War in Ukraine | “There is what Russia says and what Russia does”

A possible de-escalation in Ukraine leaves the United States and experts skeptical, despite talks deemed “meaningful” by the Kremlin on Tuesday. Russia says it wants to “radically” reduce its military activity, especially in the capital. But can we believe it?

Henri Ouellette-Vezina
The Press

“It was decided, in order to increase confidence, to drastically reduce military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv. These are the words of the Russian Deputy Defense Minister, Alexander Fomin, for whom the negotiations on a neutrality agreement with Ukraine enter “a practical dimension”.

Vladimir Medinski, head of the Russian delegation, assured that the Ukrainian proposals would be “studied very soon and submitted” to Vladimir Putin. “Provided we work quickly on the agreement, and find the necessary compromises, the possibility of concluding peace will come closer”, added Mr. Medinski, also affirming that a meeting between Putin and the president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, “will be possible when there is an agreement”.

Ukraine will only accept an agreement if it obtains an “international agreement” to guarantee its security, which would be guaranteed by several countries such as the United States, Canada, China, France and the Kingdom United States, but also possibly Turkey, Germany, Poland and Israel. The chief negotiator, David Arakhamia, judged that the conditions were “sufficient” for a summit meeting. President Zelensky, however, warned that the lifting of sanctions against Russia “can only be considered once the war is over”. Speaking of “positive” signals, however, he recalled that “the situation has not become easier, the scale of the challenges has not diminished, and that the Russian army still has significant potential to continue attacks”. .

The Ukrainian general staff was even more skeptical of the de-escalation on Tuesday evening. “The so-called ‘withdrawal of troops’ is probably a rotation of individual units which aims to deceive the military command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” a statement said.

In the United States, the American Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, affirms that he is not convinced of the “reality seriousness” of Russia. “There is what Russia says and what Russia does. We focus on what she does,” he said, implying that the Ukrainians were negotiating with a gun “to their heads.” “We will see if they keep their word. There seems to be a consensus that we have to see what they have to offer, ”also said President Joe Biden, on leaving a call with many European leaders.

In Vancouver, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, estimated on Tuesday that the end of hostilities necessarily passed by a “complete withdrawal of Russian troops” from Ukraine, pleading for “peace, democracy, freedom and restored sovereignty “.

Sign of hope, but…

For Justin Massie, co-director of the Network for Strategic Analysis (RAS) and professor of political science at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM), this progress in the negotiations “means nothing in the short term”. “Russia is not going to cease its military operations. Nor does it take anything away from the continued bombardments in Mariupol and the Donbass, where Putin wants to gain as much ground as possible,” he observes.

But in the longer term, “we can be more optimistic,” says the expert. “That the two parties agree to be close to an agreement, that they want to move towards a compromise, that gives hope. But it’s when there is a date set for a meeting that there will be even more hope. One does not organize such a summit meeting without a signature. The political cost is too great,” says Massie.

“A ceasefire can always be violated in the future. Russia could well take advantage of the end of military operations to prepare for a new aggression”, also nuances the professor. “Having said that, if you invoke Article 5 of NATO, it would imply that if Russia attacks again, countries like France and the United States could go to war. That’s deterrence. And that would be a game changer. »

To continue arming or not?

In the United Kingdom, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued on Tuesday that London would not judge Vladimir Putin’s regime on “his words”, but on “his actions”. Sources said a press conference will be held on Thursday to mobilize more lethal weapons in Ukraine.

But further arming Ukraine in the context “is like trying to break the table,” fears Ekaterina Piskunova, a specialist in Russian foreign policy at the University of Montreal. “Talking about armament, I don’t think it strengthens the potential for negotiation. On the contrary, it is counter-productive,” she argues.

“The negotiations will really be played out on the deadline for Ukraine’s neutrality. It is a step towards a ceasefire. It should be possible to do it in the short term, since it’s in everyone’s interest, but you have to make a distinction with a settlement agreement, which could take a lot more time, ”analyzes the specialist. She recalls that Putin’s avowed aim remains “to cut Ukraine off from access to the Black Sea”, hence the bombardments in Mariupol and Odessa.

Sign of a mixed optimism if there is one, Romania, which shares a border with Ukraine, intends to distribute iodine tablets to its population next week, in order to “prepare” it for a potential nuclear incident. . “We cannot completely rule out this risk. We know that in the event of an accident, we don’t have time to distribute the pills,” Health Minister Alexandru Rafila said on Tuesday.

With Agence France-Presse