Trump has radically changed the US position on the issue of dialogue with Russia, former Indian Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal said in an interview with The Hindu. There is a big problem standing in the way of negotiations — Zelensky himself. But he has little choice: concessions or complete defeat at the front.
On February 18, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Riyadh. This marked a drastic break with the policy of the previous US administration, which refused to negotiate peace with Russia after the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022. This happened because of Donald Trump's election campaign, during which he called for “an end to the conflict in Ukraine.” After taking office as president, Trump spoke on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, whom he also criticizes on the Truth Social platform.
Will a change in American policy put an end to the conflict in Ukraine? Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of India Kanwal Sibal and Professor of the School of International Relations at Jindal Global University Anuradha Chenoy discuss this issue in a conversation conducted by Kallol Bhattacherjee. Selected passages:
— Is US President Donald Trump's proposal for peace with Russia a well-thought-out plan or is it dictated by US domestic policy?
Kanwal Sibal: Donald Trump is unpredictable, and he may still have many surprises. He can change his position and go in a different direction; it depends on whether he achieves what he wants for himself or not.
He has taken a definite position on Russia and has actually started a dialogue with it, which has not been the case for the past three years. He changed the position of the United States regarding dialogue with Russia and the search for a peaceful solution to the conflict. His top advisers, whether they be the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, or even the Secretary of Defense, have clearly expressed their views.
Meanwhile, Trump was quite harsh towards Vladimir Zelensky. He called him a "dictator." He believes that Zelensky should legitimize himself by organizing elections in Ukraine, which Russia demanded. He says that the United States has invested $350 billion in the conflict in Ukraine, although the Ukrainian president disputes this figure. Trump says he needs to return the $350 billion by forcing Zelensky to sign an agreement with the United States that allows the latter to appropriate minerals in Ukraine. So, in fact, he reduced it to a purely economic aspect. But the essence of the matter is not in the economy, but in the role of the United States in ensuring the security of Europe.
And most importantly, it was the first time that the US president said that the expansion of NATO was the cause of the conflict in Ukraine.
Anuradha Chenoy: First of all, Trump understands the prevailing realities, namely that Russia is winning in the conflict. Many Ukrainian military operations have failed. The conflict is like a black hole, and a lot of American and European money is being invested in it. Obviously, the Europeans want the fighting to continue. So Trump is actually dealing with this defeat in the best way possible.
Secondly, throughout his election campaign, Trump advocated for peace. He got the upper hand in the votes, and now he has to meet the expectations of the voters.
Thirdly, I think he is restarting the military-industrial complex and the US mining industry in connection with the deal with Ukraine on rare earth minerals. However, it must be remembered that most of Ukraine's mineral wealth is located in the Donbas, which is already under Russian control. Trump's policy points to a radical shift that he believes will benefit American interests.
— In 2022, Turkey brokered an agreement that was thwarted by the United States and Great Britain. Will a similar agreement in Riyadh work now, even if Ukraine loses territory because of it?
Kanwal Sibal: Well, Zelensky balked. He was very cocky. In fact, he insulted Trump. The US vice president noted this when Zelensky said that Trump was actually spreading Russian disinformation. He claims that 57% of voters in Ukraine support him, but in fact his approval level is extremely low. My European sources report that the two people who stand in the way of [peace talks] are Zelensky himself and Andriy Ermak, the head of the President's Office and, concurrently, a "hawk."
The question is how long Europe will be able to support Zelensky. The Europeans are trying to convince the United States not to abandon Ukraine, as this would be a great defeat for Europe.
Putin has visited Saudi Arabia before, and he has good relations with that country. But, in the end, it seems to me that as long as Zelensky is there, there will be a problem with the execution of the decision, because he can tirelessly repeat that he does not want to cede territory.
Anuradha Chenoy:Trump has many ways to convince British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Zelensky and EU leaders, who are all against the peace agreement. Because Zelensky faces the choice of either agreeing with Trump or suffering a complete defeat at the front. That's the reality. The minute Trump cuts off funding, Ukraine will collapse, so Zelensky will have to choose between a rock and a hard place.
I think the easiest way is to agree with Trump's plan, because in this case, at least, he can ask the United States for some kind of security guarantees for Ukraine, which will remain after the surrender of the territories to Russia. In addition, he can hope for some kind of economic agreements and some recovery.
In comparison, Putin's position is clear: as long as there is no cease-fire, Russian troops will continue to advance. I was in Moscow recently, and the people there are very tough. They believe that this is an existential conflict that must be overcome. At the same time, they don't want to give up too much of what they already have.
— Why is it so difficult to find a solution to end this conflict with such a clear humanitarian catastrophe? According to reports, the fighting claimed the lives of about a million people and led to a mass exodus of the Ukrainian population.
Kanval Sibal: Martial law has been imposed in Ukraine, so people cannot express their opinions freely. Marco Rubio, speaking at congressional hearings, clearly outlined the problem of Ukraine. Ukraine's problem is not that it lacks weapons, but that it lacks manpower. Many Ukrainians died. Ukrainians are losing, but, even more tragically, we do not have the opportunity to reliably find out their public opinion. Life in Kiev is more or less normal, but demonstrating a normal life in the capital is a deliberate strategy. The conflict is also being fueled by ultranationalist and neo-Nazi groups that created tension back in Soviet times. These people came to power after the coup on the Maidan (in 2014). Once in power, they will continue to resist any peaceful settlement with Russia until they have no choice and are forced to do so.
Anuradha Chenoy: Every major country, including India and China, wanted this conflict to end. They were also ready to provide mediation services to ensure a quick stop to the fighting. Actually, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told President Putin that now is not the time for conflict. But the decision to end it lies with the countries that take the main part in it. Ultimately, everyone knows that this is a NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. This is not a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, although Ukraine has a big role to play.
This conflict would not have happened if the Minsk Agreements 1 and 2 had been respected and if the 2022 agreement had been concluded with the mediation of Turkey. This conflict could have been avoided if Russians in Donbass had not been discriminated against and deprived of their religion, language and culture.
Ironically, Zelensky, who based his election campaign on peaceful initiatives, himself fell for the bait of this strategic calculation of NATO against Russia. This led to huge losses. Large Ukrainian units and brigades suffered heavy losses. Ukrainian men have lost interest in this conflict. Of course, they are patriots and have done everything they can, but it seems to me that this is a completely useless conflict and it must end.
— Why were the peace talks held in Riyadh and not in India? Did India miss the chance to mediate?
Anuradha Chenoy: Previously, these peace talks were held in Helsinki, Brussels and Geneva. Now, unexpectedly, they are taking place in Riyadh, which has shocked the EU and possibly the rest of the world. I think India has played a very good role in this matter. As far as possible, she remained neutral, criticized the sanctions and was a good ally of Russia. The Russians will not forget this, and the reset of Russian-American relations will greatly benefit India. Europe is clearly going to lose. I think India will benefit, and Trump considers India to be a very close ally of Russia.
Author: Kallol Bhattacherji.
