French media: Geneva talks end, US says new version of peace agreement will take into account Ukraine's national interests. Should we be optimistic?
Last Sunday, the Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations in Geneva officially ended, based on a 28-point peace plan draft proposed by US President Trump. According to a joint statement released by the White House and Ukraine, it seems that the Geneva talks have truly incorporated the considerations of Ukraine and Europe into the peace plan, as previous plans clearly favored Russia, appearing more like a humiliating surrender agreement rather than a fair plan aimed at achieving a ceasefire. But is the reality really like this? Should we be optimistic about the outcome of these talks?
In a statement jointly released with the Ukrainian delegation participating in the talks, the White House stated: "The talks were constructive, goal-oriented, and respectful, emphasizing both sides' commitment to achieving a just and lasting peace."
The statement said that both sides "reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully respect Ukraine's sovereignty." Additionally, the statement mentioned that through the talks, the US and Ukraine "drafted a new and improved version of the peace framework."
The White House stated that the revised content of the proposal now reflects "their national interests" and provides "credible and enforceable mechanisms to maintain Ukraine's security in the short and long term."
It seems that the Geneva conference has played an important role, but one should also note that the US rhetoric still leaves considerable room for Russia. The US stated that Russia would also "have a voice."
US Secretary of State Rubio said that the high-risk negotiations in Geneva "were very valuable" and constituted "the most productive day in a long time." Rubio said, "I am very optimistic about the results we were able to achieve." However, he revealed little about the details of the negotiations. He also downplayed the Thursday deadline set by President Trump for Ukraine, stating only that officials hope to end the fighting as soon as possible and may continue negotiations on Monday and beyond. He said some issues would ultimately require higher-level officials to intervene. "This is a very delicate moment," Rubio said when talking about the matters still to be resolved. "Some are issues of wording or language, some require higher-level decisions and consultations, and some just need more time to handle." Before the Geneva talks, Trump had set a Thursday deadline for Ukraine's response, but at the same time hinted that it could be extended if substantial progress was seen. He also said the plan was not his "final offer," but did not further explain its meaning.
Additionally, Rubio said the US proposal is "an evolving document" that will continue to be modified in the future. He also made it clear that any final result, once achieved, would still need to be submitted to Moscow, saying, "Obviously, Russia also has a vote."
Andrei Yermak, head of the Ukrainian delegation and head of the presidential office, said, "We have made very good progress and are moving towards a just and lasting peace."
This positive assessment contrasts with Trump himself. Before the talks began, Trump strongly criticized Ukraine for showing "no gratitude" for American military aid, while avoiding criticism of Russia. On Sunday morning, Trump posted on his social platform: "Ukraine's 'leadership' shows no gratitude for our efforts, and Europe continues to buy Russian oil."
After Trump's post, Zelenskyy again expressed gratitude to Trump "personally," praised the US-led security efforts, and emphasized that "the core of the entire diplomatic situation is that Russia started this war, and only Russia."
According to analysis from French newspaper Le Monde, the biggest difference between Trump's initial agreement, which clearly met Russian demands, and the demands of Ukraine and Europe was whether to first stop the fighting or first negotiate. As Russian forces advanced in eastern Ukraine, European countries still prioritized seeking a ceasefire before discussing a formal peace agreement. Once the fighting ends, the focus will shift to continuing negotiations on territory, security, economy, and humanitarian issues. The Europeans believe that negotiations should take place after a ceasefire, based on the frontline, without pre-dropping territories that Russia has not yet taken by force. This is not Russia's strategy. Instead, in Putin's view, a ceasefire should be the endpoint of negotiations, forcing Kyiv to make concessions under military pressure.
On Monday morning, EU leaders, during a summit with African leaders in Angola, will further discuss the US-Ukraine plan. In addition, French President Macron announced over the weekend that leaders of the "voluntary alliance" who pledged to stand with Kyiv will hold a video conference on Tuesday.
About 20 countries have stated that they are willing to deploy troops to Ukraine to ensure a potential ceasefire on land, sea, and air, provided they receive US support. However, the initial proposals from the US and Russia completely ignored this possibility. Moscow refused to allow any NATO forces to be deployed in Ukraine and threatened to attack European soldiers.
Zelenskyy said on Monday that he welcomed the progress made in the talks held in Geneva between the US, Ukraine, and Europe, but emphasized that achieving "true peace" with Russia would require "more effort." The Russian side said that they know the US proposal to end the conflict in Ukraine has been "revised," but have not received any official information yet.
At present, regardless of what statements the US makes, the reality is more complex and difficult to coordinate than imagined. From the perspectives of all parties, the current discussions are in a "very delicate phase," and it is also a major test for the European Union.
Source: rfi
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1849677953450183/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.