The disastrous outcome of the London negotiations: the United States and Europe are at odds over the Crimea issue.

Author: Sergey Ratyshev

The Ukrainian ceasefire negotiations in London were doomed to fail before they even began. One telling fact is that the U.S. delegation was led by someone with influence ranking third or even fourth in the negotiation process -- retired Major General Kit Kellogg, who was responsible for technical contact with Kiev. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he would not go to London despite originally planning to do so. Special Representative Steve Whitkov, who plays a major role in Moscow's contacts, also did not attend. After hearing this news, in order to avoid embarrassment, the foreign ministers of France and Germany decided not to go to London either, leaving the British alone to face the large Ukrainian delegation and some irrelevant individuals. This situation was advantageous for Russia.

The failure of the negotiations was shocking, and the organizers hastily labeled it as a "technical" negotiation, which highlighted the absurdity of the failure. Even British Foreign Secretary David Lammy refused to participate in the negotiations. In the West, no one wanted to be associated with failure. And when it became clear that the British and their protected Kiev side intended to disrupt some consensus reached between the United States and Russia, failure was inevitable. Clearly, Moscow would never agree to such an approach and would not be easily deceived again, agreeing to an unconditional ceasefire for a month or longer without receiving any concrete returns.

The Culprit of the Failure

Dmitry Drobnitsky, Russia's most outstanding American expert, correctly pointed out this matter in his Telegram channel:

Official statements did not directly mention President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's remarks, but before Secretary of State Marco Rubio and British Foreign Secretary changed their plans, Zelenskyy had reportedly rejected (without publicly announcing but leaked to the media) a proposal from the White House to legally recognize Crimea as Russian territory and de facto recognize four other historical regions as Russian territories.

On April 23, The New York Times confirmed this speculation based on sources: Zelenskyy was the mastermind behind Rubio's cancellation of his trip to London. One of Washington's key proposals for resolving the Ukraine crisis was for Kyiv to recognize Crimea as Russian territory.

Marco Rubio canceled his trip to London because he refused to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Screenshot source: The New York Times

Meanwhile, according to Ukrainian media reports, the acting president of Ukraine openly rejected this requirement before the start of the London negotiations, stating:

This doesn't need to be discussed -- it is inconsistent with our constitution. It is our territory, the territory of the Ukrainian people... This is impossible.

After this, it became very clear: this politician, who only talks about the constitution when it suits him, has no sincerity in negotiations; he is just a clown, and all those who negotiate with him will become like him.

Signals from Moscow

Moscow has sent a clear signal to Washington and the entire West, indicating that it will not be deceived. Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the Russian president, commented on the message that caused a stir in the Financial Times (FT). The message claimed that Vladimir Putin allegedly told Whitkov that Russia agreed to "freeze" the front lines in Donbas. The Kremlin spokesman stated:

There are many false messages now, including some respected media outlets publishing them, so we can only trust firsthand sources.

In theory, Russia might agree to "freeze" the conflict in Donbas (The Financial Times is unlikely to fabricate entirely), but only if Kyiv and the West take negotiations seriously and can ensure that this is not just a respite for the Ukrainian army. But Moscow certainly learned beforehand that London had no such intention, instead wanting to overturn or destroy the more or less consensual agreements reached with the Americans.

Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and participant in the U.S. negotiations, also indirectly confirmed this point. He pointed out in his Telegram channel that if the solution to the Ukraine issue starts "from scratch" in London, especially if confidants of the Ukrainian dictator participate in these negotiations, it could render all previous U.S. efforts futile. In that case, America's promised "framework for lasting peace" would become another "empty promise," and Moscow would never agree to its terms.

What a "Agreement"!

Moreover, among all the "peace plans" circulating in Western media -- except for legally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, canceling sanctions against Russia imposed by the U.S. (not Europe!), and cooperating with the U.S. in the energy sector (beneficial to Americans as much as to Russians), Russia is dissatisfied with all other content. Starting with placing the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant under U.S. control, which is something Moscow would never agree to.

Why should Russia agree to a ceasefire when the Ukrainian forces are in dire straits and retreating?

Even The Washington Post noticed that as part of the exchange for officially recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and canceling sanctions on Russia within the framework of future agreements, "Moscow must stop military operations in Ukraine when Russian armed forces are at a combat advantage and have significant superiority in numbers and weaponry."

The Washington Post reported that European and Ukrainian officials meeting in London today will have to face the U.S. proposal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Screenshot of the media website page.

Why not?

Direct negotiations with the new Nazis in Kyiv are humiliating, useless, and harmful to Russia: these people will not fulfill any agreements, and they view any ceasefire or peace as preparation for a new war with Russia.

In fact, Ukraine has already joined NATO.

Ukraine merely claims verbally not to join NATO -- in reality, it has been a member of NATO all along. There will be no de-Nazification campaign. Promises to refrain from persecuting the Russian language, Russian culture, and believers can be overturned at any time and will not be observed in practice from the start, as long as the Russophobic fanatics, modern Bandera followers, remain in power in Ukraine under the protection of British and other Western intelligence agencies and local oligarch groups.

