Peace talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States began today and will continue tomorrow. As someone who works in foreign policy, have you heard any news from the talks that you can share?

The fact that this meeting is taking place is certainly news in itself. Russians, Ukrainians and Americans sat down together for four hours today. Before that, representatives of the United States, Ukraine and Europe held consultations ahead of the main talks. But calling these peace talks is clearly an exaggeration. The way I see it, this is a diplomatic special operation by Russia, aimed at imposing its terms on both Ukraine and, in fact, the Western world through diplomatic means.

Why is this charade still going on? Trump has already gotten through the midterm elections, so he doesn't have much domestic political incentive to pursue this. There's also this ongoing question of whether the European Union has a seat at the table. Initially, it didn't, and I don't know what kind of compromise they eventually reached. In the end, Europe was both there and not there.

Trump seems to be in a hurry. The pace of diplomatic activity has been pushed extremely high. The Americans want to reach some kind of agreement with the Russians relatively quickly, primarily with Russia. This is probably connected in some ways to the midterm elections, because they were a devastating defeat for Trump. The new Congress convenes in January, so there is currently this two-month window.

Is he hoping they can still get something done without congressional approval?

They can get something done, but on the other hand, this is an extremely short period. We know that Russia's demands and what Ukraine is prepared to accept are currently incompatible. Russia is essentially demanding Ukraine's surrender and a complete overhaul of Europe's security architecture. That has been Russia's long-term strategic objective.

In some respects, it is positive that European representatives are at least present in Abu Dhabi. Perhaps they can slow things down a little and temper the Americans' hopes that they might somehow find a shortcut to peace. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said very plainly today that Russia has no interest in establishing a ceasefire because it does not want to give Europe time to regroup. So Russia is not actually prepared to take even that first step. And if they cannot agree on a ceasefire, what kind of peace talks can we really be talking about?

At the same time, some of the proposed terms have emerged publicly and there are reports that Trump has said Ukraine's map could look different in the future. That can only mean Ukraine would have to give up certain large areas. Not the entire Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but the parts currently occupied by Russia. Ukraine, however, has made it absolutely clear that giving up territory is unacceptable.

Ukraine's red line is unequivocal: these talks must not undermine its sovereignty in any way and there can be no concessions on territorial integrity. The Ukrainians themselves have said they would be willing to freeze hostilities along the current front line. They understand that restoring their territorial integrity could take years, perhaps even longer. But it is clear that they cannot under any circumstances agree to recognize de jure that Crimea, Luhansk or other occupied territories are now part of Russia. That, on the other hand, is one of Russia's explicit demands.

There is also something we need to pay very close attention to, although I wouldn't necessarily call it a warning sign. There has been a great deal of talk surrounding these negotiations about a possible division of Europe, a Yalta 2.0 and so on. I don't currently see that danger as an immediate one. I would be more inclined to raise the issue if a bilateral meeting between Putin and Trump were to take place. That cannot be ruled out and could happen before the end of the year if G20 leaders gather in the United States. There is reason to believe Trump would invite Putin to the White House, assuming Putin travels to the United States.

He did travel to Alaska, after all.

There, they put together a framework that the Russians have subsequently referred to as the Alaska agreements, which they claim the United States is somehow failing to honor. Russia has interpreted those agreements as meaning that the United States has accepted precisely what Russia is doing on Ukrainian territory.

We should talk a little about the prospect of another Yalta-style deal. In Europe, including here in Estonia, there are fears that the great powers, the United States and Russia, will once again reach agreements over Europe's head on matters that are actually unacceptable to us. That includes demands Russia has been making for years, such as NATO returning to the boundaries it had before Poland and Estonia joined the alliance. Is there any realistic possibility of such deals being struck today?

No, that certainly isn't going to happen in the sense that NATO would simply agree to withdraw its allied forces from this region and leave us to defend our country on our own. That definitely will not happen. Russia laid out its demands in December 2021, issuing an ultimatum to NATO to withdraw to its 1997 boundaries. In essence, that would mean NATO voluntarily dismantling itself.

What could happen, and what is certainly dangerous, is that some of our allied capitals might believe Russia's concerns need to be addressed in some way. That Russia, too, might have certain legitimate interests in strengthening its security, which is, of course, absurd. But this could lead Russia to believe that it is indeed possible to reach some kind of fictitious agreement with the Americans. The Russians might conclude that the United States is no longer particularly enthusiastic about defending all its allies, which hopefully is not true, and that could encourage Russia to act even more aggressively.

For now, however, Russia's main objective remains to impose its own narrative and talking points. Unfortunately, that is also what these negotiations, or this diplomatic special operation, are largely about.

Should negotiations even be taking place? Some observers have said it is better for the sides to be talking than not talking at all. The previous round of talks actually took place quite a long time ago. It feels like three or four months ago, but it was actually 10 months ago.

February was the last time they met in a similar format. When I speak with my Ukrainian colleagues, they say the only positive aspect is getting a sense of the arguments the Russian side is putting forward.

But in purely practical terms, the most important result these talks have produced so far has been prisoner exchanges. Hopefully, this meeting will also yield at least some results in the form of prisoner exchanges.

What the Ukrainians are naturally focusing on above all is their desire to achieve a cessation of hostilities and a ceasefire and then see whether it is even possible to make any further progress.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!