By David Sole
High level U.S. and Russian delegations met on February 18 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. They set themselves the tasks of finding “a peace settlement for Ukraine as well as to ‘explore the incredible opportunities that exist to partner’” according to the New York Times.
The U.S. team included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, national security adviser Michael Waltz and Steve Witkoff, a Trump appointee as envoy to the Middle East. The Russian group was headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The meeting came less than one week after a direct phone call between U.S. President Trump and Russian President Putin. Trump, who had promised to end the Ukraine war during his campaign for re-election, shifted U.S. policy, making these talks possible. NATO membership for Ukraine was no longer to be pursued and the U.S. position now was that Ukraine would not regain territories lost in the past three years of bitter fighting. Of course, both of these positions simply reflect the reality that Ukraine’s military has been defeated on the ground.
What does Russia want?
Russia only reluctantly intervened in Ukraine with its Special Military Operation beginning February 22, 2022. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia recognized Ukrainian independence in 1991. Ukrainian-Russian relations had remained cordial for over 20 years, until the CIA sponsored right-wing coup of 2014.
The new regime in Kiev outlawed the Russian language for about 20% of Ukraine’s population. The eastern Ukraine provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk declared themselves independent People’s Republics and fought off Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias. Negotiations resulted in two peace treaties, Minsk I (2014) and Minsk II (2015). They granted self-government to the two People’s Republics
Fighting continued, however, while the Western powers steadily built up the Ukrainian armed forces. Although France and Germany had pledged to oversee the Minsk agreements, top officials later publicly stated that the treaties had only been brokered to gain time to strengthen Ukraine. In 2022 Ukraine was prepared to move forcibly against the eastern provinces, provoking the Russian intervention.
Russia’s goals were and are simple: 1) Ukraine could not become a member of NATO. The U.S. led military alliance had been steadily building bases closer to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia was not going to allow U.S./NATO troops and missiles to gain access to over 1,400 miles of the Ukraine-Russia border. 2) Ukraine must demilitarize. 3) Ukraine must denazify. From 2014 onward Ukraine’s military had incorporated pro-Nazi militias into regular service. 4) Ukraine must guarantee to remain neutral.
After three years of fierce fighting, four eastern provinces have voted to join the Russian Federation and have officially been incorporated into it. It is unlikely that these territories will be returned to Ukraine. Russia’s military success on the ground also makes it unlikely that any major concessions should be expected as talks with the U.S. continue.
What does Trump want?
The ruling billionaire class in the U.S. is split over what to do in Ukraine. The neocons have been driven by the desire to crush and break up the Russian Federation in order to totally dominate that region economically, politically and militarily. They were behind the 2014 “Maidan” coup, the arming of Ukraine and the welding together of the entire NATO organization into Ukraine’s military forces. They also were behind instigating and encouraging Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia.
What changed is that the neocon plans to weaken Russia and, perhaps, overthrow President Putin, have been defeated on the battlefields of Ukraine. Trump represents a faction of the U.S. ruling class that is willing to extricate itself from this losing enterprise and turn U.S. attention toward confronting the People’s Republic of China around the world. If the Saudi Arabia talks bear fruit it is because of this.
Trump is not for peace. His strong support for the zionist, apartheid, settler state in its genocidal war against the Palestinian people makes him no less a war monger than any other leader of imperialism. Even in Ukraine, Trump is pushing the Zelensky puppet regime to sign over 50% to the U.S. of the mineral wealth of Ukraine, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Trump and his faction are also licking their chops thinking about expanding economic ties to the Russian Federation if a peace deal is reached and sanctions are discontinued.
What about the European Union and the United Kingdom?
European leaders who had been roped into this proxy war on Russia are furious that the U.S. is changing course and excluding them in the process. Both politically and economically they were pushed by the U.S. into sanctions against Russia which hurt their access to cheap Russian oil and gas. They also diverted tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military aid to keep Ukraine fighting, while their own working classes suffered.
