The meeting between the leaders of America and Russia ended without any breakthrough, with the territorial issue remaining unresolved. Can Ukraine obtain security assurances? While the US flexed its military muscles with B2 bombers to intimidate Iran, the Russian military faced setbacks in Ukraine. The Washington meeting focused on two key issues: how to balance differences between Europe and the US, and how to establish a security agreement for Ukraine.
Last Friday, Putin and Trump met in Alaska. Ahead of the meeting, the US displayed its military might by deploying B2 bombers and F35 fighter jets in the air, along with F22 fighter jets on the ground, sending a warning to Russia that the US possesses the world’s most powerful military. Today, American B2 bombers flew over Iran, striking its nuclear facilities without notice, while Russian strategic bombers faced destruction by Ukrainian drones in Operation Spider Web in Ukraine.
The talks between the two sides lasted for about three hours, with the planned lunch canceled. A joint press conference was held, but both Putin and Trump mostly spoke diplomatic rhetoric, emphasizing the historical friendship between Russia and America and the events of World War II, with no substantial agreements reached. Trump indicated that no agreement was made until an agreement is made, implying no concrete ceasefire or peace deal was achieved. He also mentioned progress made in some areas but underscored important points where no consensus was reached.
The major sticking point in negotiations was the territorial issue. According to Western media reports, Russia showed no willingness to compromise on territorial matters, demanding complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the entire Donetsk region as a ceasefire condition. Russia’s strategy involves focusing on capturing crucial areas like Lugansk and Donetsk, where Ukraine still holds 30% of the Donetsk territory, including key cities like Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. The war between the two sides in Donetsk has been ongoing since 2014, with Ukraine fortifying its defenses, making it challenging for Russia to achieve its goals easily.
For Russia, capturing Donetsk involves prolonged conflict and significant casualties. Putin aims to pressure Ukraine into concessions through negotiations. In neighboring Lugansk, Ukraine controls approximately 5% of the surrounding territory near Kupyansk. Russia’s plan involves exchanging sporadic lands in Kharkiv Oblast and Sumy Oblast with Ukraine to secure control over Kupyansk fully. This strategy would allow Putin to control the entire Donbass region, as well as approximately 60% of Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts.
From the perspective of the US, there was a certain level of disappointment in the progress of the talks. This led to the abrupt end of the meeting after three hours, with the planned shared lunch between the leaders also canceled. The US believed that further negotiations were unlikely to yield significant progress, whether lasting for three or six hours.
The most significant breakthrough in the negotiations was Russia agreeing to Western countries providing some form of security assurance for Ukraine. This agreement may resemble Article V of NATO, with mutual defense obligations if Ukraine is attacked, forcing all treaty countries to engage in the conflict.
Currently, the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO appears slim due to strong Russian opposition and the current US government’s stance. The possibility of EU countries collectively guaranteeing Ukraine’s security is also doubtful, given differing opinions among member states. While some Northern European countries, the UK, and the Baltic states broadly support Ukraine, Southern European nations like Spain and Italy remain indifferent or oppose intervention. This internal disunity makes it challenging for the EU to collectively provide security assurances, necessitating American leadership in the matter.
Therefore, a feasible and acceptable solution could involve the US leading an agreement where EU countries voluntarily participate in Ukraine’s security. This agreement might have varying levels, with more committed nations like the US, UK, and Germany pledging direct military support in case of attack, while other nations like the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain, with lesser willingness to engage militarily, could provide economic aid.
This proposed Ukraine Security Agreement could potentially garner approval from all parties involved.
On Monday, August 18th, Ukrainian President Zelensky flew to the US for talks with President Trump, alongside various EU leaders. The discussions likely encompassed two main points: what kind of security guarantees the US and EU countries could provide for Ukraine and whether Ukraine would accept them. Economically joining the EU and establishing a security treaty could serve as an acceptable solution for all parties involved.
The second focus would be the territorial issue, where Ukraine and EU countries seem unwilling to compromise, presenting the main obstacle to a comprehensive ceasefire agreement.
Overall, it appears that the two sides are gradually aligning their demands for peace negotiations. While Russia’s initial conditions six months ago seemed unrealistic, the current agreements reflect progress made, with the territorial issue in Donetsk being the last and most crucial point of contention. Negotiations in Washington on Monday likely did not resolve this issue, indicating that a peace treaty for Ukraine may require more time, akin to the lengthy negotiations during the Korean War.
Subscribe to the “Explore the Time” YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@MilitaryIntelligence999/featured
Subscribe to the GJW channel:
https://www.ganjingworld.com/channel/1eiqjdnq7go7Rbr3gcLeMtv0n13p0c
Subscribe on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/tansuoshifen/
Donation link:
https://donorbox.org/tssf