Translated material
Step at the meeting
At the negotiations of Trump with Zelensky and European leaders in Washington, a “change of course” took place, but most importantly, the move was made in the right direction
Meeting of US President Donald Trump with President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and European leaders in Washington. Photo: AP/TASS
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.
US President Donald Trump, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Cyrus Starmer, Italian Prime Minister George Melony, German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz, President of Finland Alexander Stubb, Chairman of the European Commission Ursula von der Lyayen We met last night in Washington.
First, Trump held a closed meeting with Zelensky, then the rest joined them.
The result of negotiations: a bilateral meeting (Russia -Ukraine) is ahead, then a tripartite (plus the United States). Such a sequence was proposed by Trump and Putin during their telephone conversation yesterday. It is at these meetings that territorial issues will be discussed.
Ukraine will not insist on the ceasefire (as mentioned earlier) as a condition for a meeting with Russia, and is ready to immediately discuss the world.
At yesterday, the meeting, according to Zelensky, the main topic was security guarantees for Ukraine, which will ensure the long -term world, and not a temporary ceasefire.
These guarantees will be provided by Europe with the participation of the United States. The issue of returning children and the exchange of “all for all” was also discussed. But not only military, but also civilians, including political prisoners. Zelensky is ready to discuss territorial issues only with Putin.
After the meeting, Trump wrote that “everyone is very glad to establish peace between Russia and Ukraine”, that he “began preparations for the meeting of Putin and Zelensky in a place that will be determined later,” and that “after this meeting we will hold a trilateral summit - two presidents and I. This is a very good and timely step relative to ***, which lasts almost four years. ”
After the meeting, the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany said that its results "surpassed all expectations" and that "all of Europe should take part in security guarantees for Ukraine."
Another step in the right direction is taken - with all the complexity and slowness of the process.
And it is very important that at the highest level the issue of the exchange of political prisoners began to be discussed - as part of a peace agreement.
***
Recall that before meeting with Vladimir Putin in Anchoridge, Donald Trump stated that he would insist on the end of the fire, and then the discussion and adoption of a peace agreement.
After the meeting, he changed the “order of moves” to the opposite, almost coinciding with what Vladimir Putin spoke about before the meeting: the ceasefire is possible only within the framework of a “full peace agreement”, to the content of which the Russian president imposes a number of requirements.
If the “leaks” that the last days were abundant are true, among these requirements were the transfer of the entire territory of Donbass under Russian control, the refusal of Ukraine from entering NATO, the recognition of Crimea by the Russian, giving the Russian language the status of the state throughout Ukraine or in terms of its regions and unhindered activities in Ukraine that part of the Orthodox Church, which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate.
For this, Putin is allegedly ready to agree to the “freezing” of the combat line in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhya regions, to return the controlled “pieces” of Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkov regions, agree to guarantee the security of Ukraine by NATO countries and give written obligations not to conduct fighting against Ukraine and European countries.
What caused the consent of the American president to “change the order of strokes” in movement to the world is unknown, but Trump and his representatives confirmed a change in position after a meeting in Anchoridge.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the truce in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict remains on the agenda, but the ultimate goal is a full-fledged peace agreement. That “whether a truce on the way to this is necessary - we have advocated this, unfortunately, at the moment the Russians did not agree with this,” and that “what we are striving for is not a truce; What we ultimately achieve is achieved is the end of this ***. ”
Special Representative of Trump Stephen Whitkoff stated that “Putin agreed to guarantee the security of Ukraine by Western countries, but without its joining NATO,” because “NATO is a red flag”, and that “we managed to achieve the next concessions: the United States could provide Ukraine with a defense of NATO similar and an agreement when an attack on one state is a member The alliance is considered an attack on everything at once). ”
As for the requirements for Ukraine, Rubio said that “the only way to reach an agreement is when each party receives something and gives something, that’s why Zelensky comes to Washington tomorrow”, that the United States does not support the idea of transferring the entire Donbass to Russia ”and that“ territorial issues should be discussed by Ukraine and Russia ”. In turn, Whitkoff said a little differently: “Washington intends to discuss the issue of exchange of territories between the Russian Federation and Ukraine at a meeting with Zelensky on August 18” ...
***
The number of panic, hysterical and moralizing comments on the meeting in Anchoridge went through the go through these days. Including from the “picked vests”, ready to scribble the texts, and who knew exactly what Putin wanted, what Trump and Zelensky should do and what would happen later.
