Kyiv Security Forum Analytics

Despite Washington's optimistic statements about the agreement on 90% of the peace plan and the constructive nature of the latest rounds of peace talks in Abu Dhabi, recent statements by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, his deputy Grushko, and Putin's press secretary Peskov regarding the preconditions for a ceasefire sounded discordant.

Apparently, the problematic aspects are not only of a territorial nature. The Russian side emphasises the need to provide ‘security guarantees’ not only to Ukraine but also to Russia. At the same time, the Russian side sees these guarantees in the context of ensuring the most favourable conditions for future aggression. How else can one interpret the demands to prohibit Ukraine's membership in NATO, the deployment of NATO troops on the territory of our state, and the cessation of its use to ‘create threats’ to Russia? And this is coming from the aggressor state!

Moreover, Russia has already begun to put forward additional and obviously unacceptable demands on territorial issues, in particular regarding the recognition of the Russian status of the occupied territories.

More recently, Lavrov went even further in his territorial claims. In a speech to the Russian diplomatic corps, he stressed that ‘the people of Crimea, Donbas and Novorossiya have expressed their will in referendums, and [Russia] will see through the process of returning these “historically Russian” lands to their “native harbour”.’ And everyone knows where the borders of the ‘ancient Russian’ lands lie – wherever Russian soldiers can reach.

Lavrov also questioned Moscow's willingness to compromise on the issue of the rights of so-called ‘Russian speakers.’ According to him, ‘the linguistic, cultural and religious rights of those who remain under the authority of Kyiv must be restored.’

Russian officials also emphasise that success in the negotiations can only be achieved if the positions agreed upon at the meeting between the American and Russian leaders in Anchorage are adhered to. At the same time, the content of these supposedly reached agreements is not disclosed. However, disappointment is expressed that the American side is moving away from them.

Given how the meeting in Anchorage ended – with a demonstratively shortened press conference and the cancellation of a friendly lunch – there are serious doubts about the parties' common understanding of the results of this event. This is not to mention the status that any talks between the US and Russian presidents about Ukraine can have without taking Ukraine's opinion into account.

In this context, the ‘constructive’ peace negotiation process looks like a simple delaying tactic. Russia is doing this to avoid new sanctions. Ukraine is forced to play along in order to protect itself from a new suspension of US military support, in particular the transfer of intelligence and the sale of weapons.

US President Trump has so far rejected all proposals to increase pressure on Moscow to bring it to its senses, even when they come from his political allies. At the same time, the White House is seeking to achieve some kind of result as quickly as possible and is insisting on a territorial compromise on the Ukrainian side, ignoring the inconsistencies in the Russian side's agreement on other aspects of the peace plan that are included in the aforementioned 90%.

But such a flimsy structure of artificial ‘peace agreements’ is bound to collapse.

New sanctions on Russia would not only be a more effective tool for achieving a truce, but would also increase the level of support for Republicans in American society. After all, there is still a prevailing demand for support for Ukraine.