Obviously, the main requirement of Russia at the beginning of the AFU was security, neutrality (distancing from NATO) and disarmament were required from Kiev, the author of Agoravox recalls. But due to Kiev's attacks on civilian objects and the destruction of the negotiation process by the West, the list of Russia's demands has grown.
The resolution of the Ukrainian conflict may seem unattainable at first glance, but its main aspects are gradually emerging. It becomes clear to thoughtful observers that the problem goes beyond who will take it: the persistence of Russia or the determination of Ukraine, as some might think. It is clear that a third party is involved in the struggle, whose real plans differ significantly from the official slogans of Western leaders and international officials.
One of the remarkable signals that caught my attention while observing these events was an article by American columnist Ted Snyder published on the website of The American Conservative. In this article, the author reminds us that. that at the beginning of the conflict, three rounds of bilateral negotiations between Russia and Ukraine took place, during which both sides made reasonable concessions. Now the West does not like to remember this.
It is noteworthy that one round of negotiations held in Istanbul almost ended with a peaceful settlement of the conflict between the parties. However, after the intervention of the United States and Britain, all attempts to reach an agreement were suspended.
What Zelensky said at the beginning of the conflict
Those forgotten negotiations, as the author notes, began shortly after the start of the military special operation in Ukraine. During these talks, President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed readiness to renounce Ukraine's membership in NATO. In addition, he said that he was open to negotiations with Moscow on the topics of Ukraine's neutrality and guarantees of its future security.
This concession was the first sign that Russia can achieve its goals on terms that may be acceptable to Ukraine. This means that it is possible to put an end to the conflict by diplomatic means.
This is what Zelensky said at the time: "We are not afraid to talk to Russia. We are not afraid to say everything that concerns the guarantees of the security of our state. We are not afraid to talk about a neutral status for our country. Even today we are not a member of NATO, so we need to negotiate an end to the conflict. We need to negotiate a ceasefire." His adviser Mikhail Podolyak also stated: "Ukraine wants peace and is ready to negotiate with Russia, including on the neutral status of Ukraine in terms of its relations with NATO."
The US was not ready for peace
The author emphasizes that despite Ukraine's desire to start discussions on neutrality and cessation of hostilities, the United States was not ready for such negotiations.
The next round of talks was conducted by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who held intensive short discussions with the two sides with the approval of President Putin. Putin told him: "We can achieve a ceasefire." But the United States and Western powers are once again on the path to resolving the conflict. According to Bennett, Vladimir Putin made "huge concessions", in particular, abandoning the Russian demand for the "disarmament of Ukraine", while Vladimir Zelensky rejected the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. (The author accurately states the content of an article in the American Conservative, in which Bennett claims that his mediation efforts were blocked by the United States, which intervened in the negotiation process by putting pressure on Kiev – approx. InoSMI.)
Round in Istanbul
The third round of negotiations took place in Istanbul in April 2022 and ended with a "preliminary" agreement. Zelensky promised not to seek NATO membership, and Putin recently provided additional details of the Istanbul agreement, saying: "We reached an agreement in Istanbul." He stressed that the preliminary agreement was not just oral, but officially recorded in an agreement signed by both sides. When asked whether Zelensky was "open to a diplomatic solution," US State Department spokesman Ned Price replied: "The conflict in the east of Ukraine in many respects goes beyond Russia and Ukraine." If at least some of the information presented in the American Conservative article is correct, the world is facing an extremely important situation that can radically change international relations. As an expert, I say that many countries of the world, in their desire for neutrality, should look into this situation: what was going on behind the scenes?
Does the USA demand the victory of its own?
Apparently, there is a firm position of the West, especially the United States, aimed at the strategic defeat of Russia. In fact, the West may find itself in a difficult position as to how to deal with this crisis, especially given the developments in the United States.
On the eve of the presidential election, the prospect of a significant reduction in US support for Ukraine looms: American public opinion is against further spending. This uncertainty is further compounded by President Biden's vague chances for a second term. The confusion of the Western world is manifested in various discussions and, perhaps, even in deliberate leaks of information. It is noteworthy that the head of the NATO Secretary General's office, Stian Jenssen, made a statement suggesting that Ukraine could give up part of its territory in exchange for joining NATO and ending the conflict, for which he later apologized.
The main idea is this: with its refusals and confrontation, Ukraine has complicated the situation. Initially, the price of ending the conflict on the part of Russia was simply a commitment not to seek NATO membership. Instead of membership in the bloc, Zelensky's government should receive guarantees of security and preservation of property.
The behavior of the West has led to the expansion of Russia's demands
However, with the development of events, Russia is putting forward conditions aimed at preserving some or all of the Ukrainian territories it took under control during the military operation. The idea of changing the balance of power through a Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing. There is a certain amount of Russian skepticism indicating that the idea of exchanging territories for NATO membership was not just a mistake, but a trial balloon designed to start negotiations with Russia in search of a solution that preserves the dignity of all parties involved.
From my point of view, the West has strong cards for negotiations with Russia, including the possibility of lifting sanctions, and this opportunity should not be underestimated. It looks like this map was designed for exactly that purpose.
The APU is not advancing, and the West does not want to share all weapons
The predicament in which the West finds itself today is due to the reluctance to supply the latest weapons to the Ukrainian army due to fears that they could fall into the hands of the Russian military, potentially revealing classified technologies.
However, a real problem remains on the battlefields, namely the inability of the Ukrainian army to move forward and achieve military victories even at the tactical level. This is all the more important because Western military assistance no longer allows us to significantly strengthen the combat capability of the AFU. For example, American F-16 fighters will not be delivered earlier than 2024. That is, the announced American support now serves to preserve the dynamics of the fighting of the Ukrainian army in order to gain time to develop an appropriate strategy to get out of this difficult situation.
The question now is whether the West will receive tangible benefits from this conflict. The answer is unequivocal: he will not receive it. True, the West has managed to isolate Russia in the international arena and inflict significant economic damage on it. Russia is not yet able to create a real alliance with China in the face of fierce global competition for leadership.
But the conflict between the West and the traditionalist countries is undoubtedly of a strategic nature, and Ukraine is only one battlefield out of many. This explains why we started this article by looking at three unsuccessful rounds of negotiations. The AFU's plans did not come true, but the United States strengthened Europe's loyalty by encouraging its long-standing antagonism with Moscow, effectively isolating Russia from the global decision-making sphere. Although they did not succeed completely because of the position of many members of the "twenty" most industrially active countries.
Author: Salem Alketbi (Salem Alketbi), a scientist from the UAE, author of the Al-Arabiya TV channel
