. Trump has shown reluctant to press or talk bad about Putin in public. However, now his credibility with his nearest European allies – the “intelligent cookie” Macron and the “hard negotiator” Starmer, who offered him a second state visit – is at risk. It is not known if this will shake you.
In just a week, we made a complete circle through the contradictory emotions that plagued the White House on this thorny foreign policy issue, with which US administration promised too much.
Two constants emerged. Putin cares little about European or American pressure, simply proposing a minimalist peace offer, with maximal demands, and refusing to give in. Trump seems to offer, privately, support for Ukraine and his allies, but is publicly seen to extend the olive branch of a bilateral meeting with the Kremlin head when Moscow is ready.
Intermittently, this White House has made a point of telegraph that its patience with Putin is limited, or is really expiring. Occasionally, even Trump implies that, vaguely referring to secondary sanctions as a circumstantial comment earlier this week. However, this impatience has not yet translated into the firm action that Europe wants to see.
The White House benefits from Kremlin’s skilled “Baby Steps”, insincereos, who approach peace. Russia is enough to allow Trump to pretend to be talking seriously, but does not give any ground, even complicating things with the demand that Ukraine delivered territory that Russia has not conquered. There are enough vague and intractable whispers of diplomacy and more conversations to provide the tempting promise of an agreement without reaching one, or even outlines one. Russia is obviously gaining time and accumulating forces in the eastern front line, as shown in drone images before a likely summer offensive.
However, sometimes moments of clarity arise. This week might have helped elucidate Moscow’s true position, but also the reluctance of the US President to cause Putin pain. Clarity can be uncomfortable, and on Friday, a severe assessment of Trump’s policy came from its former Ambassador in Kiev, Bridget Brink, who fired last month.
In an opinion article, Brink explained why:
“Unfortunately, the policy adopted since the beginning of the Trump administration has been pressuring the victim, Ukraine, instead of pressuring the perpetrator, Russia. (…) Peace at any price is not peace of all, it is appeasement. And history has taught us times without reaching that does not lead to security, protection or prosperity. It leads to more war and suffering.”
It may be too early to determine whether Trump’s “soft gloves” approach means appeasement. But the president of the United States has emptied a week of increasing tension and pressure on Moscow by suggesting that no progress cannot be expected to meet Putin.
And, as with the dodge summit between Trump, Zelensky and Putin, this intoxicating mixture of egos, deference and aversion cannot be expected to produce results. Is the lesson last week that Trump is personally forcing Putin to accept concessions that months of pressure and years of brutal struggle on the battlefield have not succeeded? Even a possible summit between Trump and Putin may not solve the war, but to make the diplomacy watch backwards and, like this week, leave Ukraine to zero.
