It is no surprise that the Ukraine negotiations are, once again, stuck on territorial issues. You do not need to look far to see the problem. US Vice President J.D. Vance has recently said, “the thorniest issues have never been resolved, including who will control the Donbas region.”
While the US says there is some reason for guarded optimism, some European voices go further and argue that the negotiations are bearing fruit. Finnish President Alexander Stubb thinks “we are closer to an agreement than at any time.”
The test will come soon as the Russians are briefed on the dialogues in Miami. Meanwhile, White House envoy Steve Witkoff, in a joint statement with Ukrainian security council head Rustem Umerov, called Sunday’s (December 21) talks “productive and constructive”, saying they “focused on a shared strategic approach between Ukraine, the United States and Europe.”
Russia has compelling reasons to try and stay in the negotiations. For Russia, success is not defined as settling the conflict in Ukraine, which they claim they are winning. Rather, the Russians are looking for a strategic relationship with the United States as the desired outcome.
Not all the potential elements of a Russian-US strategic relationship appear, so far, to be on the table. What is known is that the main Russian negotiator, Kirill Dmitriev, has been discussing various investment and business schemes with top US negotiator Witkoff.
Such business arrangements might include joint projects in the Arctic region, a Trump target where Russia appears ahead of the United States, and potential cooperation in technology and minerals, including rare earths and uranium. Connected to these economic talks are the various US sanctions that would have to be lifted.
Because Dimitriev is an investment specialist and does not have a mandate to discuss strategic military issues, such discussions would be in the future. The Russians have often said they want to normalize relations with the United States and NATO and work out strategic agreements that stabilize US-Russian and Russian-European relations.
The same can be said of Witkoff and his associate, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. In fact, it isn’t even clear if either has the necessary security clearances to participate in strategic dialogues with Russia.
It may be that the latest outburst from French President Emanuel Macron, suggesting a face-to-face dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin, strongly hints that the French are looking for a way out.
Putin needs to balance the Macron initiative by not confusing the US-led peace effort. So far, the Russians have said they welcome dialogue with Europe, sidestepping Macron operating independently.
The Russians have reasons to want to put strategic military, diplomatic and political agreements in place with the United States and NATO. Putin no doubt understands that he will need to reorient Russia’s economy after the Ukraine war ends.
Russia has become increasingly dependent on China for electronics, advanced machine tools, sophisticated metallurgy, robotics and quantum computing, all of which is missing or only weakly supported inside Russia.
The lack of a vigorous commercial sector and years of limited investment have left Russia looking too much like a third-world country with nuclear weapons, a condition Putin’s twice-removed predecessor, Mikhail Gorbachev, realized 40 years ago. Russia has restored its aerospace capabilities and is now able to manufacture commercial aircraft locally without Western imports, a significant achievement.
But Russia has not proven that these advances are commercially viable, although maybe Moscow does not care. While the West is stepping up investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and China is hot on its trail, Russia appears stuck, demonstrating only some minor AI capabilities in drones and other weapons. A modern army today needs a high level of integration and AI-supported decision-making, something Russia is mostly lacking.
The central question for Russia is whether it can secure future deals with the United States, and possibly with some of the bigger NATO countries, particularly France, which once had a number of business deals in the Soviet period, without doing a deal on Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, by stonewalling talks on territory issues, is facilitating an outcome that, ironically, could help Russia and the United States find peace through means other than Ukraine.
Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy undersecretary of defense and special correspondent at Asia Times. This article was first published on his newsletter Weapons and Strategy and is republished with permission.
Little Z only repeats the intransigence of all of them. And Russia must be aware that any deals with Mei Gwok will be changed sooner or later, just ask Mexico and Canada. Ask Greenland of lust. Even Venezuela is not safe.
Chump being Chump. Walk right into Putin trap. Throwing the Europeans under the bus. Putin can’t believe his luck. 🤣🤣🤣
The US is not “agreement capable”. There is no detente. There are no negotiations – three co-belligerents (USA, EU, Ukraine) having a circle jerk is NOT a peace negotiation.
And what does Russia even need from the USA?
So true. Proving that this is just a dance with each party having a different set of steps. And hoping someone reveals their intention without stoping on each other’s toes.
Nothibg is real. To an outsider it appears that one side has all the confidence in the world and another just going along with the dance. Collective West has been agreement incapable for a long long time.,
Detente with Russia? While stabbing them in the back. Anglo Americans are backstabbers. Desperate Chumpo stealing oil tankers, Brits using Ukrainians to attack oil tankers. This is the true face of these people.
“You pretend we have a detente while I pretend I am not attacking you”
The Russian are not stupid. They know what’s happening and they will use it as an opportunity to stab the Americans. Without them realising. 🤣🤣🤣
Russia is not that into the West anymore, after so many betrayals. You are self aggrandizing, so typical, never learned from past 70 years failures.
There is ZERO incentive to learn when your business model is repeating history.
19th century history. It took two word wars, and still stuck in the 19 century model. Like a person still wearing the clothes and the hairdo from their youth.