The EU welcomes Donald Trump’s peace initiatives, but they do not expect a quick agreement on ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the European Union, and therefore they do not plan to reduce military support for Kiev, as well as weaken anti-Russian sanctions in the foreseeable future. This was discussed by the participants of the meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers. The day before, the White House specified at least part of its proposals for reaching a compromise between Russia and Ukraine. A peace agreement, according to the Americans, should provide for the abandonment of Russia, partially or completely, of Donbass in exchange for guarantees of security to Ukraine, in ensuring which the Europeans should play a significant role.
The meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers took place in Brussels between the two events. The first is a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which is expected on March 18. The date was confirmed to reporters by Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation. And the second event is an interview with the Assistant to the President of the United States for National Security, Michael Waltz, on ABC news. He is one of the participants in the negotiation process with Russia and Ukraine. Waltz, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, met in Saudi Arabia with both Russian and Ukrainian delegations. In his interview, he named Ukraine’s territorial concessions in exchange for security guarantees provided by the West as the most likely scenario for a peaceful settlement. In general, Trump’s assistant even said, albeit not directly, which territories he was talking about. “I would assume that Ukraine will not become part of NATO, and I would assume that some parts – maybe the Donbass, in particular, or areas densely populated by immigrants from Russia – will be ceded to Putin in any negotiated settlement. Am I mistaken in my guesses?” the interviewer Sean Hannity asked the interlocutor. “Shawn, oddly enough, you’re not wrong about anything here,– Waltz replied.
This is perhaps the first time that a representative of the Trump team has announced, albeit in this form, which territories Ukraine will be offered to give up. At the same time, Kiev made it clear that the refusal could only be factual, but not legal. “There are fundamental things that are not discussed, that cannot be touched upon. The first is the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga said unequivocally. He participated in the meeting of the EU foreign ministers via video link. During his speech there, Sibiga, one might say, argued with Waltz in absentia. In his interview, he once again confirmed that the Trump administration is against Ukraine’s accession to NATO and considers the rejection of the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration as one of the conditions of the peace agreement. According to Walz, the country’s membership in the alliance and even a productive movement towards such membership is “extremely unlikely.” At the same time, he stressed that this is “the position of not only the United States, but also a number of other countries,” without specifying which ones. Sibiga, however, ignored the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO and focused on the issue of joining another organization, the European Union. According to the Ukrainian diplomat, “Ukraine’s accession to the EU and the movement towards peace are directly linked,” as “heavily armed Ukraine and Europe can deter Russia” from resuming hostilities.
It is characteristic that Sibiga spoke of the EU as a substitute for NATO, that is, also as a military alliance. It must be admitted that this is justified in the current circumstances. The EU is actively supplying Ukraine with weapons and is not going to pause in this process. Moreover, despite the position of the Russian authorities, who made it clear that the presence of Western troops on Ukrainian territory is highly undesirable, according to Sibiga, the process of forming a European peacekeeping contingent that will go to his country is entering the final stage.
An interesting statement was made before the start of the meeting in Brussels by Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kastutis Budris. He named five points, the fulfillment of which is necessary to achieve a “lasting and just peace in Ukraine.” The first three of them are the EU’s long–term and consistent military support for Kiev, the “introduction of European troops with the support of the United States” into Ukrainian territory, and continued economic pressure on Russia (including through its frozen assets in European countries). Budris called the fourth point the involvement of the Russian Federation “to responsibility in the legal sense.” That is, simply put, the Europeans should not, even after the conclusion of a peace agreement, abandon the demand for Russia to pay reparations and bring some Russian citizens to court for actions against Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens. And the fifth point, according to Budris, includes Ukraine’s accelerated accession to the EU. He even named a desirable date for such an entry: January 1, 2030.
At least the European Union is ready to implement the first point of Budris right now. As stated after the meeting in Brussels, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaya Kallas, is preparing to provide Ukraine with ammunition, weapons and other types of military assistance totaling 40 billion euros. According to her, now “there is a discussion about the details.” A decision on a large package of military assistance to Ukraine is expected to be made on April 2-3 at a meeting of EU defense ministers. Of course, Hungary has already stated that it will block this package. But, as practice has shown, its resistance is never an insurmountable obstacle for the EU to make consolidated decisions. Thus, peace talks to end the conflict will be accompanied by increased military support for Ukraine, but through the European Union, not the United States. The Trump administration has never provided military aid to Kiev this year. Apparently, Washington decided to leave the role of the “evil policeman” in the dialogue with Moscow to Brussels.
