Photo: www.nytimes.com
Ending the Russo-Ukrainian blood-bath – diverse initial hopes
Mixed signals, controversy and confusion
By Robert Strybel, Warsaw Correspondent
WARSAW – In mid-February, for the first time in Russia’s three-year-old war on Ukraine there seemed to be general consensus that ending the bloodshed is in everybody’s interest. But there the unanimity ended. Ukraine, Poland and most of Kyiv’s NATO partners have backed Ukraine’s ideal goal of restoring a sovereign Ukraine within its pre-2014 borders and moving towards NATO and EU membership. The Kremlin insists on keeping all the Ukrainian territory it has occupied and rules out NATO membership for Kyiv
Trump, who regards himself as a “pragmatic realist,” feels the restoration of 2014 borders seems unlikely as does membership in NATO. Neither is he interested in much direct involvement. He prefers to place the peace process on the shoulders of Europeans who should start paying their fair share for NATO’s defense and take responsibility for the security of their own continent. America has other axes to grind: securing its southern border as well as dealing with trade, tariffs and China.
Rather than coming in person, the American president preferred to send a team of senior officials to liaise with America’s European allies. They included the new Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth who told a defense ministers’ conference at Brussels’ NATO headquarters that Poland was a model member of the Transatlantic Alliance who earmarks 5% of GDP for defense and merits emulation by foot-dragging Europeans.
Another envoy General Keith Kellog, Chief of Staff of US Security, stressed that Washington would not allow a peace deal to be forced on Ukraine, reaffirming Kyiv’s right to decide its future. Kellog also personally assured Polish President Duda that the US had no plans to withdraw or downsize its 10,000-strong contingent of American boots-on-the-ground troops on Poland.
A series of summit conferences as well as bilateral and multilateral talks have been taking place amid a swirl of mixed signals, controversial and oft-contradictory statements. They included Trump’s apparent parroting off Kremlin propaganda blaming Kyiv for the bloodshed and denouncing Zelensky as “a dictator without elections.” His term in office expired last April.
As Russia continued to mercilessly pound Ukrainian cities, gradually occupying additional territory, Trump said Zelensky “better move fast (to secure peace with Russia) or he is not going to have a country left.” But maximum demands and even outrageous rhetoric during a prelude to talks are often little more than trial balloons, released to gauge the reaction of the rival side and the international community. They also provide the sides with things to bargain away at the negotiating table. Even the basic ground rules for peace talks have yet to be agreed, and that itself may require considerable time and fierce debate to achieve.
