Direct talks with Russia are trap

1. On the negative side — there is Vance’s statement, where he insists that from now on there should be direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In general, the current U.S. information line boils down to the idea that the U.S. has done everything possible, both sides are to blame, and Ukraine needs to think carefully because it is weaker.

"2. Our extremely important task is to explain why direct negotiations with Russia are a trap. And it’s worth remembering — Vance’s statement is an explanation of Trump’s position for a domestic audience, not an attempt to force us into such negotiations. These are two fundamentally different things."

3. On the positive side: Trump withdrew from the negotiations after the minerals deal and the symbolic allocation of $50 million in weapons. Simply put, withdrawing from the negotiations does not mean stopping aid.

4. As I have said many times — for us, the main negotiations are those between Europe and the U.S., where we are one of the three key issues (tariffs, the NATO umbrella over Europe, and the war in Ukraine). The further financial and military aid to Ukraine (which Europe will pay for) will depend on these negotiations. So I will repeat once again: our main goal is not to quarrel with the U.S. and to be part of the security and economic perimeter of the Europe-U.S. negotiations.

5. The next negotiation window of opportunity will not appear before the end of the summer offensive.

Source  

About the author: Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.  

The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.