Crisis in Ukraine: does diplomacy still have a chance?

Can confrontation be avoided in Ukraine? A confused statement that sounded like a diplomatic blunder from Joe Biden further sowed doubt on Wednesday. “Russia will be held responsible if it invades, and it depends on what it does,” said the American president, before evoking the scenario of a “minor incursion” by Russia into its Ukrainian neighbor.

“He will test the West (…); I think he will return” to the country, added the tenant of the White House, immediately attracting strong criticism from the opposition, for whom a such a statement is tantamount to giving Putin the green light. Anxious to correct the situation, his spokeswoman Jen Psaki promised in the process “a rapid, severe and united response from the United States and their allies” in the event of the crossing of the border by “Russian military forces”.

In the context of extreme tension in recent days around the Ukrainian file, it is an understatement to say that this mess is bad. “This statement is clumsy and weakens the negotiating position of the Americans, judge Marie Dumoulin, former diplomat and director of the Wider Europe program at the European Council for Foreign Relations (ECFR). If Russia feels that there is slack and that in return American diplomacy must be even more firm to catch up, so that can complicate the negotiations.” Witness the martial tone adopted by the head of American diplomacy Antony Blinken on Thursday.

Limited offer. 2 months for 1€ without commitment

New talks between Moscow and Washington

Arrived in Europe in the middle of the week, the Secretary of State is now expected this Friday in Geneva for a new face-to-face with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. “I strongly hope that we can stay on a diplomatic and peaceful path,” he said two days earlier when he arrived in Kiev. The latest developments, however, do not fail to question the intentions of the head of the Kremlin. American diplomacy had thus alerted on Tuesday to Russian troop movements in Belarus, neighboring Ukraine, and to a constitutional reform project by its leader Alexander Lukashenko, a loyal ally of Putin, which would allow – potentially – the deployment of weapons. Russian nuclear weapons in the country.

Last Friday, several Ukrainian government sites had already been the target of a massive cyberattack attributed to Russia, while the United States accused Moscow of having dispatched agents to Ukraine to carry out “sabotage” operations, in order to to create a “pretext” for an invasion.

What suggest the failure of diplomatic efforts made so far? Not necessarily, according to Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean, director of the Russia center at the French Institute of International Relations. “The fact that this Friday’s discussion has been maintained shows that there is still room for dialogue. The relationship between Washington and Moscow is, of course, conflicted, but it has stabilized. It must be remembered that the two countries have been talking to each other on a regular basis since June,” said the researcher. “We cannot exclude the hypothesis that the Russians have increased the pressure to strengthen their position in the negotiations”, abounds Marie Dumoulin.

“Basis of common concerns”

The work, however, remains long. At the end of a first phase of talks, last week, the different parties had not managed to agree. Faced with Western fears of an invasion of Ukraine – while Russia has massed more than 100,000 men on the border between the two countries – Moscow had rejected any attack plan and specified that de-escalation was conditional on the commitment that Kiev would never join NATO.

An ultimatum rejected by both Ukraine and the West, for whom such a concession would bring Europe back to the geopolitical balance of 1997. it is possible to agree, such as the subject of medium-range missiles in Europe or the transparency of military exercises on one side or the other, underlines Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean. It is still possible to find a diplomatic solution allowing both sides to save face, while preserving peace on the European continent.”

In a column published in Politico last week, former top civil servant at the time of George W. Bush, Thomas Graham, and academic Rajan Menon, floated the idea of a 20-25 year moratorium on membership to NATO from Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. “Moscow could accept this compromise, because the Russian power knows that NATO will never accept a pure and simple ban on enlargement to these countries”, note the two researchers.

Emmanuel Macron also sketched out another track on Wednesday during his speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “We will continue with Germany, within the framework of the Normandy format (France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine) to seek a political solution to the conflict in Ukraine, which remains the generator of the current tensions”, declared the French president. A week earlier, French diplomacy had mentioned a meeting “by the end of January”, as well as a “gesture” from Kiev to try to revive the dynamic. “At this stage, the interest of the Russians still seems to be to negotiate, summarizes Marie Dumoulin. But the final arbitration will be made by Putin.” It remains for him to determine how far he is ready to go.