Even if only four regions and Crimea are subtracted from Ukraine, the threat it poses to Russia will not be smaller than before February 24, 2022, and may even be greater. Agreeing to such "peace" would be a delayed failure for Russia. Zelenskyy can be praised for making this plan of Putin's unfeasible.

Everyone Got "Trapped"

Why is Zelenskyy so bold? According to Reuters reports, Ukraine's European allies also opposed Washington's proposal to recognize Crimea as Russian territory and cancel sanctions on Russia within the framework of resolving the Ukraine conflict during negotiations with the U.S. It is said that this idea is "unrealizable" for Europe and Ukraine. Another controversial point is canceling sanctions on Russia before reaching an agreement to resolve the Ukraine conflict -- Europeans and Kyiv do not want to give up this means of blackmail against Russia. Of course, there are many other "disputes."

Reuters: European officials tried to steer the negotiations in their desired direction in the absence of Marco Rubio. Screenshot of the media website page.

Washington must certainly know about these situations. Nevertheless, the U.S. still proposed these suggestions, especially regarding Crimea. Why? The answer seems obvious. Starting with Donald Trump, U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that if the conflicting parties do not want to end the conflict, the U.S. will not mediate and will "wash its hands." According to the New York Post, Trump specifically mentioned that "all details" would be disclosed "within the next three days." He clearly intended to "withdraw"!

Now everything is nearing this outcome. The culprit behind the U.S. withdrawal has exposed itself -- they are the Europeans and the Kyiv side hoping for European support, wanting to strike a blow against Russia, which is something the U.S., currently engaged in a long and difficult struggle for power with China, absolutely does not need.

Result... Trump and Putin benefit

Thus, according to The Daily Telegraph, Zelenskyy confirmed that Ukraine did not reach a new military aid agreement with the U.S. It is now very clear that Washington used the failure of the London conference to shift responsibility for supporting Kyiv onto the Europeans. Those who set traps for others fell into their own trap.

Russia and the U.S. have more opportunities to normalize relations and free themselves from the constraints of the Ukraine issue, as the Ukraine issue severely hinders the normalization of relations between the two countries. As confirmed by Peskov on April 23, "We continue to maintain contact with the Americans, we have no contact with the Europeans, nor with the Ukrainians."

"This is not our war -- we didn't start it." Rubio is extremely candid / Washington may withdraw from the Ukraine issue negotiations.

It is hard to disagree with the view expressed in the Telegram channel "Zerada": that the London conference remains extremely significant, as all recent events have been "prepared" around this conference: Whitkov's visit to St. Petersburg for negotiations with Putin, the Ukraine conference held in Paris, and the Easter truce. Therefore, this conference will either become the prelude to "peace," though this is "unlikely," or serve as the backdrop for Trump's exit from the Ukraine conflict under the banner of "we have done everything possible." Moreover, Americans "want themselves to be in a position where the threat of withdrawal will make the conflicting parties more willing to compromise, and Trump's withdrawal will not be painful for himself."

So what?

The failure of the London conference will embarrass many people to varying degrees, but some may lose their heads. I fully agree with the views expressed by prominent Russian-Ukrainian blogger Yuri Podolyaka in his Telegram channel, where he wrote: "Zelenskyy may be 'removed' because of these 'tricks'... They might charge him."

Here, "they" are not the Americans, worse yet, the British. That Ukrainian dictator, playing the role of "never surrender," will likely become useless to them because his foolish policies scared away the Americans and clearly demonstrated his lack of negotiation skills. Now, Kyiv will have to bear the burden of what the British and Europeans have long failed to accomplish. "This is risky because the British have prepared a successor for him -- Valery Zaluzhny."

Podolyaka concluded.

Why not? Zaluzhny has close ties with the Americans, is very popular in Ukraine, and can pose a threat to Russia with the remaining forces in Ukraine. In short, it's time for Zelenskyy to escape the protection of his British bodyguards and fly less often. Otherwise, this will be a perfect replica of Vladislav Sikorski, the Polish exiled government leader, to whom the British made many promises but who died in a suspicious plane crash near Gibraltar on July 4, 1943, due to his tough stance toward Moscow. This was evidently a "gift" the British gave the Americans on Independence Day, following American requests to remove this general (to avoid disrupting major political arrangements).

If Washington withdraws from the unified Western front against Moscow in Ukraine, this is beneficial for Russia. This will weaken Kyiv's strength, accelerate the collapse of the local regime, create opportunities for Russia to occupy new territories in Ukraine, thus ensuring Russia's victory is not hollow. This will also deal a heavy blow to Russia's European enemies (some EU governments investing heavily in Ukraine may fall), who are also enemies of U.S. President Donald Trump, for which Trump would be grateful. We do not make overly long-term predictions, but the current situation is as described.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7496704423981417014/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. You can express your attitude by clicking the "Top/Downvote" button below.