{"id":220663,"date":"2022-10-03T12:00:37","date_gmt":"2022-10-03T11:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=220663"},"modified":"2022-10-03T04:56:34","modified_gmt":"2022-10-03T03:56:34","slug":"russia-says-us-wrecked-ukraine-talks-but-peace-is-still-possible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/10\/russia-says-us-wrecked-ukraine-talks-but-peace-is-still-possible\/","title":{"rendered":"Russia Says US “Wrecked” Ukraine Talks, but Peace Is Still Possible"},"content":{"rendered":"

25 Sep 2022 – A US official rejects Putin\u2019s claim that NATO sabotaged a “peaceful settlement” with Ukraine early in the war. Whatever happened then, it is not too late for diplomacy in this perilous moment.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, flanked by senior State Dept. official Victoria Nuland, at the UN on Sept. 22.
(Michael M. Santiago\/Getty Images)<\/p><\/div>\n

In his Sept. 21 speech announcing an escalation of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused NATO states of sabotaging a peace deal that could have ended it months ago.<\/p>\n

At talks brokered by Turkey in March, Putin said<\/a>, \u201cKiev representatives voiced quite a positive response to our proposals… But a peaceful settlement obviously did not suit the West, which is why, after certain compromises were coordinated, Kiev was actually ordered to wreck all these agreements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking at the United Nations hours later, President Joe Biden criticized the Russian leader but did not address his claim that the US thwarted negotiations.<\/p>\n

Asked about Putin\u2019s remarks, officials from the White House\u2019s National Security Council (NSC) and the State Department offered differing responses.<\/p>\n

An NSC official referred me to the Ukrainian government for comment about \u201ctheir peace negotiations in the spring.\u201d But overall, the official added, \u201cit is inaccurate that the U.S. discouraged Ukraine from seeking a peace agreement. Throughout this conflict, we have said that it is up to Ukraine to make their own sovereign decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

A State Department spokesperson did not address Putin\u2019s rendering of the March-April negotiations, and instead focused on the period before the invasion.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs part of our efforts to deter President Putin from launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine\u2019s sovereign territory on February 24, 2022, the United States consistently spoke of the two paths Russia could choose: dialogue and diplomacy, or escalation and massive consequences,\u201d the State Department wrote. \u201cWe made genuine and sincere efforts to pursue the former, which we vastly preferred, but Putin chose war.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked if it had any response to Putin\u2019s account of the peace talks that occurred after the invasion, the State spokesperson did not respond.<\/p>\n

The Russian government has not offered any additional detail or evidence for Putin\u2019s claim that Ukraine and Russia were close to a \u201csettlement,\u201d and that Kiev\u2019s NATO backers intervened to \u201cwreck\u201d it. But the Kremlin is also not the first to assert it. The claim originated with sources close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who described the episode to Ukrainian media outlet Ukrayinska Pravda<\/a>.<\/p>\n

According to their account, talks between Ukraine and Russia collapsed after then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kiev in April and informed Zelensky that Putin \u201cshould be pressured, not negotiated with.\u201d Johnson also relayed that \u201ceven if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on [security] guarantees with Putin,\u201d Western nations \u201care not.\u201d<\/p>\n

That report was followed this month by an overlooked disclosure from former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill. Citing \u201cmultiple former senior U.S. officials,\u201d\u00a0Hill wrote<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cRussian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement\u201d in April. Russia would withdraw to its pre-invasion position, while Ukraine would pledge not to join NATO \u201cand instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.\u201d<\/p>\n

If the Ukrainian Pravda account is accurate, then it was the UK\u2019s Johnson, presumably acting at the behest of the US, that undermined this agreement.<\/p>\n

And even if Putin is exaggerating the negotiations\u2019 progress, or Western responsibility for their collapse, his claim that Russia and Ukrainian officials were close to a \u201cpeaceful settlement\u201d signals that one may still be possible.<\/p>\n

David Ignatius, the Washington Post foreign affairs columnist, appears to be the only establishment media journalist who reported Putin\u2019s remarks. In Ignatius’ view<\/a>, the Russian leader\u2019s claim about a thwarted peace deal in the spring offers a potential, if unlikely, \u201coff-ramp\u201d today. Invoking the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Ignatius compared Putin\u2019s comment to the message from Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev<\/a> that offered President John F. Kennedy \u201ca path to de-escalation.\u201d As with Khrushchev\u2019s private overture to Kennedy, Putin\u2019s claim about peace talks, Ignatius writes, is now Biden\u2019s \u201cletter to answer.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for the Ukrainian government, he added, Kiev \u201cneeds a reality check about its longer-term battlefield prospects.\u201d That seems unlikely: in response to Putin\u2019s threat that Russia could use nuclear weapons to defend itself, a Zelensky advisor urged<\/a> the US and other powers to pledge \u201cswift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia,\u201d if Moscow \u201ceven thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes\u201d in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

