Andrew C. Kuchins
The launching of negotiations last month between the Trump administration and Russia and Ukraine for an agreement to end the war has been head-spinning, to say the least. How these talks unfold may well recast international security long into the future. This will be a case study in negotiations that will likely generate decades of debate and analysis amongst scholars and analysts of international studies.
The phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on March 18 did not significantly alter the parameters of these talks. The most significant development was the Russian agreement not to attack Ukrainian energy and infrastructure for thirty days, but their negotiating position has not altered much. In fact, it may have stiffened as they demanded that foreign military support for Ukraine be stopped. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin still face critical questions whose answers will determine the fate of these negotiations.
Let’s start with Donald Trump’s position. Firstly, he should be applauded for trying to end the war. However, the devil is always in the details in such matters, and there are many reasons to question whether Trump and his team are sufficiently skilled and patient to execute such a challenging negotiation. Already, Trump’s team has attracted much criticism for supposedly giving away critical negotiating assets, like claiming NATO membership for Ukraine is out of the question and acknowledging that Kyiv will need to make some territorial concessions for peace. However, neither of these assets is necessary for negotiations to succeed. There will have to be Ukrainian territorial concessions, and NATO membership is, and probably always has been, off the table. It is also fair to say that after three years of brutal war, Washington’s policy of offering only sticks and no carrots needed adjustment.
No comments:
Post a Comment