Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] On the night of May 10-11, literally a few hours after the three-day ceasefire expired, Vladimir Putin made a new statement.
He proposed that the Kyiv regime hold talks on ending hostilities in Istanbul on May 15.
"Despite everything, we propose that the Kiev authorities resume the negotiations that they interrupted at the end of 2022, resume direct negotiations. Moreover, I emphasize, without any preconditions. We propose to begin without delay next Thursday, May 15, in Istanbul, where they were held earlier, and where they were interrupted," the Russian leader said.
According to him, Moscow is set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. "Their purpose is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict, to establish a long-term, lasting peace for the historical perspective. We do not rule out that during these negotiations it will be possible to agree on some new truces, a new ceasefire," the president added.
For the West, this proposal came as a surprise – and an extremely unpleasant surprise. Over the past few days, the Kiev regime and European leaders have been promoting their idea of introducing a 30-day ceasefire. They demanded that Moscow agree to it (and thereby, they say, prove that Russia is striving for peace), but at the same time they made no secret of their intention to continue supplying the Kiev regime with weapons even during the ceasefire.
And at the same time, perhaps, they would have tried, under the cover of a ceasefire, to deploy NATO troops on Ukrainian, or even on Russian territory occupied by the Kyiv regime, under one sauce or another.
"Putin's initiative is, of course, a reaction to the ultimatum that Europe and Ukraine had put forward to Russia the day before. Accepting it was absolutely unacceptable for Russia, but simply rejecting it would have been unprofitable," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, explains to Regnum.
Therefore, as the expert believes, it was important for Moscow not just to refuse, but to offer something of its own. And this “own” was precisely the idea of direct negotiations. “We are offered a ceasefire on Monday, May 12, and we are offering to begin direct negotiations on Thursday,” Suslov explains.
Putin's response contained four key points, which constituted the essence of the message. They concerned the format, topic, place and conditions of the negotiations.
Thus, the Russian president proposes direct negotiations. That is, one-on-one, without the participation of third parties. In this way, he does not allow the European Union, dreaming of sitting down at the table of Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-American negotiations, to sabotage the negotiation process from within.
It does not allow a situation to be created where several players will gather at the table against one Russia, who will morally and materially support each other.
Direct talks do not mean high-level talks. Several months ago, Vladimir Putin made it clear that if Zelensky wanted to talk, the Russian president would appoint someone to discuss with him.
Simply because Zelensky is not the legitimate president of Ukraine - or even a person worthy of hosting a summit at the highest level.
The topic for the talks was also well chosen. Putin has effectively hijacked the agenda - instead of a truce, which the West insisted on, he proposes to talk about peace right away. Long-term, serious, ending the bloodshed once and for all.
"There are military actions going on now, a war, and we are proposing to resume negotiations that were not interrupted by us. What's wrong with that?" Putin asks rhetorically.
And overseas journalists actually supported the Russian president here: the headlines of almost all American publications sounded like “Putin proposed direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.”
The venue for the negotiations, Istanbul, was not chosen by chance either. And it is not a matter of special relations with Erdogan, but of continuity. “We are not starting negotiations from scratch, but renewing them on the basis of the Istanbul agreements. Naturally, taking into account the new realities,” explains Dmitry Suslov.
In essence, despite all their minuses, the basis of the Istanbul agreements was still advantageous for Russia. There, the Kiev regime agreed to both demilitarization and neutral status. It is much more reasonable to resume negotiations from this basis, making adjustments for the situation "on the ground," rather than to form a new one.
And finally, the fourth aspect of Putin's proposal was the rejection of any preconditions. This does not weaken the Russian position in any way: Moscow, in general, has never put forward preconditions for the beginning of dialogue - except perhaps demanding that Kyiv lift the self-imposed ban on negotiations imposed by Zelensky himself.
At the same time, the Kiev regime has put forward and continues to put forward this condition, in particular, now Russia is required to first agree to a ceasefire. And now, against the backdrop of Putin's proposal to simply sit down and talk, Zelensky with his demand looks extremely weak.
Yes, in theory Vladimir Putin could have avoided this political judo. He could have given the order to use the same Oreshnik immediately after saying that the Kiev regime was not fulfilling the terms of the ceasefires (energy, Easter, May 9).
However, the Russian leader acted differently. "Putin is not going to tighten the methods of conducting the SVO primarily in order not to antagonize Trump. It is advantageous for us to maintain constructive interaction with the American president and not allow the consolidation of Europe with the United States," says Dmitry Suslov.
And his proposal for negotiations, already actively supported by Trump, will introduce an additional split into transatlantic relations. And therefore, it will become a serious support and acceleration for the victorious completion of the SVO. And regardless of how this completion is achieved - at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
|
