Peace talks in the Russia-US-Ukraine war have gained momentum. Ukrainian President Zelensky, visiting the US, announced a “20-point peace plan”.
Two key issues are at the center of the talks: territory and security guarantees.
UWI author, historian and political scientist Associate Professor Mehmet Perinçek assessed the situation and possible course of the talks for Aydınlık Europe, the supplement for Europe of the Aydınlık newspaper from Türkiye.
We are publishing Mehmet Perinçek’s assessment from the interview, translated into English.
“Every time the US and Russia start talks, provocative moves come from Ukraine”
In fact, the point the talks have reached is not different from where they began. As before, certain efforts by Russia and the US for peace are noticeable. However, hawks in Europe are trying to sabotage this. The attack on Putin’s residence is a striking example of this. Moreover, Ukraine has resumed intense drone attacks. This is a recurring pattern: whenever the US and Russia get into talks, we see a chain of actions, targeting civilians and designed to provoke Russia, from the Ukrainian side.
“The flashpoint will be the issue of security guarantees”
In my view, the flashpoint will be the issue of Ukraine’s security guarantees. When you look at the territorial question, it may be possible to reconcile Russia, the US, Ukraine, and Europe. Indeed, there is no one left who denies that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions, whether larger or smaller. I’m not saying that reconciliation is guaranteed, but it is at least conceivable.
When it comes to security guarantees, however, reconciling the parties looks extremely difficult, almost impossible for now. But “security guarantees” lie at the very core of why Russia launched the special military operation in the first place, namely the question of NATO’s military presence in Ukraine. The European side is fully insistent on the presence of military force, NATO forces, in Ukraine. Trump is not opposed to this, either. Trump says that US troops will not be deployed in Ukraine, but he does not object to European troops’ presence. After four years of war, Russia will absolutely not accept an agreement that would allow NATO troops to enter Ukraine. Russian officials state this very clearly. I have personally witnessed them expressing this position in firm and unequivocal terms in my own meetings with Russian officials.
Peace is not possible in the short term
So, there are two issues on the negotiation table: One is the territorial question, perhaps a compromise could be reached there. Second is the security guarantees issue, and there will be no agreement here. For this reason, peace does not appear likely in the short term. Both sides still have reserves on the battlefield, Russia, Ukraine, and Europe alike. These reserves prevent one side from overwhelming the other and imposing its own terms. That is also why an immediate end to the war does not seem possible at this stage.
The attack on Putin’s residence
The attack on Putin’s residence has indeed changed Russia’s approach to the peace talks. Previously, Russia had been taking relatively more constructive steps toward peace, certainly more so than Ukraine. However, directly targeting politicians and the state leader is regarded by Russia as an act of terrorism, and Ukraine as a “terrorist state.”
As Russian officials have openly stated, this attack on Putin’s residence is expected to lead to fundamental changes in how Russia views any future negotiations. This is yet another strong indication that peace will not come anytime soon.
The US’ involvement in the attack?
There are even claims that the Americans knew Putin was present at the residence during the attack, and that they passed this information on to the Ukrainians. Various reports have circulated on this issue, but their accuracy has not been conclusively verified. However, Aleksandr Dugin, one of Russia’s prominent strategists, has explicitly stated on his Telegram channel that the US was also complicit in the attack.
The UK substitutes the US
Britain’s stance in the peace negotiations is essentially rooted in what the British call the “Global Britain” strategy. Since Trump’s first term, anticipating a power vacuum that would emerge from a US withdrawal in the global struggle for dominance, the UK began working on the “Global Britain” strategy back then and later announced it. Following this strategy, Britain started pursuing a much more active policy from Syria to the Black Sea, from the Pacific to other regions of the world, and began displaying its imperial ambitions far more openly. In fact, the report itself explicitly states that if the US withdraws, the resulting vacuum should be filled by the UK.
Britain-US dispute over Ukraine
During the Biden era, too, Britain entered into serious disputes with the US over Ukraine. There were clear disagreements both in policy and in practice. While the US was inclined one way or another to wrap up the Ukraine issue, Britain adopted a much harder line even back then. Under Trump, this split has become far more pronounced. This split stems entirely from Britain’s plans to fill the gap that would emerge from the US.