Rarely diplomacy has not experienced such overheating since the start of the war in Ukraine. Two days after the agreement between Washington and kyiv around the American cease-fire proposal, Vladimir Putin sketched a start of green light on Thursday. “We are for, but there are nuances,” said the Russian president at a press conference, calling for “tackling the deep causes of this crisis”. A “yes but” of the chief of the Kremlin who questions his real intentions, at a time when Donald Trump imposes increasing pressure for a stopping of the fighting. “The objective of negotiation will not be for the Russians to achieve a compromise, but to obtain all of what they ask,” said Marie Dumoulin, former diplomat and today director of the European program extended to the European Council for Foreign Relations. Interview.
L’Express: Vladimir Putin said Thursday “in agreement” on Thursday with the American cease-fire proposal, while claiming to bring “nuances”. Was it for the Russian president a way of expressing a refusal without seeming it?
Marie Dumoulin: In my opinion, it was a way to send the ball back to the Ukrainian part. Since taking office of Donald Trump, we have been witnessing a sort of ping-pong game, where Ukraine and Russia have been trying to refine responsibility for a possible failure of discussions. Initially, Donald Trump gave the impression of considering that Ukraine was the difficult part – going so far as to say that it was easier to deal with Russia.
The meeting in Saudi Arabia this week between Washington and kyiv, and acceptance by Ukraine of the cease-fire proposal, however, made it possible to rectify this perception. It was therefore expected from Russia that it in turn pronounced. By explaining that he agrees with the idea of a ceasefire, Vladimir Putin sought to show that he was not an obstacle to dialogue. However, setting conditions is a way for him to make it clear that its green light will have a cost.
Is it also a way for him to save time against a pressed Donald Trump to conclude?
I am not sure that his primary goal is to save time. Vladimir Putin sees above all these negotiations as a means of achieving by a political route what he has so far failed to obtain by military route – namely to take control of Ukraine. And he thinks that Donald Trump can allow him to fulfill this goal. If by chance the United States was not ready to give in to Russian requirements, then Moscow will again turn to arms.
Basically, Vladimir Putin is not interested in a ceasefire. Its objective is a “final regulation” which takes into account what it designates as the “fundamental causes” of this conflict. This includes, among other things, a status of neutrality of Ukraine, a change of regime in kyiv and a modification of the security architecture in Europe. It is counting on the United States to force Ukraine and Europeans to accept these conditions.
How could Donald Trump react?
It can be noted that so far the American president has not treated Ukraine and Russia in the same way. With the exception of a few declarations or posts on social networks, Donald Trump has never really increased pressure on Moscow. He certainly mentioned economic sanctions, but has made no strong decision in this sense. No more than he spoke of the possibility of increasing assistance to Ukraine.
Conversely, he did not hesitate to use very powerful means of pressure against Ukraine, including the suspension of military assistance and the interruption of information sharing. There is therefore a significant difference in approach between the two countries. The unpredictability of Donald Trump means that it cannot be excluded that it changes, but for the moment, we have not seen the signs.
How will the Russians try to negotiate?
The way of negotiating Russians is usually to have extremely maximalist objectives, and never get away from it, or even open new fronts, to lead the opposing part to accept their conditions. The military instrument is an integral part of this negotiation strategy, since it maintains constant pressure.
The objective of negotiation will not be for the Russians to achieve a compromise, but to obtain all of what they ask for. This is where there is real asymmetry in the way we consider negotiations. For us, this is a process in which the two parties are ready for compromises to achieve an agreement. For Russia, negotiation is simply another way to achieve its objectives.
If an agreement were to be concluded, would Russia really feel held to respect it?
We cannot exclude that she is trying to rape him. Everything will depend on the guarantees that will accompany the agreement. If there is a ceasefire, it will be crucial to be able to monitor the implementation-which could be complex. Will Russia accept that its troops are subject to a form of surveillance? In addition, compliance with the agreement will be largely determined by the security guarantees which will be provided to Ukraine. This point will largely condition his acceptance by kyiv, assuring him that the latter will not be violated the next day by Russia. In fact, this is an element that the Russians will be the least inclined to accept.
Can Europeans deploy troops as security guarantee, without the agreement of Russia?
Absolutely. As a sovereign statement responding to the request of another sovereign state that is Ukraine, we are not forced to ask Russia for its opinion. One of the challenges will however be for Europeans to determine the procedure to follow if the Russians were to strike these troops. It must be clear that these forces are not there to do figuration and will be able to react in the event that they are targeted. It is precisely this element that will dissuade Russia from trying an action: the fact of finding itself potentially engaged in a confrontation not only with Ukraine, but also with better equipped European armies.
.