The second round of conversations between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events that lead to them offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from finishing.
Paradoxically, Ukraine weekend attacks only reaffirmed the long -standing position of muocow: the fire is not high without a basic agreement on the terms of a future agreement. The military force remains the key negotiation tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no part is willing to fix it. Russia has made this its official policy. The latest actions of Ukraine confirm it in practice.
If we observe the main prolonged military confrontations from the end of the twentieth and early twentieth centuries, excluding interventions against weaker enemies, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations do not follow operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process lasted for years. This is not a reason for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path sacrifices any hope of a lasting result. It should not surprise us that talking about Fira Ceas has now faded in the background.
Despite the vocal objections of kyiv and its western allies, conversations are proceeded in Russia. This means: without ultimatums, without artificial deadlines and a carefully internship approach for dialogue.
Washington also seems comfortable with this rhythm. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, do not advance dramatic. At least for now.
kyiv, idically, would prefer to interrupt this rhythm to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its most improvising political military style. From that perspective, Russia’s decision to process with the Istanbul meeting despite the high profile sabotage attempts of Ukraine was strategically solid. kyiv probably expected the Russians to move away. They did not.
The contrast between the real tone of Istanbul’s negotiations and the surrounding theme of the media frenzy is marked. Each round was preceded by an exaggeration without breath and inflated expectations, only to be followed by out -of -the results. This is an instinct of media in part, partly deliberate. People yearn for movement, even when none exists. The contact between the delegations deflates the thesis illusions, and then the cycle begins again.
So what came from the second meeting? The most notable: the process continues. Neinder’s side moves to stop it. The theatrical position common to Ukrainian politics has been absent, for two reasons.
First, Donald Trump’s invisible presence looms on the table. Both Moscow and kyiv see it as a third vital player. Trump wants conversations. Both parties are happy to give the impression that conversations are happening.
Second, both know that this channel can become indispensable. The circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It is better that the bridge is built.
The call “Root causes of the conflict” Remain intact. Both parties adhere to peripheral issues that can be addressed without triggering political land mines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from being an integral settlement.
Does this limited dialogue encourage understanding among negotiators? Possible. That can help later, when more difficult questions arise. But do you point out a gulf narrowing between Russia and Ukraine? No.
Is it worth the public memoranda issued on each side, despite their contradictions? YEAH. Diplomatically, it is better to bet clear positions than to revolize in strategic ambiguity. It is true that documents collide at almost all points. But the story shows that the changing conditions of the most rigid positions.
Ultimately, Battlefield developments will shape diplomacy.
Military operations are expanding, both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weapons. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There are no signs that the war ends soon.
A response from Russia to Sunday’s bridge and aerodrome attacks is inevitable. It will probably be proportional to the scale of Ukraine attacks. It is important to note that this answer will not only be directed to kyiv. It will be a message for all invaded parties, including the United States and Western Europe. Russia’s response must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences.
But none of this means that negotiations will stop. In fact, conversations can become more valuable precisely because the conflict lasts.
RT
United States and Russia ready to face the future
Fyodor A. Lukyanov, Christian Whiton, Mark Simon
As geopolitical tensions persist, the United States and Russia seem prepared for prolonged confrontation, but could there be a path beyond confrontation? In a recent Episode by Domino Theory, the hosts Mark Simon and Christian Whiton deepen this question with Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of Russia in the Global Affairs magazine.
Further