Zelensky’s reaction was much more calm - although his position before meeting Trump was very difficult, and the price of decisions was unusually high.
Zelensky limited himself to a statement that territorial issues can be discussed only during a tripartite meeting, that the Constitution of Ukraine "makes it impossible to surrender territories or land trade" and that "a truce must be introduced before the final peace agreement."
As for the European leaders who, before meeting in Alaska, insisted on the ceasefire, then after the meeting they did not perform in the style of “everything disappeared”, characteristic of the commentators mentioned above.
British Prime Minister Cyrus Starmer said that “the efforts of President Trump brought us closer to the end of ***”, that “his leadership in the desire to put an end to the murder should be welcomed” that the next step should be further negotiations with the participation of Zelensky, since “the path to the world in Ukraine cannot be determined without it,” and that security guarantees for Ukraine from Europe and the US "Putin's restraint."
The Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Mertz said that the United States, not European countries, are playing a decisive role in the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
France President Emmanuel Macron at a meeting of the “Coalitions of those who wish” before the negotiations of Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky said: “... our goal in negotiations is to act as a united front with Ukraine and its European allies,” and that European supporters want the “territorial integrity of Ukraine” to be observed. ” And that Ukraine "can well be recognized as the loss of territories within the framework of a ceasefire, ceasefire, or a peace treaty, it does not admit that they are under other people's sovereignty, but admits that they are lost in military way." The hint was, in general, quite clear.
***
Politics, of course, is not chess, where the progress procedure is usually fundamental, and its violation can lead to fatal consequences.
But in it, he often is crucial, especially if we take into account the price of the issue: in the option “Crossing the fire - and then negotiations on a peaceful agreement” the deaths of people and destruction cease immediately, and the conversation begins.
In the case of the opposite order of death and destruction, they continue until the parties agree on the conditions of a “full peace agreement”, according to which their positions are largely different.
This dispute can go not only difficult, but also for a long time, but such a procedure for moves gives a chance to the world - albeit a longer path.
At the same time, no matter how much they shout, including in the Russian emigrant “party”, about “Filkina literacy” and “shameful deal”, in the event of a refusal, Ukraine was without support for the United States and with the support of European countries, expressed mostly in pathos statements, patting on the shoulder and wishes to hold on.
In a situation where the resources of Ukraine - and primarily human ones - are much less than that of Russia, and the situation on the “line of contact” is much worse than at the end of 2022, when it was real, but not used, a chance of ceasefire.
And with all the ensuing of this, quite obvious consequences.
Judging by the fact that after yesterday the meeting, Zelensky said that he agreed to change the “progress of the moves”, he understands this.
***
As for future meetings and discussion of territorial issues, there were many examples in the world when countries lost territories in exchange for a peaceful future, and then became much more successful than those states that acquired territories.
And against the background of one “Munich”, which only the lazy does not recall (despite the fact that historical analogies in this case do not work due to a completely different background of the conflict, in terms of the behavior of the United States and European countries regarding Ukraine), there are many examples with completely different consequences. Including in Russian and Soviet history.
The final result of negotiations may be unfair. But in order for him to be more fair today, it was necessary to react differently to what was happening yesterday.
Meanwhile, for a long time, European leaders, and the USA, and Ukraine rejected the ceasefire, believing that everything could be decided on the battlefield ...
Last. Against the background of the main goal - the prospects for the termination of the death of people - it is not very important who and how will present the results of negotiations and the content of the agreements as their victory and whose success certain commentators will declare this.
It is important that there are exchanges of prisoners, including civilians - which was not so long ago and it was difficult to imagine.
What can open a “window of opportunities” for the mutual liberation of political prisoners.
And what the long -awaited world can come.
Yes, it is likely that the agreements will be subsequently ignored: we have seen over the past eleven years (and before we saw) that there are no international mechanisms that can effectively force the signed memorandums and agreements.
But there are no other peaceful ways to resolve conflicts yet.
It may be that now a compromise will be reached, which will save human lives, and then it turns out that this led to even greater victims? Yes, maybe. But the fundamental is that in this case the preservation of lives “now” will definitely take place, and future victims are not predetermined at all.
“The desire for the world” - under this slogan, both held meetings were held.
I would like to believe that this desire to him will lead.