The sequence of negative responses given by the United States to Russian proposals to try to solve the crisis with Ukraine was received by the Kremlin with little optimism.
Vladimir Putin’s presidential spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Thursday that Moscow would not be too quick to draw conclusions after Washington’s formal negative response to plans to redesign post-Cold War security arrangements in Europe. .
Like American diplomacy, however, Peskov said that, on the part of the Russians, there is also an interest in continuing the dialogue. The impasse, according to the spokesman, lies in the “unacceptable” classification given by the US and NATO (the Western military alliance) to Moscow’s demands.
“We cannot say that our thoughts were taken into account or that a willingness to take our concerns into account was demonstrated,” Peskov said, adding that the current crisis is reminiscent of the Cold War. “But let’s not rush with our assessments.”
The Kremlin’s subtle reaction was seen at least as a brief respite from the crisis, although it is far from signifying a reversal of escalating tensions. The prospects for a solution, however, are still hazy. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was hope to start a serious dialogue between the parties, but only on the secondary issues, not the fundamental ones.
The American response, formalized this Wednesday (26), was predictable and kept the willingness to talk. “We are open to dialogue,” said US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Without going into details, the head of American diplomacy spoke about the demands put forward in writing by Putin:
- 1) Expansion of NATO. The Kremlin wants the military alliance to return to its size before the absorption of ex-Communist members, starting in 1999. Blinken said no.
- 2) Entry from Ukraine. Putin wanted a commitment that the alliance would never reach his doors on the great border with the Ukrainians. Blinken said no and stressed that he does not give up Kiev’s territorial sovereignty.
- 3) Other topics. Here is the way out of the imbroglio, if it exists with military exercises involving thousands of Russians on three sides of Ukraine. Blinken said he was open to further dialogue and cited topics such as nuclear disarmament and monitoring of mutual military exercises.
Blinken insisted there will be talks with reciprocity “if Russia de-escalates its forces” around Ukraine – from 100,000 to 175,000 troops deployed since November, insufficient for a full-scale invasion but adequate for actions such as the eventual annexation of Donbass.
The American secretary also said that he should speak again with Lavrov, as soon as the chancellor talks to Putin. As a day after the US denials Russia says it is in no hurry to draw conclusions, the impasse remains.
For Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba, a Russian military onslaught is not on the radar for at least the next two weeks. This is the period of time foreseen until the next meeting between Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France in Berlin – the schedule was, in practice, the most concrete thing that came out of the similar meeting held in Paris on Wednesday.
Shortly before the Kremlin’s statements, the Ukrainian foreign minister said he believed Moscow should remain on a diplomatic path with Kiev and the West.
“We understand that a military operation is something they keep in their pocket, not something they put ahead of other options,” Kuleba said, adding, however, that Ukraine was preparing for all scenarios. In his view, Russia’s strategy is to act to destabilize the neighboring country, including using hybrid warfare tactics such as cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns.
Putin has not spoken publicly about the crisis in weeks. For him, simply withdrawing troops deployed in Ukraine is not a palatable option. The Russian president can, however, put his foot down and, instead of acting militarily as he has always said he would not, apply what the Kremlin often describes as “military-technical” responses.
This would involve, for example, opening a permanent base in Belarus, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and sending troops or weapons to its allies in the backyard of the US, Cuba and Venezuela.
In an interview with Russia’s Tass news agency, Vladimir Ermakov, a senior Moscow diplomat official, said that if the Kremlin’s demands to “ensure containment and predictability” continue to go unfulfilled, a nuclear missile crisis between Washington and Moscow would be inevitable.
