Shuttle Diplomacy*
*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.
__________________________________________________________________________
Analyst Tigran Meloyan speaks about how resolution of the Ukrainian crisis is progressing and when we might expect results.
The second round of negotiations between Russia and the U.S. took place in Riyadh on March 24, preceded by a meeting between the Americans and Ukrainians several hours earlier. After discussing pressing issues with the Russian delegation, Washington officials continued talks with Kyiv representatives in Riyadh, where the U.S. informed the Ukrainian delegation about the discussions with Russia. The talks were conducted as a form of “shuttle diplomacy,” a strategy the Henry Kissinger developed in the 1970s. This tactic proved to be effective in the disengagement of forces and armed conflict settlement between Egypt and Israel and Syria and Israel.
As they did during the first round of negotiations, the parties have a different understanding of how and under what conditions the conflict in Ukraine can be resolved. The U.S. wants an immediate cease-fire at the line of combat, while Russia is demanding that Ukraine withdraws its forces from the constitutional borders of Russia. Moreover, once the negotiators agree on a partial cease-fire and its conditions, it appears that one of the parties breaks the deal the same day, which prevents everyone from moving forward and forces the parties to start over.
The expert community is split into two camps at the moment. Some believe that the Ukraine talks will continue until Donald Trump is completely fed up with Kyiv’s ability to negotiate and the president loses interest in the matter and the negotiation process. Accordingly, if there are no breakthroughs in the fourth or fifth round of talks, we’re running the risk that the meetings in Saudi Arabia will devolve to the point where no one will pay any attention to them, and people will see the negotiations as background noise in this conflict.
Other observers believe there’s no point in dramatic news right now because the real work is being done behind the scenes and not for sound bites. This is literally a technical track, and there will another dozen such meetings, until the parties devise optimal conditions for everyone. Only when such technical details are agreed upon will we be able to discuss new politically important events, like achieving a truce by Easter and a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Trump.
Nonetheless, the truth lies somewhere in between. For now we should pay attention to what is being said about the routine of the negotiation process and what leverage the Americans can use, Americans having greater flexibility than Moscow or Kyiv.
The main subject in the second round of negotiations was possibly renewing the Black Sea initiative, whose timing coincided with the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine on the rare earth metals deal. At the same time, the U.S. has nothing to do with the Black Sea, in which it didn’t have much presence or influence. Details are gradually emerging about how to provide security for the energy infrastructure from the American perspective, in particular ceding this infrastructure to U.S. control. This proves once again that Trump’s priority will always be commercial profits, even where matters of war and peace are concerned. In other words, the U.S. continues to focus on the issues they have an interest in but which offer nothing with respect to reaching a global peace deal.
Meanwhile, the concluding messages published by the Kremlin and the White House are different. Russia states that the “grain deal” will only go into effect once the U.S. lifts sanctions from Russia. Russia is speaking particularly about restrictions on financial institutions involved in the international food and fertilizer trade, reinstating the connection to SWIFT and opening required correspondent accounts. However, the U.S. can’t do this alone. Any easing of sanctions linked to banking and trade requires the European Union’s participation. Since European sanctions cut Russian banks off from SWIFT, the EU has to approve any decision to allow Russia back into the network.
At the same time, Ukraine’s military-political leadership and some of the country’s analysts still hope that they can continue to resist Russia with the support of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Moreover, there is a certain opinion in Kyiv which holds that if military action doesn’t stop by the summer of next year, Russia will need to remobilize, which may prove to be socially complicated. Time will tell how strategically erroneous such thinking could become and how it may lead to even greater territorial losses.
However, while Ukraine chose to torpedo the negotiations, actively assisted by Paris and London, the general impression of interactions between Moscow and Washington appears quite positive. Russian-American dialogue in itself is important, as well both parties expressing an interest in listening to each other. Following the Riyadh meeting, both delegations showed interest in continuing negotiations and broadening the number of people who participate. Perhaps, in the future, the United Nations may enter the talks, as it did in 2022, when the organization acted as a guarantor of the “grain deal.” That experience, along with experience in the past, could prove to be very useful.
The author is an analyst at the HSE Centre for Mediterranean Studies.
__________________________________________________________________________
Analyst Tigran Meloyan speaks about how resolution of the Ukrainian crisis is progressing and when we might expect results.
