Vitaly Portnikov / Vilni Media
The Munich Conference, during which world leaders traditionally exchanged views on the future – and dedicated a great deal of time to Russia’s war against Ukraine – took place just days before the start of another round of negotiations between Ukrainian, Russian, and American delegations.
Many consider the mere fact of conducting such negotiations as progress and credit Donald Trump for it. However, negotiations promise results only if they are based on the parties’ desire to achieve peace – while Putin seems to be merely stalling. Even during discussions in Munich, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had to admit that Washington does not know if Putin truly desires peace.
We might be fooling ourselves by trying to find something positive in Putin’s “signals.” For example, when negotiations began, the head of the Russian delegation unexpectedly became Admiral Igor Kostyukov, head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. The fact that for the first time since 2022 the Russian delegation was led not by “ideologue” Vladimir Medinsky, who is considered one of the apologists for the concept of capturing former Soviet republics, was seen as proof of concreteness. If the military discusses details of troop withdrawal, ceasefire control, etc., it could mean Putin has serious intentions. Although from the start, I could not understand the significance of all these details when the most crucial thing is missing – political will to end aggression or at least to cease fire, fully or even partially.
Now Putin has returned Medinsky to head the Russian delegation again. And the same people who tried to find a positive signal in the appearance of Admiral Kostyukov now claim that Medinsky is a good sign. His presence supposedly means that the military has settled everything, and now it’s time to discuss political decisions, as if Medinsky hasn’t failed to do so several times already.
I would not look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it isn’t there and never was. Yes, Putin is participating in a “peace show” for Trump, but he never intended to end this war through negotiations. What the Russian leader truly wants was voiced by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, who suggested implementing “external administration” in Ukraine to conduct elections and select a leadership with whom Russia could negotiate peace!
We clearly understand that beneath these words lies a barely concealed idea of dismantling Ukrainian statehood by turning Ukraine into a “UN protectorate” with the possibility of Russian propaganda pressure and political support for pro-Russian forces. Russian language, Russian church, and pro-Russian band – this is Russia’s recipe for the final destruction of Ukraine.
It’s quite interesting that they attempt to achieve all this “diplomatically” – if such an approach can even be called diplomacy. Russian troops have been unable to gain control over the entire Donetsk region for four years, and Putin uses negotiations to persuade Washington to make Kyiv withdraw its forces from the unoccupied part of Donetsk. And now there’s a new idea – to strip Ukraine of its sovereignty under the guise of “elections.”
So, should we not conduct negotiations at all? Of course, there is no point in negotiations that only allow the U.S. president to claim that the process is ongoing and peace is near. In reality, such negotiations don’t bring peace closer; they only delay it because they allow the administration to refrain from exerting more pressure on Russia out of fear of “blocking” the simulated “peace process.” And it is precisely this – as a process that delays achieving peace – that they should be viewed.
