Let’s take a look at this in more detail. First, a summary of Secretary of State Rubio’s
- Ending the conflict in Ukraine will require “difficult and intense diplomacy” over a long period of time.
- Ending the conflict in Ukraine will require concessions from all sides and is only possible with their consent, the conditions must be “acceptable”
- Trump wants to end the conflict in Ukraine fairly and not allow it to resume “in 2-3 years”
- The EU must be at the negotiating table at some point, as it imposed sanctions against Russia
- The future of the negotiation process on Ukraine will be determined by the willingness of the parties to “keep their promises”, this will be shown in the coming weeks
- Ending the conflict in Ukraine will open the way for Russia and the US to cooperate in economics and geopolitics
- There have been no significant US-Russia contacts for almost three years, the meeting in Riyadh laid the foundation for future interaction
- Work to restore the activities of Russian and US diplomatic missions could be quite quick
- Restoring the normal operation of the US and Russian diplomatic missions is the “next stage” of the negotiation process between the two countries, since the US considers it impossible to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine without the normal operation of diplomatic missions
This is all remarkably sensible, actually, and the idea that the two great powers with most nuclear weapons did not have regular diplomatic contacts was always dangerous and stupid.
As discussed here before, the American intention is to make Europe provide peacekeepers and pay for reconstruction, and America hopes to force Ukraine to sign over a large amount of mineral rights, though Zelensky has, quite rightly, so far refused to do so.
Meanwhile, there’s this piece of wishful thinking:
The United States is trying to “break up” Russia’s alliances with Iran, China, and North Korea. This was announced by Keith Kellogg, the US President’s special representative for Ukraine, during a conference in Munich, CNN reports.
Some commenters think that this is what America and Russia want, an end to the above alliances and:
What Putin wants: – No NATO membership (non-negotiable) – 4 oblasts in Ukraine and Crimea, including territories not currently occupied by Russia
What Trump wants: – Break ties with China (non-negotiable) – Join US sanctions on China
I’m reasonably certain ending the alliance with China and joining US sanctions on China is a non-starter, and if that’s non-negotiable, then there isn’t going to be a deal. China, North Korea and Iran all helped Russia when Russia desperately needed help. It is no exaggeration to say that if China had not supported Russia’s economy, the anti-Russia sanctions would have worked, and Iran and North Korea provided weapons and munitions the Russians desperately needed while they were ramping up domestic production.
At the same time as America is trying to cut this deal, Trump is turning on long term allies: threatening them with sanctions and in the case of Greenland/Denmark even saying he refuses to rule out using military force. America’s record of keeping agreements is abysmal.
Over the decades of observing Putin, I’d say that he values reliability more than almost anything else. The Iranians, North Koreans and Chinese are reliable. America is not.
In negotiations there’s a concept known as BATNA: your Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement.
Russia’s is simple enough: it’s winning the war. Unless America is literally willing to go to war with Russia, there’s nothing they can do to stop Russia from winning and then imposing a peace after a Ukrainian unconditional surrender.
What’s America going to do, impose more sanctions? The Russia economy has done better under Western sanctions than it did before the sanction regime? Send more military aid? Cupboards are damn near bare. The only real threat it has is to hit deeper into Russia, and that’s a real threat, but since such weapons are aimed and fired by Western specialists, that risks war with Russia.
What can America offer as an ally that China can’t? Only a removal of sanctions. That would be valuable mostly if it meant repair of NordStream and renewal of gas to Europe, but America wants to keep Europe as a captive customer for U.S. LNG (which is twice as expensive).
It’s hard for me to see why Russia would agree to get rid of reliable allies and turn on China in exchange for an agreement from America which Putin has to regard as unreliable. Sure, he’d like a negotiated peace and an end to the war, but Ukraine’s army looks close to collapse and when that happens, Russia will suddenly start taking huge swathes of Ukraine. And “no NATO” is entirely achievable in an unconditional surrender.
Plus Europe’s politics are changing. Parties which oppose hostility to Russia are coming on strong, and Europe is furious at Trump’s actions and the words of his proxies. Right now Europe is still full-on in support of Ukraine, and in its anti-Russian stance, but time is likely to break that unity of hatred.
It’s not that Trump is wrong to want to break up the Russia-China axis. Pushing Russia into China’s camp was one of the greatest unforced errors of post-Cold War diplomacy: one I’ve written about in the past. With Russia in China’s camp, anti-China sanctions cannot work, because Russia is a land-based supplier of the food and minerals and fuel which cannot be interdicted.
But the ship sailed. You can’t undo almost 50 years of anti-Russia policy overnight, because the last fifty years have proved to Russia that America can’t be trusted to keep agreements and, overall, China is far more reliable.
If Russia cooperates against China and America did manage to take out China, who do you think would be next? Who does Putin think would be next?
So if joining anti-China sanctions really is non-negotiable, then these talks will fail. My guess is that it isn’t actually required, and that Trump really wants this war over one way or the other. But if it is, the war will continue.
Meanwhile, restoring proper diplomacy between Russia and America is a good thing. We’ll see what comes of it.
Jan Wiklund
About what US wants from negotiation – isn’t there anything from more official sources than this Fujihita of whom I know nothing?
Feral Finster
Keep in mind that Russia doesn’t want to go all-in for China and end up being the junior partner in that relationship. This is why, for instance, Russia balances its friendship with China with its friendship with India.
This is also why, traditionally (until the US Unipolar Moment), coutnries typically teamed up to prevent a single hegemon.
