USA. and Russia can find a diplomatic outlet in Ukraine?

The United States has called for a diplomatic solution with Russia to resolve tensions in Ukraine but, at least in public, the two great powers remain at odds.

The heads of diplomacy of both countries, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, will meet in Geneva on Friday while tens of thousands of Russian soldiers remain stationed on the border with Ukraine.

Blinken encouraged Moscow to choose the “peaceful path” with Ukraine during a visit in Kiev on Wednesday, ahead of their trip to Switzerland in which they will explore “diplomatic outlets” with Ukraine. Russia, according to a senior American official.

But from Russia, which says it feels threatened by the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards its borders, the Kremlin has presented unusually detailed security proposals to which Blinken has already said he will not formally respond.

The administration of President Joe Biden has been willing to advance in talks with Russia on aspects such as arms control or greater transparency in its military exercises.

In talks in Geneva last week, Blinken’s deputy Wendy Sherman proposed a return to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a Cold War agreement that limited missiles in Europe.

the former president Donald Trump he had withdrawn from the treaty accusing Moscow of violating it.

Blinken said in Kiev that there were “areas where clearly, if there is a will, progress can be made on a reciprocal basis to improve the security of all.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Riabkov, who met his US counterpart in Geneva, was pleased that Washington was discussing the treaty, but regretted that the conversation was linked to Ukraine.

EE.UU. no cede

Riabkov said Russia wanted legal and binding guarantees from NATO that it would not expand into Ukraine, a former Soviet republic in the grip of a pro-Russian rebellion since 2014.

He also called for the withdrawal of NATO’s 2008 Bucharest declaration, which opened the door to eventual accession by Ukraine and Georgia.

“We see a threat of Ukraine becoming more and more integrated into the OTAN without even becoming a formal member of the organization. This is at the core of Russia’s security interests,” he said.

Blinken ruled out this demand in advance, assuring that “one nation cannot simply dictate its choice to another”.

Bill Taylor, a former US ambassador to Ukraine, doubted there was a way to resolve these differences.

The Biden administration “has not flinched, despite all the pressure and temptation, and in my view it is not going to,” said Taylor, now at the US think tank Institute of Peace. “To do so would be to treat Ukraine as a non-sovereign state,” he said.

But, in his view, the INF Treaty offers a way forward as long as Putin rules out an invasion. “If he wants to have a negotiation on his security concerns, the United States and NATO have indicated that they are very willing,” he insisted.

A new way?

Despite US statements, Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO is unlikely any time soon, as European countries are very reluctant to commit to defending nations already in conflict with Russia.

In a recent paper, Thomas Graham, a senior official during the George W. Bush administration, and academic Rajan Menon suggested a formal moratorium on access by Ukraine or any other former Soviet republic for 20 to 25 years.

As they wrote in Politico, this would require “a lot of imagination and great writing skills” and would face strong opposition. But “Moscow could accept this compromise because it knows that NATO will never accept a veto,” they argued.

In an essay, Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution indicated that any change in the open door policy would imply a consensus of all 30 NATO members.

But “a middle ground of ‘not now, but not ever either’ offers a way forward with this thorny issue. That is if Moscow wants to defuse the situation,” he said.