If the White House is to heed Ignatius\u2019 advice and pursue an off-ramp with Russia, the US approach to diplomacy may also require a reality check. Despite the State Department\u2019s claim to have \u201cmade genuine and sincere efforts\u201d for \u201cdialogue and diplomacy\u201d with Russia prior to the invasion, the available record tells a different story.<\/p>\n

As the Ukraine crisis escalated in January, a US official specializing in Russia relayed that \u201cthe Russians are still interested in a real dialogue,\u201d according to the Washington Post<\/a>. Russia\u2019s goal, this official said, is \u201cto see whether Washington is willing to discuss any sort of commitment that constrains U.S. power.” But in the ensuing weeks leading up to Russia\u2019s Feb. 24 invasion, Washington made clear that such constraints were a non-starter.<\/p>\n

Russia\u2019s core demands came on two tracks. The Kremlin asked the US and NATO to return their nearby military footprint to pre-1990s levels by withdrawing offensive weaponry and troops from states on Russia\u2019s borders. As for Ukraine, Moscow sought guarantees that Kiev would not join NATO and that it would finally implement the 2015 Minsk accords, the agreement to end Kiev\u2019s war with Russia-allied rebels in Ukraine\u2019s Donbas region. That eight-year war, triggered by the 2014-US backed Maidan coup<\/a>, left an estimated 14,000 dead, with over 80% of civilian casualties<\/a> since 2018 occurring in the breakaway, rebel-held Donbas regions.<\/p>\n

On all fronts, the US and allies balked.<\/p>\n

The US and NATO refused to sign any bilateral agreement<\/a> on a new security framework for Europe, nor abandon a 2008 pledge that promised Ukraine future NATO membership.<\/p>\n

On the one key issue where the US appeared to give some ground \u2013 a willingness to discuss \u201creciprocal commitments\u201d on barring missile systems and troop deployments in Ukraine \u2013 that \u201cwas not a clear-cut concession to Russia,\u201d the New York Times noted<\/a>. For Russia, a \u201creciprocal\u201d pledge would be a non-starter, given that its most important naval base is in Crimea, and that the Donbas war was unresolved.<\/p>\n

Although US officials now portray Ukraine\u2019s NATO ascension as a sacrosanct right, that was not always the case. Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, advised then-President George W. Bush against it. \u201cWe warned him [Bush] that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action,\u201d Hill recalls<\/a>. \u201cBut ultimately, our warnings weren\u2019t heeded.\u201d<\/p>\n

To continue the Bush policy, Biden was willing to risk war. Asked if NATO expansion into Ukraine<\/a> was “on the table” in pre-invasion contacts with Russia, State Department counsellor Derek Chollet replied: \u201cIt wasn’t.\u201d The US, Chollet recalled, \u201cmade clear to the Russians that we were willing to talk to them on issues that\u00a0we thought<\/em>\u00a0were genuine concerns they have\u00a0that were legitimate in some way<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added) The \u201cfuture of Ukraine\u201d in NATO, Chollet said, was deemed a \u201cnon-issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

When it comes to the Minsk peace process on ending the post-2014 Donbas war, the US declined to use any of its influence to push Ukraine into implementation. At the final round of Minsk talks, just two weeks before Russia’s invasion, a \u201ckey obstacle,\u201d the\u00a0Washington Post reported<\/a>, \u201cwas Kyiv\u2019s opposition to negotiating with the pro-Russian separatists.\u201d Even as \u201cthe talks continue to stall and the threat of war grows more present,\u201d the Post added, \u201cit\u2019s unclear how much pressure the United States is placing on Ukraine to reach a compromise with Russia.\u201d<\/p>\n

In refusing to pressure Ukraine in the direction of peace, the Biden White House tacitly sided with Ukraine\u2019s far-right<\/a>, which threatened to overthrow Zelensky if he followed through on his campaign pledge to end the war. As the final Minsk talks sputtered in February, the New York Times noted<\/a> that Zelensky “would be taking extreme political risks even to entertain a peace deal” with Russia, as his government “could be rocked and possibly overthrown” by far-right groups. “If anybody from the Ukrainian government tries to sign such a document,\u201d a leader of the far-right Democratic Ax warned, \u201ca million people will take to the streets and that government will cease being the government.”<\/p>\n

After bending to far-right threats and shunning peace with Russia-backed rebels, Zelensky\u2019s government escalated attacks on their territory. In the week before Russia invaded, international monitors with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) recorded a sharp uptick in ceasefire violations. The vast majority of these attacks appear to have come from the government side. Alfred de Zayas, a former UN Special Rapporteur, summarized the surge<\/a> in ceasefire violations in the final days before the invasion:<\/p>\n

