Did Moscow really just go to the brink of war in order to get a meeting with Washington that was already on the agenda?
Not likely. Look for Moscow to propose strategic security talks that will โ by design โ take years. Moscow likes tables as much as it likes treaties (or more).
Not likely. Look for Moscow to propose strategic security talks that will โ by design โ take years. Moscow likes tables as much as it likes treaties (or more).
Washington will need to consider the following (at least):
1) Should restoration of Ukrainian territorial integrity be a condition of talks with Moscow?
2) What role should NATO and the European allies play in such talks?
1) Should restoration of Ukrainian territorial integrity be a condition of talks with Moscow?
2) What role should NATO and the European allies play in such talks?
What Moscow and DC bring to the table may well look entirely unworkable or unacceptable. And thatโs ok. Itโs a starting position, not an end point.
But Washington will need to remember that Moscow will be in no rush to get things done. And so holding Ukraine hostage to these talks is problematic, to say the least.
Washington will also need to remember that there is no appetite in Europe for being the subject of negotiations, rather than an equal participant. Managing it will be hard, but Europe will need to be at the table, too.
Europeโs presence is all the more important because it was European expansion โ not NATO expansion โ that Moscow went to war to stop. Solving the โNATO problemโ (even if thatโs what Putin and Lavrov harp on) wonโt prevent conflict going forward.
Loading suggestions...