The results of two rounds of Russian–Ukrainian talks in Istanbul on May 16 and June 2, demonstrated that the initial goals of Kiev and its Western curators to pressure Moscow into an unconditional cease–fire along the line of contact and into the halt of the destruction of military–industrial and energy complexes of Ukraine for a period of 30-60 days, have completely failed. Bearing in mind what the so–called “Western peace proposals“ actually turned out to be in the past, the Russian leadership not only did not stop the offensive, but also managed to impose on Kiev an exchange of “memoranda” prepared by the parties on their vision of approaches to resolving the armed conflict.
And that‘s when it became clear that the Russian memorandum, which contains a detailed plan for turning Ukraine into a neutral, nuclear-weapon-free country with armed forces, limited in size and armament, and protected religious, linguistic and cultural rights of all segments of its population, is absolutely unacceptable to the Ukrainian junta, since the implementation of this plan threatens the very existence of the Ukrainian regime.
Therefore, the “expired” President Zelensky hastened to call the Istanbul meetings “meaningless.“ In essence, it was only possible to agree on “humanitarian“ issues: a parity exchange of prisoners of war (POWs), which are gradually being implemented. An agreement was reached on the establishment of a special communication line for the prompt resolution of issues regarding the urgent swap of wounded and seriously ill POWs outside the framework of general exchanges.
It was quite demonstrational that right on the eve of the start of the second round of negotiations, Ukraine tried to disrupt them by carrying out targeted terrorist attacks on purely civilian targets in Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions (railway and automobile bridges), which resulted in deaths of civilians, including children.
The expectations were that Moscow would predictably withdraw from the negotiation process in response to these attacks, and thus give Kiev a reason to accuse it of disrupting the Istanbul process.
However the Russian side did not succumb to provocations and the second round of negotiations was held as scheduled. Thus, Kiev demonstrates a clear unwillingness to resolve the conflict through traditional peaceful diplomatic steps, preferring to resolve everything on the “battlefield.” That said, Moscow still considers it useful to maintain a direct negotiating platform for discussing not only humanitarian issues, but also other pressing matters.
A further successful offensive by Russian troops in the Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Sumy regions may force Kiev to conduct more serious negotiations, and for this it is important to continue keeping a negotiating platform for the parties to this conflict.
An obvious disappointment for the Kiev leadership came Trump‘s statement in a telephone conversation with the Russian President that he understood that Russia could not leave the Ukrainian terrorist attacks unresponded.
And the response came. The Russian Aerospace Forces have multiplied the number of combined strikes using high-precision weapons, including hypersonic. Strikes are carried out every night, and the Ukrainian air defense system demonstrates its complete inability to protect important strategic facilities on its territory from these attacks.
As for the prospects for resolving the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a well-known American economist and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University (New York), said that, in his opinion, President Trump sincerely wants the conflict to end as soon as possible. But it is quite obvious that neither the Ukrainian, British, French or German governments are interested in this. And it is absolutely clear that at least half of Washington is also in favor of continuing the conflict. All this testifies to the prevailing view in Western politics that it is better to fight Russia “with someone else’s hands” than to resolve this conflict.
According to Prof. Sachs, the protraction of the war is a much greater risk for Ukraine, since it is obvious that it is on the losing end of the war, If the war ended this year, Ukraine would have lost only part of its territories. But at the same time, it would have remained with the vast preponderance of its territory, would have security and it would be neutral and it could economically recover.
If, in fact, the war continues, because essentially Ukraine doesn’t make peace, doesn’t want to make peace, and [US President Donald] Trump basically falls into line with the prevailing view that the West should continue to fight Russia, then, according to Prof, Sachs, Ukraine would lose not only a lot more lives, but also a lot more territory in the end. So it could end up being completely defeated, it could end up losing its Black Sea coast, and the country’s largest industrial centers. All this will put an end to the idea of its joining NATO and the EU.
According to Prof. Sachs, a sharp escalation of the situation in the Middle East, in the midst of the Iranian-Israeli armed conflict, will force Washington to change the vector of its attention from Ukraine to the unfolding events in the Persian Gulf. In upcoming July, arms supplies to Kiev will come to an end pursuant to the old commitments of the former Biden administration. However, most likely, the sharing of satellite intelligence information will continue and Starlink will continue to operate in Ukraine, and possibly American weapons will be sold to NATO allies for subsequent transfer to Ukraine, but in smaller volumes.
That said, at least at the level of rhetoric, the European Union is already taking a leading role in the escalation of the conflict with Russia. Their rhetoric boils down to the following: we must continue the conflict, we must not give up and compromise, we must rearm. But in reality, they are not able to back up these statements with sufficient military assistance and ensure a military victory for Ukraine. They failed to do this when Washington was fully involved in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on the side of Kiev, and now the United States does not intend to consistently support the anti-Russian military line.
Comments