If something has emerged from the endless summits first in Alaska between the White House with the Trump – and Trump – Zelenski -Europeans ‘meetings and finally from the Europeans’ conference, it is a picture of a diplomatic fever for Ukraine.
The results of, of course, of at least the mobilization of thorns that have allowed the war to continue for almost four years, are essentially meager and uncertainty remains.
In all the compositions, there were Ukraine territorial, security guarantees and truce, and at the US initiative in the frame, the series of meetings () will be followed () with the aim of signing peace agreement.
These, however, were the subject of a confrontation (not obviously the truce that is relatively a new issue) between the two camps and before the invasion of 2022, given the occupation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, the moves for Donbas’ independence, but even in the day. NATO, for the European course of Ukraine etc.
So what is the new one after the meetings of the previous days in a truce, territorial and security guarantees?
Peace agreement without a truce
Donald Trump, after meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska, clarified both against Europeans and the Ukrainians that a truce is not necessary to negotiate a peace deal.
Moscow’s fixed position, accepted but with asterisks
This is a firm position of Moscow (in recent years), as this logic allows it on the one hand to continue to push the field with advance, it does not leave time in Ukraine for rebuilding forces and re -equipment, while at the negotiation table whenever it does it provides it with an extra tool.
Although this was known and was a red line for both Ukraine and Europe, suddenly references to a truce disappeared from the foreground of settlement discussions.
Both Zelenski and Europeans appeared positive to discuss a peace deal without any truce. This does not mean that they have no second thoughts on the subject. Placements in favor of a truce by both Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Mertz in the open discussion at the White House shows that the issue has not been completely forgotten.
With the truce outside, the other two issues that concern and concerned, and in advance of the dialogue, are security and territorial guarantees.
The territorial and guarantee function
The difference with the past is that after these meetings it becomes clear that these two things are in relation to each other. The assessment and scenario that is being promoted is now, after the meeting, that Russia and Ukraine will agree on strong security guarantees as compensation for territorial concessions.
It is precisely this equation that the two sides will be resolved next time according to the American side, but also all those involved (with Moscow appearing clearly more hesitant).
The positions of both sides for them have been known for a long time, but it remains to be seen what the formula will be and whether it will be found.
The guarantees
From Monday night Europeans and Americans are preparing the conditions for security guarantees under the logic of NATO Article 5, the logic of collective security.
According to what has been discussed and traded, the proposal will include the development of military forces (but not US soldiers), something in which Moscow has made its opposition clear, both now (stating in all tones that it will not accept NATO forces in Ukraine).
Donald Trump argues after Alaska that Putin has accepted security guarantees, but allows no debate on NATO’s introduction to the country. Late last night and under pressure from Russia’s statements that were actually preparing the ground for a collapse of any talks before they even started because of Washington’s leaks that the issue would be discussed with Moscow.
The soil
At the same time, however, the American side has appeared to push Ukraine to accept territories in the past few days.
The main scenario that seems to be promoting and Washington is that there will be some de facto recognition of the possession of some territories by Russia (Washington here seems to accept Moscow’s position to take territories and beyond the contact line of the four Luhansk provinces, Donetski Legal dimension even though Moscow is pushing for De Jure.
Although Trump brought the issue to the table on Monday night at a meeting with Europeans and Zelenski, there was no public position so that he would be discussed at a possible meeting between Zelenski and Putin (perhaps Trump’s presence). This is essentially equivalent to a tacit assumption by Trump that the territorial is essentially something that Ukraine may not have to participate in his discussion (a standing position of Europeans and Kiev).
So what changed?
Based on the above, the only thing that has changed is the mood of Donald Trump and the US government for more active diplomacy.
Both Moscow on the one hand and Ukraine and Europeans on the other are virtually unmoved on the critical issues of the conflict and are already trying to use the space created to impose their positions.
It is indicative that after the Alaska meeting there was marginally panic in the international media on the approach of Russia and the US and the “sale” of Ukraine, and after Monday’s Summit the disposition was that the transatlantic alliance remains strong and Russia was struck.
This … bipolar reading of the situation becomes even worse if one takes into account that in addition to the Ukrainian, issues of Russian -American relations were discussed, and only yesterday he reinstated the tactics of threats against Moscow if he did not make a serious effort to do so.
The game with the next meetings
Trump’s latest warning is not about Russia’s commitment to the crisis resolution process so far, but mainly on what is ready to do from now on.
Trump believes that a Putin and Zelenski meeting is necessary to make progress.
The Russian side, however, without denying that there was such a commitment on its part in Alaska, but also to Trump’s phone call to Putin during the US-Ukraine-European meeting, appears to be disagreeing with this assessment.
Russia appears to believe that an upgrade of the level of negotiating groups between Moscow and Kiev is enough to start. At the same time, however, Putin allegedly made a proposal in this direction, that is, to meet with Zelenski, which was certainly not accepted, to meet the meeting in Moscow.
Russia’s above stance, along with objections to strong security guarantees for Ukraine with European powers, but also acts as a basis for the European side to boost Trump’s doubt as to whether Russia wants to have a Ukrainian settlement.
Developments in this matter are sure to be interesting.
