Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, with the participation of the United States, began on November 10 in Abu Dhabi, are taking place behind closed doors, and have as their main subject the formation of a new security architecture for Europe. Despite their importance, Russian political analyst Aleksei Pilko appears extremely cautious regarding their chances of success, arguing that differences between Moscow and the European allies of Kyiv are so deep that they leave no real room for compromise.
Two different plans for Ukraine
According to Pilko, European countries are seeking the creation of a strong post-war Ukraine, with an army numbering up to one million men and with forces of the so-called "coalition of the willing" located in the rear as a security guarantee. In his estimation, such a model would transform Ukraine into a kind of military outpost of Europe, essentially into a European military mercenary, and into a permanent threat to Russia's western borders. The Russian approach lies at the opposite pole. Moscow continues to insist on a neutrality status for Ukraine, as well as a drastic restriction of its military capabilities.
Moscow's demand regarding NATO
The most controversial point of Russian demands concerns NATO itself. As Pilko argues, Russia is not satisfied merely with preventing the deployment of European troops on Ukrainian territory. It also requests the removal of the entire military infrastructure of NATO from states that joined the Alliance in 1999 and later. According to this logic, only their national armed forces will remain in these countries, without permanent allied installations or deployment of foreign troops. This is essentially a return to a security model completely different from that formed in Europe after the end of the Cold War, which explains why the chances of compromise remain limited.
What Washington seeks
According to the Russian analyst, the United States is trying to find an intermediate solution-formula that would allow the termination of the war, the preservation of Ukrainian statehood, and simultaneously the smallest possible concessions to Russia. At the same time, he estimates that Washington seeks a much broader geopolitical goal: the restoration of economic cooperation with Moscow in a way that could distance Russia from China or at least secure a form of neutrality in the global power competition between Washington and Beijing. Pilko considers this approach utopian. As he argues, neither Moscow nor European capitals truly believe in such a scenario. He adds, in fact, that even if an agreement is reached, there is no guarantee that a future American administration will not cancel whatever has been agreed.
Why he does not see an agreement
Pilko's basic assessment is that the conflict will continue until one of the two sides can no longer achieve its goals. He considers a decisive factor to be Ukraine's endurance in the ongoing war of attrition. As long as Kyiv possesses the means to continue fighting, European countries will, according to him, continue to hope either for economic weakening or an internal political crisis in Russia. If, however, Ukraine loses its ability to function as an effective geopolitical actor, as a geopolitical subject, the Russian analyst estimates that European governments will move quickly toward negotiation and will accept to a large extent Moscow's terms. For this reason, he concludes that the outcome of the conflict will not be decided in the negotiation halls of Abu Dhabi, but at the moment when one of the warring sides will no longer be in a position to continue the war on the same terms.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών