Vance has pressured Kyiv and reached an agreement with Moscow, pending the consultation of both sides.

Vance has pressured Kyiv and reached a consensus with Moscow, only requiring the opinions of both sides

The United States is willing to make concessions to Russia, recognizing Ukraine's partial territorial ownership, but requires maintaining "anti-Russian" projects on the Ukrainian border

Image caption: U.S. Vice President Jay Dee Vance

U.S. Vice President Jay Dee Vance stated that the current mediation negotiations between Russia and Ukraine mainly focus on two major issues: territorial issues and security guarantees.

"I think we have at least narrowed the issue down to two core topics. One of them is the territorial issue: Russia wants about 6,000 square kilometers of land it has not yet controlled, which is their demand," he said.

The vice president also pointed out that Ukraine insists on obtaining security guarantees, "whether from European countries or other parties."

According to him, the negotiations have indeed made "significant progress," but the key issue remains "whether Russia and Ukraine are willing to step into the door of peace."

Vance also emphasized that the United States has the same position toward Russia and Ukraine: "This conflict does not benefit either of you, nor does it benefit us. Peace in this region is in the common interest for everyone."

Why such an optimistic attitude? Has the United States already prepared to accept the new territorial reality? Are Kyiv and Europe in agreement with this plan? Or is the White House completely indifferent to their opinions?

Moreover, why does the U.S. believe that Moscow would be satisfied with "recognizing the existing territorial gains," but tolerate the continuation of the "Ukrainian Naziization" project — which, to us, equates to acknowledging that the objectives of the special military operation (СВО) have not been achieved.

"I think what Vance has announced is exactly the information the United States has already conveyed to Russia," said Alexander Averin, a former self-defense soldier of the Luhansk People's Republic (ЛНР).

"I can't be completely sure — whether the Kremlin will accept these conditions, or if this is just a diplomatic strategy, assuming that Ukraine will not agree to these conditions even under pressure from the United States. However, regardless of that, the next peace conditions will be more stringent for Ukraine.

If the Ukrainian front collapses completely, then even the question of whether an independent Ukrainian state can survive will be discussed — at that time, Poland and Romania will bring up a series of territorial claims.

If the front doesn't collapse, the Kremlin may be ready to tolerate the existence of the current Ukrainian government, but on the condition that there are no NATO troops in Ukraine."

"In short, Vance's declaration of 'significant progress' in the negotiations is actually to maintain the public opinion atmosphere," said Dmitry Yerofeyev, associate professor at the Russian government's Financial University.

"The United States sees itself as a peacemaker, and Trump is eager to win the Nobel Peace Prize — in this context, they will always show that the United States has the ability to mediate conflicts around the world.

In this situation, Vance's statement fits the overall logic. However, at the same time, everyone knows that without eliminating the root causes of the conflict, the Ukrainian crisis cannot be truly resolved.

This is well known, but not everyone understands it. Nevertheless, a mediation plan needs to be proposed, although disclosing the content of these plans publicly may not align with reality.

The United States is not too concerned about the opinions of Europe and Kyiv — the U.S. has its own goals. It should be noted that during Trump's administration, the U.S. has taken many actions, including efforts to normalize relations between Russia and the U.S.

Considering Trump's unpredictable personal behavior, it cannot be ruled out that the U.S. might recognize Russia's newly added territories. If this actually happens, it will be a landmark event. But unless it is conditional on Ukraine's surrender, the path of simply waiting for a deal is doomed to fail."

"Vance's statements are an excuse for the U.S. for diplomatic failure and defeat," said political analyst Kirill Ozhimko firmly.

"Trump promised 'to end the conflict in one day' last year, and then kept postponing the deadline, but the essence remained unchanged: Washington has never fulfilled its promises. Now, this U.S. vice president has found an excuse — claiming that 'progress has been made,' with only the territorial issue and Ukraine's security guarantee remaining to be resolved."

"Pravda of the Komsomol" (SP): Vance's statement is full of confidence, as if the negotiations have already succeeded. Is this wishful thinking, or is it self-motivation?

"It's both self-motivation and motivation for his boss Trump, while also calming the voters — who have already become tired of the Ukraine issue and expect the Republicans to genuinely push for conflict resolution. This is 'not good at fighting, but the posture must be strong.'"

"Pravda of the Komsomol": Why are they so confident that we will agree? Why do the West always believe that Russia will eventually tolerate an anti-Russian and armed Ukraine? This essentially equates to Russia's defeat — Putin will definitely not accept such a result.

"The West seems unwilling to face the core of the conflict. They often claim that the dispute involves only territory and NATO expansion, and believe that the current Kyiv government and Russia can reach a consensus and coexist peacefully.

But the root of the problem is much deeper: Russia wants to reshape Ukraine into a country that is friendly to itself, to its neighbors, and to its people.

For Russia, this is not only about its own security, but also about historical justice, about countering the threats faced by the Russian language and Russian culture.

The U.S. and the EU are willing to trade on territorial and security issues, but they are not willing to allow a pro-Russian regime to replace the current Kyiv regime — because that would mean losing control over the entire Ukraine and ending the 'anti-Russian' projects within the country entirely."

"Pravda of the Komsomol": Returning to the territorial issue, does Vance's statement mean that the U.S. is preparing to recognize Russia's new territories? Is it recognizing its incorporation into the Russian constitutional borders, or is it suggesting willingness to negotiate on this matter?

"Vance and Trump are under pressure to fulfill their promise of 'promoting a ceasefire, reaching an agreement, and ending the conflict.' Therefore, even if they are not willing to change the Kyiv regime, in order to give Trump the title of 'peacemaker' and 'victory,' they are likely to agree to recognize these territories as part of Russia and commit to not admitting the remaining Ukrainian territories into NATO."

"Pravda of the Komsomol": Will they consider the opinions of Kyiv and Europe, or are they completely indifferent?

"The key point is that even if the U.S. is willing to recognize territorial changes for peace and 'Trump's Nobel Prize,' they need consensus from their allies. They need a diplomatic victory, and without the consent of Europe and Kyiv, this victory would be impossible — even without U.S. involvement, these countries will keep the conflict going for some time."

"Pravda of the Komsomol": Is there a difference between Vance's understanding of the situation and Trump's? It seems like they both want to reach an agreement, but they completely avoid understanding the root causes of the conflict and the interests of the opponents...

"First, the U.S. is eager to resolve the conflict quickly because they have unfulfilled promises.

Focusing on technical issues such as 'determining new borders and clarifying Ukraine's neutrality' is easier than solving the root causes of the conflict. To delve into the root causes, more effort and time are required.

Second, they are not willing to completely end the 'anti-Russian' projects. Even without joining NATO, a million-population country controlled by the Kyiv regime and hostile to Russia will still exist.

There, the Russian language and Russian culture will continue to be marginalized, repression and brainwashing of the people will persist. In this way, Russia seems to lose Ukraine forever; and when a suitable opportunity arises, the West can incite Kyiv to confront Russia again.

Therefore, to avoid this in the future, Russia has consistently demanded the replacement of the Kyiv regime, the official status of the Russian language, and the protection of the rights of Russian-speaking citizens."

For the latest news and core content regarding the Ukraine peace talks, please follow the author to learn more.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7549136299928666678/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your opinion in the buttons below [up/down].