The Saudi Arabia talks, which only involve Russia and the U.S., expose for all to see that they are, at best, junior partners. Left out of the process they quickly convened a summit in Paris that met on Monday, February 17. The world press reflected the true weakness of these countries in relation to U.S. imperialism. Headlines reported “European leaders scramble ahead of Trump’s Ukraine summit with Putin” (NPR); “Barred from US-Russia talks on Ukraine, Europe scrambles for response…” (CNN); “Europe challenges Trump-Putin axis” (The Guardian); “European leaders want a say…” (AP News).
Perhaps the angriest of all the European leaders is British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This so-called Labor Party leader has been one of the most vociferous advocates for the Ukraine proxy war. One day before the emergency Paris summit he told The Telegraph that “he is ‘ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine.”
What about Zelensky?
Ukraine’s “president” Zelensky has been totally left out of the picture in the unfolding peace talks drama. Actually, Zelensky’s term of office ended in 2024 but he canceled scheduled elections because of the war situation. Elections would not have proved much because Zelensky’s government had outlawed 11 political parties one month into the war. He has also taken action against other parties and their leaders since that time.
Zelensky, the puppet, is fuming against Trump, the U.S. puppet master, and insists that there can be “no peace deal without Ukrainian involvement.” The BBC reported: “Ukrainian president says he will not be shut out of peace negotiations.” He told the Kyiv Independent that Ukraine will “never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia.” But Ukraine could not have fought these past three years without U.S. military and economic support. The war was engineered in Washington, paid for by Washington and can continue only so long as Washington provides its backing. It may be shameless for Trump to publicly treat Zelensky this way, but his exclusion is a real reflection of the forces at work. Zelensky has no choice but to await his orders.
The Austrian State Treaty of 1955 as precedent
At the end of World War II the “Allies,” (the U.S., Britain, France and the Soviet Union), needed to figure out what to do with Austria. Austria had been annexed into Hitler’s Third Reich. Upon Germany’s defeat in 1945 the Allies occupied Austria separately from Germany’s occupation.
The alliance of World War II broke down into the Cold War against the Soviet Union and even into a hot war in Korea (1950-53). But the four powers kept discussions going on Austria’s future. It took seven long years but finally, on May 15, 1955 the great powers agreed on the Austrian State Treaty. All four occupying armies were withdrawn, and Austria was granted independence.
Difficult negotiations were held over territory and German assets claimed as reparations by the Soviet Union. These were settled, leaving the final issue to be confronted – Austrian neutrality. The U.S. Department of State Archive describes some of the process:
[T]he question holding up the negotiations at this stage was the issue of Austrian neutrality. The Austrian Foreign Minister went through the neutral government of India to inform the Soviet Union that if a treaty was signed, independent Austria would also remain neutral, staying out of NATO or other defensive arrangements. Eisenhower was against neutrality on principle, and he was both angered by this maneuver and hopeful that Austrian neutrality could still be prevented. One particular danger was that West Germans, anxious for their nation’s own reunification, would follow the Austrian example and offer their neutrality in an effort to expedite unification. German neutrality would have greater implications for American security plans in Europe than Austrian neutrality would. In late 1954, the West German Government and the Western powers at last reached an agreement under which Germans would rearm under the NATO command, reassuring the United States.
Finally, in April of 1955, and after substantial debate on both sides, representatives of the Austrian Government traveled to Moscow and returned just four days later with a complete treaty that outlined compensation to the Soviet Union for German assets and the nature of Austrian neutrality….On May 15, representatives from Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union signed the Austrian State Treaty, ending seventeen years of occupation by foreign troops [ including Nazi occupation]. As promised, the newly-independent nation declared and maintained its neutrality for the remainder of the Cold War.
In fact, Austria never joined NATO but, after the fall of the Soviet Union, joined the NATO orbit by joining the Partnership for Peace in 1995.
It remains to be seen what Putin’s stance will be and whether the Trump faction is strong enough to press forward over domestic and EU/UK opposition to achieve a successful peace treaty in Ukraine and beyond.
Be the first to comment