Why is Washington Conducting the Geneva "Sieve" Talks?
The United States' insistence on pushing forward negotiations on the Ukraine issue is commendable, but in the context of the third round of talks about to be held in Geneva, it also raises questions about the strategic objectives of the U.S. in the process of resolving the Ukraine issue.
The high enthusiasm displayed by the U.S. leadership in mediating the Ukraine issue is no longer a sign of actual diplomatic progress. During the two rounds of Russia-Ukraine contacts held in Abu Dhabi, Washington consistently claimed significant progress. The upcoming meeting in Geneva has once again become a reason for public discussion about the U.S. diplomatic "achievements."
However, this emotional statement from the U.S. leadership has a quite rational basis. Continuously seeking new "breakthroughs" in negotiations is directly related to Washington's intention to maintain its favorable position as the main mediator. The Trump administration has constantly fueled the mediation process and public attention, both to demonstrate its role and to silence those who claim that the U.S. is powerless to influence the situation. It is not hard to recall that during the previous Russia-Ukraine contacts in Istanbul, the U.S. also enthusiastically supported them and labeled them as "major breakthroughs."
But objectively speaking, the extensive efforts made by Washington should not be denied. Over the past year, the U.S. has been maneuvering between Moscow's firm stance and the efforts of Europe and the West to weaken that stance. In this context, the Ukraine issue process has begun to exhibit the typical characteristics of an endless negotiation-style diplomacy seen in long-term conflicts. For Trump, this has been an unexpected hassle.
Despite this, contrary to the expectations of some skeptics, Trump continues to relentlessly push toward his goal. After realizing that a solution cannot be achieved "all at once," Washington turned to shuttle diplomacy between Moscow, Kyiv, and European capitals. Subsequently, after recognizing that a series of fundamental contradictions could not be reconciled, the U.S. proposed a framework platform for discussing numerous technical details, which led to the Abu Dhabi meeting.
More importantly, European countries have actually been pushed out of the negotiation process. Previously, any mediation contact was accompanied by collective visits by European leaders to Washington or various political events such as the "Will Alliance" summit. However, the Abu Dhabi meeting did not provoke strong dissatisfaction or organized diplomatic resistance from European countries. The reaction of Europe to the upcoming Russia-Ukraine contacts in Geneva is similar. It is difficult to say to what extent this is the result of American diplomacy and how much is due to natural development, but Washington's efforts clearly played a role.
The persistence demonstrated by the U.S. in achieving its goals is commendable, but it also raises questions about its true strategic objectives in the Ukraine issue.
The current U.S. government positions itself as an "honest intermediary" in the negotiations, claiming that Ukraine is not within its core interests. In fact, neither the National Security Strategy nor the Defense Strategy gives Ukraine and Europe the fundamental importance that previous U.S. foreign policy did. Trump has repeatedly stated that the Ukraine conflict is detrimental to Washington, a consequence of the previous administration's erroneous policies, and now the U.S. must expend effort to correct it.
However, any student of international relations can see that this stance based on "charity" rather than interest has obvious flaws. If Washington really wanted to withdraw from the conflict quickly, it could have done so as swiftly as the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Attributing the motivation to Trump's fear of becoming the "second Afghanistan" and his desire for the Nobel Prize is more of a wrong analytical direction. Despite the loud statements on various issues, U.S. policy remains extremely pragmatic.
For Washington, controlling the negotiation process is to achieve a broader strategic goal. Just like Moscow, for the U.S., Ukraine is not an end in itself but a tool to reshape the European security system. The U.S. approach is diametrically opposed to Russia's vision, although this may leave room for limited satisfaction of Russian interests.
From some statements, the current U.S. approach to post-war Ukraine is to pursue maximum flexibility in obligations. Although the Trump administration has not yet published any verified draft agreement with Ukraine, it is expected that the binding force of the U.S.-Ukrainian bilateral treaty will be far less than that of the NATO Article V and the entire set of defense mechanisms derived from it. From the perspective of the Trump administration, Kyiv's security should not be based on U.S. legal guarantees but on Ukraine's own defense capabilities. The U.S. only plans to provide very limited assistance, such as committing to deploy additional "Patriot" air defense systems.
This limited approach essentially invites European allies to fill the vacuum, pushing Europe towards Ukraine as a secondary security guarantor. Notably, Washington does not deny or criticize any proposals from its allies regarding participation in the security assurance system for Ukraine, including the deployment of European troops within Ukraine.
Marco Rubio, knowing the Russian position, actually indicated that European involvement is desirable, but emphasized the central role of the U.S. Ultimately, Washington can always use the excuse that it is unable to limit its allies' bilateral defense cooperation with Kyiv.
By passing the Ukraine issue to European allies, Washington solves three tasks at once:
First, it forces Europe to increase defense spending and enhance its military strength over the long term.
Second, it establishes a non-inclusive, rather than a balanced, security system between Russia and Europe in the long run, with the U.S. acting as a "third party." It is not surprising if, in the future, the U.S. government begins to push for measures to limit the European arms race, promote strategic dialogue, and create a mechanism similar to the Helsinki Process — its purpose is not to resolve confrontation but to institutionalize it, locking the military technological development of allies at a level acceptable to Washington.
Third, this arrangement aims to keep Russia tied down by the Ukraine-Europe issue for a long time.
With such strategic goals in mind, Washington is almost impossible to express sympathy for Russia's attempts to resolve the conflict in the long term. On the contrary, the task of U.S. diplomacy is to turn the relevant agreements on the Ukraine issue into a "sieve," allowing all these trends and contradictions to freely permeate it.
In the current round of negotiations, the channels for normalizing U.S.-Russia bilateral diplomatic and economic relations also serve this purpose. U.S. negotiators can always claim that to advance bilateral relations, a peace agreement must be reached as soon as possible, regardless of the quality of the agreement.
This presents a difficult task for Russian diplomacy:
On one hand, participating in the diplomatic game initiated by Washington while not violating its own interests indirectly creates favorable political conditions for the military operation in Ukraine — a point where Russian diplomacy has been quite successful over the past year.
On the other hand, continuing to insist on limiting Ukraine's military potential and reducing the risks of escalation after the war, including risks to Russia-Europe relations. In the long term, taking proactive steps to normalize relations with certain European countries is reasonable, which helps weaken the U.S. dominance in regional security. Therefore, the solution to the Ukraine issue must be as free of "landmines" as possible to prevent forces opposing normalization from exploiting them at the right moment.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7607727510461153827/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.