The second round of negotiations between Russia and the U.S. took place in Riyadh on March 24, preceded by a meeting between the Americans and Ukrainians several hours earlier. After discussing pressing issues with the Russian delegation, Washington officials continued talks with Kyiv representatives in Riyadh, where the U.S. informed the Ukrainian delegation about the discussions with Russia. The talks were conducted as a form of “shuttle diplomacy,” a strategy the Henry Kissinger developed in the 1970s. This tactic proved to be effective in the disengagement of forces and armed conflict settlement between Egypt and Israel and Syria and Israel.
As they did during the first round of negotiations, the parties have a different understanding of how and under what conditions the conflict in Ukraine can be resolved. The U.S. wants an immediate cease-fire at the line of combat, while Russia is demanding that Ukraine withdraws its forces from the constitutional borders of Russia. Moreover, once the negotiators agree on a partial cease-fire and its conditions, it appears that one of the parties breaks the deal the same day, which prevents everyone from moving forward and forces the parties to start over.
The expert community is split into two camps at the moment. Some believe that the Ukraine talks will continue until Donald Trump is completely fed up with Kyiv’s ability to negotiate and the president loses interest in the matter and the negotiation process. Accordingly, if there are no breakthroughs in the fourth or fifth round of talks, we’re running the risk that the meetings in Saudi Arabia will devolve to the point where no one will pay any attention to them, and people will see the negotiations as background noise in this conflict.
Other observers believe there’s no point in dramatic news right now because the real work is being done behind the scenes and not for sound bites. This is literally a technical track, and there will another dozen such meetings, until the parties devise optimal conditions for everyone. Only when such technical details are agreed upon will we be able to discuss new politically important events, like achieving a truce by Easter and a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Trump.
Nonetheless, the truth lies somewhere in between. For now we should pay attention to what is being said about the routine of the negotiation process and what leverage the Americans can use, Americans having greater flexibility than Moscow or Kyiv.
The main subject in the second round of negotiations was possibly renewing the Black Sea initiative, whose timing coincided with the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine on the rare earth metals deal. At the same time, the U.S. has nothing to do with the Black Sea, in which it didn’t have much presence or influence. Details are gradually emerging about how to provide security for the energy infrastructure from the American perspective, in particular ceding this infrastructure to U.S. control. This proves once again that Trump’s priority will always be commercial profits, even where matters of war and peace are concerned. In other words, the U.S. continues to focus on the issues they have an interest in but which offer nothing with respect to reaching a global peace deal.
Meanwhile, the concluding messages published by the Kremlin and the White House are different. Russia states that the “grain deal” will only go into effect once the U.S. lifts sanctions from Russia. Russia is speaking particularly about restrictions on financial institutions involved in the international food and fertilizer trade, reinstating the connection to SWIFT and opening required correspondent accounts. However, the U.S. can’t do this alone. Any easing of sanctions linked to banking and trade requires the European Union’s participation. Since European sanctions cut Russian banks off from SWIFT, the EU has to approve any decision to allow Russia back into the network.
At the same time, Ukraine’s military-political leadership and some of the country’s analysts still hope that they can continue to resist Russia with the support of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Moreover, there is a certain opinion in Kyiv which holds that if military action doesn’t stop by the summer of next year, Russia will need to remobilize, which may prove to be socially complicated. Time will tell how strategically erroneous such thinking could become and how it may lead to even greater territorial losses.
However, while Ukraine chose to torpedo the negotiations, actively assisted by Paris and London, the general impression of interactions between Moscow and Washington appears quite positive. Russian-American dialogue in itself is important, as well both parties expressing an interest in listening to each other. Following the Riyadh meeting, both delegations showed interest in continuing negotiations and broadening the number of people who participate. Perhaps, in the future, the United Nations may enter the talks, as it did in 2022, when the organization acted as a guarantor of the “grain deal.” That experience, along with experience in the past, could prove to be very useful.
The author is an analyst at the HSE Centre for Mediterranean Studies.
Previous article![]( "Putin’s Sly Ability To ‘Dupe’ American Presidents")
Next article![]( "The EU Needs To Step Up: Trump Should Not Be Left Alone with Putin")
