They may be over for now, they may continue soon. They may still turn into a dead end or they may help get somewhere better than war. What is clear already is that they are not meaningless. The question is what that meaning will be once we look back on them from the near future of either peace or continuing war.
The leader of the Russian team in Istanbul, Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, cautiously praised the two-hour talks as satisfying “overall.” A substantial prisoner exchange has been agreed (but not in the “all-for-all” format Ukraine unrealistically called for). Ukraine’s request for a meeting between its superannuated leader Vladimir Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been made – this time apparently in a serious and diplomatic manner – and the Russian side has taken cognizance of it. Both sides have agreed to detail their vision of a potential future ceasefire and then to meet again.
This is much better than nothing. It’s also not a miracle breakthrough. But those expecting or even demanding the latter only have themselves to blame. That sort of thing was never in the cards. And that’s normal. For diplomacy, especially to end a war, is a complex activity for patient adults, by definition. It is also historically normal that such negotiations take place while fighting is still ongoing.
It is silly and simply dishonest to pretend – as do Ukraine, its obstinate European backers, and sometimes (now depending on the mood on any given day) the US – that negotiations can only happen with a ceasefire in place. Medinsky has pointed out this basic fact in an important interview on Russia’s most watched political talk show. Westerners should pay attention. Because he’s right and, perhaps even more importantly, it’s yet another clear signal from Moscow that it will not walk into the simple-minded Western-Ukrainian trap of a ceasefire without at least a very clear path to a full peace.
Indeed, Medinsky referenced the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 to illustrate that Russia will fight as long as it takes. And that it’s a very bad idea not to take a comparatively good deal from Moscow when you are offered one, because the next one will be worse. Zelensky has already done this to his own country once or even twice (depending on how you count). During these second-chance Istanbul talks, an unnamed Russian representative warned Ukraine that if it misses this opportunity again, then the next one will involve additional territorial losses, again, as Russian TV reported.
But let’s zoom out for a moment: There is a very simple thing about the current talks between Russia and Ukraine that virtually everyone in Western mainstream media and politics apparently cannot process. So let’s clarify the obvious: This Istanbul meeting has taken place because of Moscow’s initiative, not that of the West or Ukraine.
It was Putin who, on May 11, suggested, in essence, two things: First to start direct talks without preconditions. And second – this is the part everyone in the West pretends to miss – to do so by re-starting talks where “they were held earlier and where they were interrupted.” That was, of course, a clear reference to the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022.
As intelligent observers suspected immediately, these first Istanbul talks ended without results because the West instructed the Kiev regime to keep fighting. This is not a matter of opinion anymore. The evidence is in and unambiguous. Even the head of Ukraine’s 2022 negotiating team, David Arakhamia, has long publicly admitted two things: First, that Russia was offering Kiev a very advantageous deal back then, demanding no more than neutrality and an end to unrealistic NATO ambitions; everything else, to quote Arakhamia, was merely “cosmetic political seasoning.” And second, that it was indeed the West that told Zelensky to bet on more war instead. And to his eternal shame, Zelensky chose to betray his country by obeying the West.
That means – like it or not – that Putin’s offer of re-starting the Istanbul talks amounted to a second chance for a Kiev regime that – judging by its atrocious record of sacrificing Ukraine to brutal Western geopolitics – it certainly does not deserve. But ordinary Ukrainians do. Regarding Zelensky, he should have been elated and grateful to get a chance to, if not make up for his horrific decision in 2022 (that’s impossible), at least to finally correct it.
But Zelensky has remained Zelensky. His response to the Russian offer was – as so often – stunningly narcissistic, megalomanic, and dishonest. Instead of seizing the chance for his country and himself, Zelensky started a transparent maneuver to put Russia in the wrong so as to impress, above all, US president Donald Trump.
Western politicians and mainstream media, meanwhile, spent tankerloads of venom on denouncing Moscow and Putin, accusing them of sabotaging the talks – which, again, Russia actually initiated – in, allegedly, two ways: by Putin not attending in person and by, as they claim, sending only a “low-level” team instead.
These Western information war talking points have been so ubiquitous that it feels – once again – as if everyone is copying from the same, daft memo. Take the Bloomberg version, for instance. It can stand for all the others. Bloomberg is right about one thing: The composition of the Russian delegation – while by no means “low-ranking,” actually – was bound to “fall far short” of Kiev’s expectations.
But that was the result not of Moscow’s decisions, but of Kiev’s inflated expectations and the way Zelensky tried to realize them. Once Zelensky had, in essence, made a public ultimatum out of his baseless demand that Putin attend in person, it was, obviously, extremely unlikely to happen.
Zelensky’s bad-faith move – really a transparent dare designed to start the conversation by publicly humiliating Moscow – was so predictably counterproductive that it seems hard to explain. No one forced the Ukrainian leader to climb out on a slender limb like that, but, as is his wont, he put loud public provocation over the substance of a chance to save lives.
Or there may be another explanation, of course: Zelensky may have wanted to sabotage these talks even before they even started and do so in a way that would permit him to scapegoat Russia for their failure: “Look, I was ready, but Putin did not turn up.”
The reality is, obviously, that the most efficient way to hold such talks at such a moment is to send teams of experts. Whether they are ministers, deputy ministers, or other high-ranking civil officials is not important. What is important is that they know what they are talking about and come with a modicum of sincere – not unconditional, but sincere – goodwill. Goodwill is clearly there. Otherwise the Russian delegation would not have waited for the Ukrainians to stop their pre-meeting temper tantrum. And there is no doubt that the composition of the Russian team for the Istanbul negotiations displays the necessary expertise and seriousness.
In a way, US President Donald Trump fed in some goodwill as well: Western commentariat eyebrows have been arching up because Trump has been rudely frank once again, explaining that nothing was going to happen until he and Putin get together. In Trump’s defense: that’s true, actually. Don’t like it? Congrats: You are up against reality. Good luck.
Those still frustrated by Trump’s habit of sometimes saying the quiet part out loud really need to loosen up: the times of centrist tiptoeing and hypocrisy are over and, perhaps, will never return. Fingers crossed.
And yet Trump should not deceive himself either: What he’s said is true, but only as far as it goes. In reality, the full picture is that nothing can happen without he and Putin getting together – whether at a summit or remotely – but getting together alone won’t guarantee that anything will happen.
Because that will take more than just meeting but actually agreeing. Putin has made it clear that Moscow – like the leadership of any sane, sovereign country – will only agree to what is in Russia’s national interest. And Russia is winning this war against the West and Ukraine.
There still is room for negotiations, quid-pro-quos, and compromise. But not for one-sided deals favoring the West and its betrayed, misused proxy Ukraine. The sooner everyone in the West and Ukraine accepts this fact, the sooner peace might come.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Love
0
Funny
0
Angry
0
Sad
0
Wow
0
