By Marco Imarisio, Corriere della Sera
“At the ‘big meeting’ in the White House, Zelensky and the Europeans finally managed to ‘pour powdered sugar’ into the reservoir of the successful negotiation process launched in Alaska.” Mikhail Rostovsky, a political analyst for Moskovsky Komsomolets, enjoys a great reputation for being a former colleague of Vladimir Putin and his personal friend, so he is able to best interpret the mood and the Kremlin line. And if he admits that things have not gone as expected or hoped, it probably means that someone else, more important, thinks so too. “Trump has convinced himself to drive a wedge between himself and Putin. A powerful political bomb has been planted under the Anchorage agreement. I think this is the most convincing interpretation of what happened of those available to us.”
DILEMMA
Now there is at least one dilemma to face. The Russian president's potential meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky presents so many pitfalls that many observers would prefer to reject this path mapped out by Donald Trump, with all the consequences that could follow. The counterproposal to invite the Ukrainian president to Moscow has seemed more like a provocation dictated by anger than diplomacy.
As expected, Sergey Lavrov, Putin's longest-serving foreign minister, in charge of foreign affairs since 2004, when the game got tougher, returned to the negotiating team. "A peace agreement with Ukraine must guarantee respect for Russia's security interests," he said on Tuesday. And on the possibility of a quick meeting between the two sworn enemies, he did not say no, but seemed rather cold. "We are not looking for an event that will be used the next day for gossip on social networks in an attempt to taste the 'propaganda cream', but we want to go step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then taking all the necessary steps. Any contact involving leaders must be prepared very carefully."
Reading the editorial of Ria Novosti, a state agency and semi-official voice of power, the possibilities for direct contact between Putin and the man who has been portrayed as absolute evil over the past four years do not seem close.
Coldness
After recalling the caution of adviser Yuri Ushakov, ‘the leaders discussed the idea of assessing the possibility of raising the level of representatives of Russia and Ukraine in the negotiations,’ the article concludes. ‘It is clear that there is no consensus for a quick summit. This meeting should end with an agreement, and not just on a temporary ceasefire, but on the essential terms of a peace treaty. (…) However, judging by the statements of Zelensky and the European leaders, their positions have not changed. In the absence of a decision on the territorial issue, the Russian president is not meeting with Zelensky.’”
Fear of the trap
The line of the official commentators is the same as that of the 'patriots on the front' and the ultranationalists, only the tones change. A lot of distrust, a feeling that a trap is being prepared.
Russia would prefer a trilateral meeting, with Trump as a balancer. But only to put the seal on an already completed negotiation. “Both Kiev and Europe are promoting a conventional Minsk-3,” writes war blogger Yuri Podolyaka to his millions of readers, “i.e. another freeze in the war, which we, of course, will not accept. The result of such a decision is easy to predict: the war will continue.”
It is no coincidence that Aleksandr Dugin's opinion was immediately echoed by the Tsargrad website, the official haven for nostalgics of imperial Russia. 'If they take place, the talks between Putin and Zelensky will make the latter a legitimate figure. But we have been trying for years to support the idea that he is not the right person to talk to. It would be untenable.'