“So far, no compromise version of a peace settlement has been found,” was how Yuri Ushakov, an advisor to Vladimir Putin, summed up the five-hour meeting between the Russian President and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Tuesday. That’s no surprise: Putin has never negotiated in good faith since his first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Instead, he has consistently demanded maximalist aims to secure Ukrainian territory and erase its sovereignty.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
While details of the Kremlin talks are only beginning to emerge, it appears Putin again offered nothing on the key issue of territory, meaning the location of a cease-fire line, and security for Ukraine. After much diplomatic drama, U.S. negotiators are leaving the Kremlin with little.
How did we get here and what’s next?
Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has tried to mediate an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine. After false starts—like the unproductive summit in Anchorage in August or the proposed Budapest Summit in October that was cancelled days after being announced—the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe reportedly hammered out elements of a possible deal to end the fighting. It was this plan, worked on in Geneva two weekends ago and refined in Florida this past weekend, that Witkoff, accompanied by Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic troubleshooter Jared Kushner, was expected to present to Putin.
Trump is right to push for a peace deal. His own statements about the key elements of such a deal have sometimes been sound, such as his suggestion that a cease-fire line be the current frontline and that Ukraine gets security guarantees from Europe and the U.S.
Read More: The Case for Trump’s Peace Plan
But the Administration’s approach has been haphazard and its negotiating tactics poor. Witkoff put together an initial 28-point plan that had heavy Russian input if not authorship. That gave his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, two bites at the negotiating apple: at the outset and in the actual talks, a tactical mistake. Worse, divisions within the Trump Administration between those more supportive of Ukraine and those less so have been visible and lines of authority uncertain. Is Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of the U.S. position? He was in the lead in Geneva and during the Florida talks. But he was not in Moscow for the critical talks with Putin.
The Administration has been negotiating in public and with itself, with occasional tensions with Ukraine on display and infighting not hard to spot. The Kremlin has been in the happy position of sitting back, maintaining its maximalist demands, and waiting for new concessions. These are standard Kremlin negotiating tactics and it seems Putin followed them with Witkoff.
Nevertheless, negotiations could still end the war. This could take place through a comprehensive deal that includes a cease-fire, hopefully along current lines; some sort of language that acknowledges the reality of Russian occupation of some Ukrainian land without recognizing Russian annexation; and separate Western security guarantees for Ukraine that doesn’t involve Russia as a “guarantor” with veto power. There would be a lot more, possibly including sanctions relief for Russia if it adhered to the terms of the deal. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, an end to the war could simply be a cease-fire in place, perhaps coupled with the start of negotiations on a comprehensive peace—talks that might or might not succeed.
Read More: Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Is a Wake-Up Call for Europe
The Trump Administration must now decide how to respond to the Kremlin’s stonewalling. To end the war, the U.S. will have to stop trying to find concessions that will satisfy Putin. Instead, it needs to strengthen its negotiating hand by imposing and sustaining new pressure on Russia. Otherwise, Putin will continue to stall, obfuscate, and bluster, all the time killing Ukrainian civilians and slowly escalating his hybrid attacks on Europe to intimidate and sow doubt.
The U.S. has plenty of options to do so: the recent oil sanctions have hit Russia’s economy and, with vigorous enforcement, could hit it further. The Europeans could finally agree to use €140 billion of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. The U.S. and Europeans could work together on security back-up for Ukraine and consider new and more weapons—sending a message to Moscow that stalling on talks will not improve their position. And, especially, the Trump Administration could stop careening between pressure on Ukraine and, less frequently, pressure on Russia. Putin started the war and is the principal obstacle to ending it.
Chasing the Kremlin with new proposals without muscle to push through Kremlin rejectionism has been tried by the U.S. many times. It doesn’t work. But if the U.S., working with Europe, deploys its assets, Trump could end the war and get his victory lap. The winners would be Ukraine, Europe, the U.S., and the whole free world.
The post Why the U.S.-Russia Ukraine Talks Failed appeared first on TIME.