Ian Welsh
Forgot the Zamin link, it’s in now. Kellog is as official as it gets.
KT Chong
For Russia to betray China, it also means that Russia will have to abandon BRICS… along with all the counterparties in BRICS, i.e., the Global South.
How likely is Russia to abandon China, AND Iran, AND North Korean, AND BRICS, AND the Global South… just to get a deal with the US that has a habit of breaking deals and not keeping its words?
KT Chong
Also, China’s position has always been “we want a MULTI-POLAR world,” it’s the US who has repeatedly shown that it wants to be the world’s sole hegemon and is willing to use coups and wars and lies to achieve that end.
KT Chong
Another thing:
The main reason why China is sticking with Russia is because China knows that, if and after the US and its vassals (i.e., the UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea) take down Russia, then they will be coming for China next, and then China will not have a strong ally with whom to to stand together against the US and its vassals.
I certainly hope Russia has the common sense to know that, if and after the US and its vassals take down China, then they will be coming for Russia next, and then Russia will not have a strong ally with whom to stand together against the US and Europe.
That common sense should prevent Russia from betraying China – and China from betraying Russia. It is long-term self-preservation. I know the US, the UK, EU, etc., are unable to plan or strategize anything beyond two steps ahead, but China and (I certainly hope) Russia can and do.
GrimJim
I’ll send a new map later, but here’s my new prediction:
US and Russia split Ukraine down the Dneipr, but Russia gets all the Black Sea oblasts… Trump gets Gaza, Putin gets Odessa and western Dripropetrovsk.
Kiev is either split down the middle or becomes Neutral territory
Soredemos
“It is no exaggeration to say that if China had not supported Russia’s economy, the anti-Russia sanctions would have worked, and Iran and North Korea provided weapons and munitions the Russians desperately needed while they were ramping up domestic production.”
I don’t actually know if either of these things is true. The NK claim especially. First it was ‘Russia running out of X’, then that NK was supposedly helping them was rolled out as an excuse for why the bombs and shells continued to fall. Then it was ‘NK has sent soldiers to help rmRussia’, then after not a single Noeth Korean body ever showed up the claim was ‘they’ve withdrawn with heavy losses’.
Now I think the claim is that they’ve returned to the fight. Sure they have.
Feral Finster
It’s also perversely amusing that Trump’s hamfistedness has reinvigorated Chrystia Freedland’s campiagn, as well as the most hysterical europeans out there, absolutely itching for a war, as long as the Americans lead it.
KT Chong
China is giving EU a lifeline, and it would be smart for Europe to accept it:
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1890785324705677807
Quoting Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi: “China is willing to synergize high-quality Belt and Road cooperation with the European Union’s Global Gateway strategy, so as to empower each other and empower the entire world…”
bruce wilder
I do not trust that I am well-informed about the extent and depth of China’s support of Russia in Ukraine. Certainly, China has maintained a neutral stance on the war and is not a supplier of war material, which is presumably why Russia turned to Iran and North Korea to fill significant deficits. I do not see much in the way of good reporting on any of it, honestly. The story of North Korean troops on the ground in Kursk has been a story of phantoms, akin to Putin’s cancer.
Russia, geopolitically, has to view China in the medium and long-term as both an essential ally and a significant source of debilitating risk in Central Asia and the Far East. Russia is too empty and China too full. And, China’s control of the Himalayas makes China a sure bet to dominate much of Asia.
In the Russia-U.S. relationship, Iran matters more and more immediately. Russia needs Iran. There is deep historical hostility there, but now common interests. Russia needs to prove itself a reliable ally to Iran and given Israeli hostility, there may be a test very shortly. If Trump has lost interest in Netanyahoo’s project, Trump may be able to give Russia something it values there without appearing in the West to do much at all. But I do not see much reporting on that.
mago
There are so many moving parts, so much misdirection, so many lies and partial truths—not to mention so many gods that all the players have to
serve—that it’s almost impossible to gain a clear idea of what’s really going down.
Plus everything everywhere is accelerating at sonic speed.
So what to say, what to do?
Be kind. That’s the best I’ve got.
Eric Anderson
“If Russia cooperates against China and America did manage to take out China, who do you think would be next? Who does Putin think would be next?”
This is, unfortunately, always the million dollar question. But it keeps having to be asked because, again unfortunately, there is always another fragile male ego waiting in line that needs to be salved at the world’s expense.
If it’s not Putin, it’s Trump. If not Trump, then Biden. If not Biden then Xi. If not Xi, then Elon. If not Elon, then Zuck ad infinitum.
Strong men? Or, fragile men?
Give it name and throw in “international diplomacy” to put lipstick on a pig.
Same as it ever was.
Bless all their silly little human hearts. They mean well, I’m sure.
Eric Anderson
I mean, seriously people. When will we quit deceiving ourselves and making it more complicated than it is.
The world doesn’t have “international diplomacy” problems. It has male sociopath problems. Or more accurately, a “we non-sociopaths, throughout history, have a habit of not learning to hand the unbridled reigns of power to sociopaths” problem.
The sooner we get used to calling it what it is, and stop dressing it up as normal, the sooner the human species can take another step up the evolutionary ladder toward establishing more equitable societies.
History demonstrates we can build those societies. But, every time we do we seem to forget there’s a sociopath conniving for the power to tear it all down trying to make what WE built, his alone.
Class war is just another name for sociopath war.
There are no “trustworthy” elite.
To paraphrase Steinbeck “”Socialism never took root in America because the billionaires see themselves not as an exploited bourgoise, but as temporarily embarrassed global hegemons.”