The February 15 report of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine recorded some\u00a041 explosions<\/a>\u00a0in the ceasefire areas. This increased to\u00a076 explosions on Feb 16<\/a>,\u00a0316 on Feb 17<\/a>,\u00a0654 on Feb 18<\/a>,\u00a01413 on Feb 19<\/a>,\u00a0a total of 2026 of Feb 20 and 21<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a01484 on Feb 22<\/a>. The OSCE mission reports showed that the great majority of impact explosions of the artillery were on the separatist side of the ceasefire line.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

A Feb. 19-20 map of Donbas ceasefire violations shows the vast majority of attacks came against rebel-held territory. (OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine)<\/p><\/div>\n

Russia claims that this surge in attacks on rebel-held areas of the Donbas showed that a major Ukrainian assault was imminent, forcing Moscow to act pre-emptively. Whatever the Ukrainian government\u2019s battlefield intentions in the Donbas, their refusal to negotiate an end to the war there was unmistakably clear.<\/p>\n

Without US pressure to end the Donbas war, Zelensky also rejected a last-minute European appeal to accept neutrality. According to an account in the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/a>, Germany proposed to Zelensky on Feb. 19 that Ukraine \u201crenounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal.\u201d But Zelensky said no, a response that \u201cleft German officials worried that the chances of peace were fading.\u201d\u00a0Russia invaded Ukraine five days later.<\/p>\n

Since the invasion began, the US \u201chas maintained the same posture toward Moscow: Do not engage,\u201d the Washington Post reported in July<\/a>. The US has instead opted to be a co-belligerent in the war, spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons and other military support. Underscoring its role as a US proxy, the new $13.7 billion package for Ukraine is included in a bill to fund the US government<\/a>. If Biden\u2019s request is approved by Congress this week, the official US tab for the Ukraine war will top $70 billion<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With Russia now escalating the invasion by mobilizing hundreds of thousands of new troops, and proceeding with referendums for occupied Ukrainian areas to join Russia, the window for diplomacy appears to be rapidly closing.<\/p>\n

But as Anatol Lieven outlines<\/a>, these annexation referendums offer a possible off-ramp. While separatist Ukrainian regions are voting to join Russia, that does not guarantee that Russia will immediately annex them. Instead, Lieven proposes, Russia could use these votes as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine and its Western patrons to revive the peace talks that Putin claims were undermined.<\/p>\n

There is a precedent, Lieven notes. Although the breakaway Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk voted to become independent in 2014, Russia refused to recognize them as separate republics until the eve of the 2022 invasion. \u201cThis Russian delay was because, in the interim, Russia was engaged in a negotiating process with the West and supported the idea of these areas returning to Ukraine in return for a guarantee of full autonomy,\u201d Lieven writes. \u201c\u2026Russia\u2019s progressive loss of faith over the years that Ukraine would ever in fact grant autonomy, or that the West would make them do so, was one key element in Putin\u2019s eventual decision to go to war.\u201d<\/p>\n

If the US is serious about getting Putin to end the war, then it could easily revisit the diplomatic opportunities that it has previously shunned. And if Putin is misleading the world in accusing NATO states of sabotaging peace talks, the Biden administration could call his bluff by embracing them now. Urging all parties to stop fueling \u201cthis painful and absurd war,\u201d Mexican President Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador has proposed<\/a> \u201ca commission for dialogue and peace\u201d that would seek an immediate ceasefire.<\/p>\n

In this perilous moment, the threat of US-Russia nuclear conflict<\/a> is at its highest in decades, economic havoc is spreading<\/a>, and more Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are being sent off to die in a war that could have been avoided<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Those on all sides who refuse to engage in diplomacy to end this crisis will surely be remembered for it \u2014 if the world can survive their policy choices.<\/p>\n

___________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Aaron Mat\u00e9 is a journalist with<\/em> The Grayzone, where he hosts<\/em> \u201cPushback.\u201d He is also a contributor to<\/em> Real Clear Investigations and the temporary co-host of<\/em> \u201cUseful Idiots.\u201d In 2019, Mat\u00e9 won the\u00a0Izzy Award for outstanding achievement in independent media for Russiagate coverage in<\/em> The Nation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Go to Original \u2013 mate.substack.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

25 Sep 2022 – A US official rejects Putin\u2019s claim that NATO sabotaged a “peaceful settlement” with Ukraine early in the war. The threat of US-Russia nuclear conflict is at its highest in decades, economic havoc is spreading, and more Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are being sent off to die. But it is not too late for diplomacy in this perilous moment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":209578,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[195],"tags":[485,1035,1268,1126,1050,2462,91,1301,112,818,278,961,2200,95,70,1594,481,172],"class_list":["post-220663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-conflict-resolution-mediation","tag-diplomacy","tag-eastern-europe","tag-european-union","tag-hegemony","tag-imperialism","tag-military-industrial-media-complex","tag-nato","tag-nuclear-war","tag-pentagon","tag-proxy-war","tag-russia","tag-ukraine","tag-us-empire","tag-us-military","tag-usa","tag-war-economy","tag-warfare","tag-west"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220663","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220663\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/209578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}