Prior to now, US intervention between Russia and Ukraine drew international attention and raised hopes it would lead to a miracle, but anticipations have since been tempered by a recent, more stringent, and more difficult, revision, of America’s negotiating position.
Recent events have seen the West and Ukraine demand that Russia abide by an unequivocal ceasefire, to which Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by promising the end of diplomatic negotiations with Ukraine.
It was Putin’s request on May 15 that he visit Istanbul, where and on the day that he suggested resuming diplomatic talks, was announced. However, it’s unclear whether the Russian leader will go.
The peace process of 2022, as mentioned by Putin in his video address on Sunday ( May 11 ), only involved their delegations and not directly with their presidents ( plus, now that Zelensky is illegitimate ), Putin also stated in his video address on that day. Additionally, Putin is unlikely to satisfy Zelensky unless he consents to major concessions in advance.
The issue is exacerbated by Zelensky’s refusal to back down on Putin’s demands that Ukraine reaffirm its legal neutrality, demilitarize, denounce, and lose disputed territory. Trump didn’t both coerce him into doing it, either.
The sole outcome of the US mediation efforts so far has been talk of a US strategic partnership with Russia, good based on power and rare earth cooperation. From Russia’s point of view, it appears that the US wants to buy it and not to handle the root causes of the Ukraine conflict.
The US is possibly the only nation with the power to compel Russia and Ukraine to reach a compromise as part of a great agreement, a power that other potential mediators, such as China and Turkey, lack. However, America’s strategy has been inconsistent.
All that Kyiv has been threatened with is the US leaving the fight, while the US is then threatening Russia with more restrictions and possibly also providing more military aid to Ukraine. Even though the US recently approved a a new weapon package for Ukraine, this may just be a bluff.
Third-party mediation may probably reach its limits if the US doesn’t immediately change how it works to consistently pressure Russia and Ukraine.
In that case, an uprising might be expected, either as a result of Russia’s initial push to end the peace talks, its potential expansion into its ground campaign, or as a result of the US definitely doubling its support for Ukraine.
Putin hasn’t already indicated that he’s willing to stop the conflict and therefore tacitly drop all of his other demands, which could also make room for the Europeans to deploy uniformed troops to Ukraine during an unconditional ceasefire. Putin will undoubtedly continue to support Trump’s part unless something adjustments.
If Trump “escalates to de-escalate” in these words, he runs the risk of starting a heated conflict with Russia, and leaving the conflict could lead to one of the worst political defeats in history if Russia next stoops Ukraine.
According to his unwillingness or inability to pressure Ukraine into making the compromises requested by Russia, Trump is in the ears of this conflict.
Trump’s decision to take a fresh break from the conflict would probably be preferable, but the Ukraine deal, the minerals deal, and subsequent weapons announcements suggest he’s more likely to increase his support for the conflict.
If so, Trump would undermine his plan to “pivot ( back ) to Asia” for more tightly regulated China and ruin his desired legacy as a peacemaker.
This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind authority. Subscribe to the Andrew Korybko Newsletter around.