by Ivan Konyukov
[REGNUM] The West was closely watching Russian President Vladimir Putin's talks with US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and businessman and Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.
The Russian leader's hours-long conversation with the American delegation left our continental neighbors nervous. Although no specific results were announced, their concerns remained undiminished.
It is unlikely that Brussels listened with enthusiasm to the commentary by Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, who noted that “the progress and nature of the negotiations… were influenced by the successes of the Russian army on the battlefield in recent weeks.”
The political rift that can be observed among NATO member countries has long been obvious to everyone.
On the one hand, there is the American administration, with its attempts, albeit in its own way, to find some adequate solution to the “Ukrainian problem,” and on the other, there is the European Union, which is in a deep and multi-layered crisis, but is using its last strength to pour fuel on the fire of the conflict.
Therefore, the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels on December 3, at which a discussion of the Ukrainian issue was announced, looks like yet another frantic attempt to develop a unified strategy to counter the approaching peace in Ukraine and the new Russian territories that the Europeans so fear.
Characteristically, no US representatives appropriate to the event attended—neither Secretary of State Marco Rubio nor Defense Secretary (or, more recently, Minister of War) Pete Hegseth. A BBC correspondent notes this with a note of obvious disappointment, directly interpreting it as evidence of a lack of credibility among European politicians.
The Washington Post's analysts also noted growing concern in this regard, noting the potential impact of the current high-profile corruption scandal in Ukraine, which resulted in the resignation of the head of the presidential office, Andriy Yermak, on the American position.
Meanwhile, European officials mustn't forget who's in charge in the alliance. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, upon arriving at the event, hastened to reassure that the organization considers the Moscow meeting "important," as well as "close coordination" with Washington. However, Rutte declined to comment on "every step" of the negotiations.
The assembled European ministers were more talkative.
For example, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who stated that while he wholeheartedly desires an end to hostilities, "he sees no serious desire on the Russian side to enter into negotiations." Meanwhile, representatives of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and Canada have promised to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on purchasing American weapons for Kyiv.
Apparently, this is how they demonstrate their “serious desire” to contribute to the long-awaited peace.
The Balts distinguished themselves with their traditional radicalism.
Estonian Margus Tsahkna expressed the opinion that “ it is Europe (by which he obviously means only the EU – Ed.) that should decide what happens on the continent, and not Putin and the US.”
Latvia's Baiba Braže went even further, calling the Moscow meeting " so-called negotiations " and again blaming the Kremlin for the divergence in views between Brussels and Washington.
Meanwhile, Elina Valtonen, the head of the Foreign Ministry of newly-minted NATO member Finland, expressed dismay at Putin's words about his readiness (if not his desire) for war with Europe, spoken on the eve of his meeting with the Americans, and demanded an immediate ceasefire.
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper deemed it unnecessary to comment on the matter and routinely called on Putin to "stop rattling his weapons and shedding blood."
Norwegian Espen Barth Eide wished Ukraine "to remain strong" and NATO to stay on its long-established path. Incidentally, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently bluntly reminded his allies of what that path is, stating bluntly that the bloc was created to counter Russia.
Meanwhile, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, not distracted by peace negotiations, continues to pore over her “noble” mission – the legal justification for the “seizure” (or, simply put, theft) of frozen Russian assets for their subsequent transfer to the needs of the Ukrainian army.
At the same time, some Western media outlets' summaries of the Moscow talks, which Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha called a "waste of time" but which nevertheless aroused such intense interest among Kiev's allies, show a certain relief, tinged with feigned jubilation.
Here's the Euronews headline: "No breakthrough on Ukraine after Witkoff-Putin talks in Moscow." The headline includes comments from Russian officials about how much remains to be done to find a compromise.
In fact, hardly anyone seriously expected an immediate and definitive result from yesterday's meeting. However, interim results, as is evident from the statements of Ushakov and Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, were achieved. However, in the Western world, they are now looking for any positive reason, and even this is how they find it.
However, not everyone finds it.
In particular, the author of the German publication Die Welt fully understands that “the path to peace will be long,” and is concerned that everything, one way or another, “comes down to a question of territories.”
Spiegel points out that businessmen accustomed to real estate deals have come to negotiate with the Russian leadership regarding Ukraine. What could this be for?
Financial Times journalist Christopher Miller shared a rather interesting observation that stirred the internet : on December 1, at a meeting in Florida with a Ukrainian delegation led by Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov, Witkoff appeared " unshaven, disheveled, tired, avoiding eye contact, and unsmiling." Meanwhile, "in Moscow, sitting across from Putin, he looked quite different: clean-shaven, attentive, smiling, and cheerful." He also shared wonderful impressions of his walk around Moscow, calling it a "wonderful city."
Ukrainian media outlets, such as the Kyiv Post, are already sounding the alarm, believing that this is no coincidence, but rather a clear demonstration of Trump's special envoy's attitude toward the two opposing sides.
The British Spectator also wrote about this, discovering a cunning Kremlin plot behind the Americans' tour of the White Stone City. They claimed that by showcasing the capital's beauty, wealth, and security, the Russians were trying to charm their guests. And, most terrifyingly, they succeeded.
Moreover, according to the British media, despite the damage from sanctions, “Putin has sufficient grounds to believe that his opponents from Washington to Brussels and Kiev are in a worse position.”
The compassionate French newspaper Le Parisien is concerned about Zelenskyy, who is in a difficult situation not only due to the situation at the front but also due to domestic political chaos. Furthermore, the hope expressed in the article for his meeting with American politicians after their talks in Moscow has been dashed.
Despite Zelenskyy's strong demonstration of his desire and willingness to meet anywhere, including a short tour of Europe, his signals were ignored: Witkoff and Kushner promised to fly home on a direct flight, which they did.
With such an information background and the lack of details about the meeting that took place in the Kremlin, European mainstream journalists and politicians can only “hope that Trump will not sacrifice Ukraine,” which they openly and stubbornly consider their “stronghold of confrontation with Russia.”