Following Trump’s Feb. 12 conversations, one with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the other with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, the stage was set for substantive talks aimed at ending three years of misery that began with the Kremlin’s unprovoked invasion Feb. 24, 2022.
Peace Talks Begin
The peace talks began on Feb. 18 in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh at the Diriyah Palace. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff represented the United States. They were joined by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the perennial face of the Kremlin’s foreign policy team, and Aide to the President Yuri Ushakov.
A US State Department readout explained that “President Trump wants to stop the killing; the United States wants peace and is using its strength in the world to bring countries together.” The statement continued with the observation that Trump “is the only leader in the world who can get Ukraine and Russia to agree” to a peace pact. Regardless of who is at fault for the aggression, neither of the two belligerents trusts the other. Buildling trust between Washington and Moscow will be a steep hill to climb, so it makes sense to take on this challenge first.
To that end, the talks resulted in four trust-building steps. The US negotiators announced that they had decided to:
- “Establish a consultation mechanism to address irritants to our bilateral relationship with the objective of taking steps necessary to normalize the operation of our respective diplomatic missions.
- “Appoint respective high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible in a way that is enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all sides.
- “Lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and historic economic and investment opportunities which will emerge from a successful end to the conflict in Ukraine.
- “[P]ledge to remain engaged to make sure the process moves forward in a timely and productive manner.”
The State Department was clear in setting appropriate expectations for any rapid, permanent end to the destruction and bloodshed in Ukraine. “One phone call followed by one meeting is not sufficient to establish enduring peace. We must take action, and today, we took an important step forward.”
Soon after the meeting concluded, the US contingent met with journalists from CNN News and the Associated Press. A question posed was about how the Ukrainians and Europeans “feel” shut out of the peace process as it has unfolded. In response, Rubio offered a dose of reality absent from the previous administration’s relationship with the Kyiv government and European leaders: “Well, the comment I would have on that is that for three and a half years while this conflict has raged … no one else has been able to bring something together like what we saw today because Donald Trump is the only leader in the world that can. So, no one is being sidelined here.”
Soon after the meeting concluded, the US contingent met with journalists from CNN News and the Associated Press. A question posed was about how the Ukrainians and Europeans “feel” shut out of the peace process as it has unfolded. In response, Rubio offered a dose of reality absent from the previous administration’s relationship with the Kyiv government and European leaders: “Well, the comment I would have on that is that for three and a half years while this conflict has raged … no one else has been able to bring something together like what we saw today because Donald Trump is the only leader in the world that can. So, no one is being sidelined here.”
Ukraine and Europeans Worried About Being Left Out
To assuage the fears of the Europeans and Ukraine that they are not represented, Waltz offered, “Look, it’s common sense. If you’re going to bring both sides together, you have to talk to both sides.” However, for the first meeting to establish confidence, having diplomats by the score, all pushing their country’s particular agenda, would have been a waste of time. Furthermore, candid and transparent, “Rubio said a negotiation process had not begun in earnest, and if talks advanced, the Ukrainians and other Europeans would be brought in the fold,” Reuters reported.
A key player with the most skin in the game is not convinced. RealClearPolitics quoted Zelensky in a Meet the Press interview about assurances that Ukraine’s position would be protected. He declared, “So, I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine. Never. And our people, never.” His passion is understandable — the Ukrainians have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens to a brutal Russian war machine. Nonetheless, never say never.
When it comes to bringing peace to Ukraine, if not the United States, who? If not now, when? The previous administration and European leaders presided over a protracted conflict with no end in sight. It’s time for something different.
Dave is a retired U.S. Air Force Pilot with over 180 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and has served in executive positions in the private sector aerospace and defense industry. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
Your statement that it was an unprovoked attack by the Kremlin on the Ukraine is worthy of discussion. There were many players that bought about this war and non more so than US involvement in NATO dating back to “not another inch closer”
I have a great deal of confidence that there is good chemistry between Putin and Trump unlike his compromised predecessors that did the world no favours.
Tell the Yanks to bugger off and go and interfere in some South American banana republic's business, dismantle NATO 34 years after its expiry date, and let us Europeans solve the problem of Ukraine. Positive outcome guaranteed.
Of course the US should be leading peace talks. It's okay for them to be supplying weapons but to try and solve the conflict "not okay?" That's plain silly. The US needs to be seen to be the leader of the free world again. If Europe wants to solve the problem why haven't they done so? We also need the US to play a role in the Pacific.
Isn’t that the outcome Trump has been trying to achieve all along Barend .
This war has always been Europe’s problem but you appear to be the first European willing to acknowledge it as such.
NATO has proved to be a bunch of freeloaders almost since inception - talking tough but never prepared to do the heavy lifting, while leaving it to the US.
Trump says “ enough”. His main commitment is now to protecting those countries like us who live in the Indo
/ Pacific region where China is having a field day. Just note the 3 Chinese warships off the Australian Coast like a fox in the hen house eyeing up the next tasty meal.
Yet all this outrage that Trump should be responsible for sorting out the Ukrainian war before leaving is just so much feigned hypocrisy.
We here in the South Pacific should be breathing a sigh of relief that the US is like the cavalry about to come over the hill.
Thank God for that.
No, it's not OK for them to throw more fuel on the fire by supplying weapons. They and their proxy in the guise of NATO are largely responsible for this conflict. Pretending to offer solutions to a problem one has created oneself is what is 'plain silly'.
Many leaders in Western Europe remain locked in a Cold War mentality vis-a-vis Russia. In Eastern Europe it's a different story. Fortunately, more and more right-wingers in Europe are coming round to the realisation that we need to get the Yanks out of our business and get Moscow on side as a counterweight to both US and Chinese bullying. We need to 'Make Europe Great Again!'
You're absolutely right about the Pacific and China, Clive. No disagreement there. But Europe is a very different kettle of fish.
Post a Comment