Washington- The US-Russian talks in Geneva on the Ukraine crisis have concluded, amid continued pessimism on the part of the two sides that no progress has been made.
The talks, which were held at the level of deputy foreign ministers of the two countries, focused on Western fears of a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine on the one hand, and Russia’s fears of NATO’s military expansion along its western borders on the other.
The past weeks have seen Russia amass 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, raising the possibility of another invasion like Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.
It is expected that diplomatic efforts will be renewed within hours; Where US and European officials will meet with their Russian counterparts tomorrow, Wednesday, at the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, and the parties will participate in talks the day after tomorrow under the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna.
Risks and prospects
Despite official and repeated Russian denials of its intention to invade Ukraine, the head of the Russian side in the negotiations, Sergey Ryabkov, confirmed that there were “substantial and exciting talks between the two parties.”
In an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, Professor William Woolforth, a professor at Dartmouth University and an expert in US foreign policy, confirmed that “there has been no evidence of compromise solutions that would defuse the crisis related to Ukraine, despite their recognition that the discussions are very serious.”
Woolforth noted that the Russian side explains and affirms in clear terms that “the Russians will accept nothing less than official sure guarantees against any further NATO expansion extending to Ukraine or Georgia, and there is no evidence that the United States or NATO countries are yet ready to agree.” to do so.”
This prompted the American expert to assert that there are no reasons for optimism about progress in negotiations between Russia and Western countries led by the United States.
Professor Woolforth noted that “regardless of the seriousness of the talks, and the expertise and professionalism of the representatives of both parties, it is difficult for me to find hopeful evidence.”
stance and inertia
For his part, Steve Beaver, an expert on European affairs and disarmament at the Brookings Institution, considered – in an interview with Al Jazeera Net – that “the big question is whether the Russians are ready to enter into serious negotiations in which they look at mutual concerns and are ready to give up strange demands ( (such as whether NATO gives up on further expansion), or whether they seek US and NATO rejection of their demands as a pretext for military action against Ukraine.
Beaver noted that after the end of the last round of talks in Geneva, “Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov left the door open for further dialogue, but also emphasized Russia’s demand that NATO agree not to expand further, specifically that Ukraine and Georgia never join the alliance.” .
alternative and options
Amid the adherence to their hard-line positions – as Moscow insists on the need to receive guarantees prohibiting any future accession of Ukraine to NATO – and the refusal of Washington and Western capitals to provide such guarantees; Experts differ in offering compromises that may be acceptable to both sides.
Professor William Woolforth suggested the alternative to “Ukrainian neutrality” as a realistic, if elusive, compromise.
Walforth told Al Jazeera Net that “most realists prefer a kind of agreement initiated by Ukraine on its own while realizing that the NATO door is closed to it, and to resort to the option of official neutrality.”
Several countries on the European continent – such as Austria, Switzerland and Finland – follow the alternative of neutrality in order to avoid any confrontations with the major countries, and to distance themselves from the influence and control of neighboring countries. “This could be accompanied by a series of measures under which Russia and NATO agree to respect Ukraine’s neutrality, preventing it from entering military alliances, and at the same time imposing restrictions on the deployment of Russian forces in border areas,” Woolforth noted.
While Steve Sestanovich, a former State Department official and now a professor at Columbia University, considered that “the most likely outcome is an agreement to continue talking, but with repeated hard-line Russian rhetoric, and perhaps even some new efforts to increase pressure on Ukraine and its Western backers.”
optimism and justification
In an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, Sestanovich noted that “it is not easy to justify optimism at the moment. But the most pessimistic scenarios such as invasion and war are very large, but Russia can take other ways to escalate. Russia may include, for example, the already subjected eastern Ukrainian lands.” “Ukrainian separatists submit to Moscow’s allegiance, territories that have not yet been incorporated into Russia. This means bringing large military forces into Ukrainian territory.”
Sestanovich considered that what US officials hope to get Russia to accept a compromise that involves reviving many of the old arms control agreements – which limit the size, location and capacity of military forces in Eastern Europe to build confidence and promote stability – falls far short of what President Putin is demanding, So no one knows if he will accept it.
For his part, Steve Pifer hopes that “the meetings between NATO, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe later this week will lead to a better idea of how the Russians will proceed and whether they will get out of the crisis they created by their military build-up near Ukraine.”