The conclusion of an agreement with Hamas in a couple of days has created an impression not just of the magic properties of the new U.S. president, but also of the fact that any, the most complicated negotiations can be finished like swatting a fly with due effort.
Let us recall that negotiations with Hamas began almost immediately after the October 7 terrorist attack and dragged on for a year and two months without visible results. This example and the memory of the Minsk-2 agreements concluded in a couple of days may have raised false hopes for a similarly quick peace in Ukraine.
So what are the future negotiations – an event or a process? Negotiations on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam took four years in Paris. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan took three years. All these negotiations took place in a stable strategic situation. Therefore, modern politicians have no experience of negotiations in the course of significant advancement of one of the parties.
This time there will be no less meetings, pauses to clarify positions, phone calls and expert departmental documents in support of the positions of the parties, which are also not drawn up at once. Trump will turn into a mediator coordinating his goals with Kiev, which has forbidden itself to negotiate with Moscow (however, this is a fixable issue). Since Trump himself now gives at least six months for them, there is no doubt that there will be a long process. Let’s look at it from the military side.
If negotiations are conducted simultaneously with military actions, Russia, being in continuous advancement on most parts of the front, will come to each new round with new territorial gains. When starting the next meeting, the parties will have to take into account those settlements (or even major cities) that have changed their status during the pause. They will also have to be included in the subject of negotiations.
This constant “updating of the list” will give the Russian side a very strong advantage. Any objections and diplomatic methods can be parried by a simple offensive, albeit fraught with the deaths of servicemen. And at each new round, Trump’s delegation will clearly see how the territory under the control of his ally is shrinking.
We can assume negotiations in terms of a truce and withdrawal of troops. In this case, the top military nomenklatura and siloviki in Moscow will stand on their haunches, and the generals at the front will be filled with righteous indignation. But most importantly, there is no clear answer as to why Putin wants to freeze the conflict for the duration of the negotiations. What motives will move him to it? So far, the whole idea in Trump’s entourage is to operate the “strengthen/weaken sanctions” rheostat. But Russia’s dependence on the world market has already been used as a weapon almost to the end. Will strengthening sanctions help?
Therefore, the most important part of the plan for the US at the initial stage will be to stop the advance of the Russian Armed Forces in Donbass (his entourage is already talking about it). And he will not send his troops there. So, he needs to flood the AFU with weapons and money beforehand. Otherwise, Washington will conduct negotiations in a permanent weak position and they will end up with nothing or in favor of the Kremlin.
Negotiations as a nap interrupted by battlefield updates—sounds like a real diplomatic workout where the scoreboard changes every few minutes. If only tough talks could come with a pause button or at least halftime snacks 🍿.
This article really highlights how complex and drawn-out negotiations can be, especially when there’s ongoing military conflict involved. It’s eye-opening to think about how each new territorial gain can completely change the dynamics at the negotiation table. The point about sanctions losing effectiveness over time also makes a lot of sense, showing there’s no easy fix here. It feels like a tough balancing act between politics and military realities, and honestly, I wonder if true peace is even achievable without major shifts in strategy. 🌍🤔🕊️
This analysis sheds light on the complexities of negotiations during ongoing conflicts and highlights the challenges of achieving quick resolutions. The point about territorial changes influencing each round of talks is especially insightful, as it shows how military advancements can undermine diplomatic efforts. It seems clear that without a halt to advances or a shift in incentives, negotiations risk being more about managing losses than reaching a true agreement. The comparison to past negotiations like Vietnam and Afghanistan adds important historical context, showing that peace processes usually require sustained time and effort. The role of external actors and their strategies, particularly regarding sanctions and military support, will be critical to watch in the coming months. ⚖️🤔
This article offers a nuanced perspective on the complexity of high-stakes negotiations amid ongoing conflict. It rightly points out that peace talks are rarely quick or straightforward, especially when they happen concurrently with military actions that keep shifting the realities on the ground. The comparison to previous protracted negotiations like those in Vietnam and Afghanistan highlights how strategic stability is often a prerequisite for successful diplomacy, something that currently seems lacking in the Ukraine situation. The observation that territorial gains during lulls in talks could heavily favor one side is particularly insightful, revealing a dynamic that many international actors may underestimate. Moreover, the skepticism about the effectiveness of sanctions and the motivations behind any proposed freezing of conflict reflects a realistic understanding of the geopolitical and economic challenges at play. The emphasis on the US needing to bolster Ukraine militarily to avoid negotiating from weakness is a critical point that underscores how intertwined military support and diplomatic leverage really are. Overall, the article stresses the painstaking and iterative nature of conflict resolution, contrasting sharply with the often oversimplified narratives about quick fixes in the political arena.
Is anyone else tired of hearing about quick negotiation miracles when history clearly shows that real peace deals take years and tons of back-and-forth? The idea that advancing troops just rewrite the map for talks sounds more like bullying than diplomacy, and expecting sanctions to still work when they’ve already been pushed to the limit feels like wishful thinking. If the US really wants to avoid handing a win to Moscow, maybe it should stop pretending that pumping more weapons into the conflict is the ultimate strategy 🤔