When Trump visits Moscow, perhaps the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be put on the table.
After the meeting between Russian President Putin and U.S. President Trump, which both sides were satisfied with, the Russian military and Ukrainian military are still engaged in fierce fighting on the front lines in Ukraine’s Kharkiv, Sumy, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions.
On August 17th, Ukrainian military sources reported that the Russian military is using drones and small groups to渗透 the Ukrainian positions on the front line in Luhansk, preparing to capture one of the last major towns, Kupyansk. At the same time, the Russian military is also gathering troops on the Donetsk front, and the Ukrainian military expects a large-scale offensive in late August.
The slow but persistent offensive of the Russian military on the front line,”. On August 17th, the U.S. Special Envoy for the Alaska meeting between the leaders of Russia and the United States, Wittkov, stated to the media that Putin first expressed willingness to accept Trump’s security guarantee plan for Ukraine during the meeting, and was willing to make a “compromise” on territorial exchanges. However, on the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, who also participated in the meeting, stated that Putin “did not make enough concessions.”
Regarding the meeting, Putin’s narrative remained unchanged, he firmly believes in his own position. This is his negotiating style.” Andrey Khotunov, former Director-General of the Russian International Affairs Council, told China Newsweekly that Russia’s position has not changed. He also pointed out that in the front-line combat operations, it is unlikely for Russia to take any unilateral de-escalation actions at this stage, and its offensive in Donbas will continue.
Khotunov just stepped down from his position at the Russian International Affairs Committee this year. He has worked at the Soviet Foreign Ministry, Russian Academy of Sciences, served as Deputy Director of the American Studies Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, advisor to the Committee on International Relations of the State Duma, and was appointed Director-General of the Russian International Affairs Committee by then-President Medvedev in 2011.
On August 16th, after the end of the Alaska meeting, Khotunov accepted an exclusive interview with China Newsweekly. He pointed out that from a realistic perspective, the results of the meeting meet the expectations of both Russia and the United States, but this does not mean that a rapid ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine can be achieved because the issue of a ceasefire and a political solution to the Ukrainian crisis are intertwined, and there is almost no consensus between Russia and Ukraine on the latter. “If there is no progress in political solutions, even a ceasefire will not last.”
On August 15th local time, at Elmen多夫-Richardson Joint Base in Anchorage, Alaska, where Putin and Trump held a joint meeting, Khotunov said to China Newsweekly: “How did you feel about the results of the Alaska meeting?”
The Alaska Summit did not meet the most optimistic expectations of both the US and Russia. For Russia, the summit did not push the relationship between the two countries into a new stage. But realistically speaking, “the best result” was initially impossible to occur. The news released by both the US and Russia showed that there was not much preparation for the summit in advance. In the month before the summit, Trump had been pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Russia. It was not until the beginning of August, when Trump’s envoy Wittkopf arrived in Moscow and met with Putin that both sides decided to hold the summit immediately.
I think Trump may have realized that Putin cannot be regarded as a weak party to impose pressure during negotiations. So, it is better to start direct negotiations as soon as possible rather than waiting for the situation on the battlefield to continue to develop.
In this context, after the Alaska Summit, both the US and Russia agreed to continue dialogue. Trump still hopes to continue to promote the peace process in Ukraine, and he did not abandon or change this idea after meeting Putin. For Russia, at least at this stage, the US has abandoned plans to sanction Russia and its trading partners.
If we have realistic expectations, then the results of the summit did not disappoint us. Obviously, it did not undermine the relationship between Trump and Putin.
China Newsweekly: After the Alaska Summit, Trump held a series of meetings with Ukrainian President Zelensky and European leaders. Some Ukrainian people expressed concerns in interviews with our magazine that Trump may reach a “hidden consensus” with Putin and exert greater pressure on Zelensky. Is this possibility real? Is Zelensky in an unfavorable position in the current peace process?
From the order of communication with Trump, Putin does have a certain advantage. He is the first to “hit the ball” and has the opportunity to persuade Trump to accept or at least understand some of Russia’s positions.
What we know so far is that at the Alaska Summit, Putin’s narrative did not change at all, and he firmly believes in his own positions. This is his negotiating style, and he will not yield under pressure. He is not an easy谈判对手for his partners or opponents.
As for whether Trump was persuaded by Putin to accept these positions, we don’t know the specific details, but Trump’s public statements show that he generally supports the views that Ukraine cannot become a NATO member and that Russia can continue to control the occupied areas.
Trump has absolute respect for Putin, sees Putin as a strong leader, and believes that the United States must deal with him.
After that, Trump began to exert greater pressure on Zelensky to urge Ukraine to make some concessions.
For Zelensky, he now needs to convince the US President after Trump has agreed on certain matters. Trump will not completely ignore Zelensky, but he will try to “sell” the consensus he reached with Putin to Zelensky and minimize the modifications made by Ukraine to these consensuses.
If Trump changes his mind after communicating with Zelensky and European leaders, he needs to turn back to Putin and say, “Although we reached a consensus before, I failed to convince Zelensky, so now I have to come to persuade you to change.” For Trump, this means acknowledging that others can change his mind and guide his stance. This is not something Trump likes to accept.
But at the same time, don’t forget that Trump needs to achieve his own goals, not the victories of Putin or Zelensky. Trump needs to ensure that he is the one who resolves the conflict, rather than giving credit to both sides. Therefore, Trump will maintain a stance of “pressuring both sides” rather than leaning towards one side.
On August 18th local time, a residential building in Kharkiv, Ukraine was hit by Russian missiles. Photo/Visual China
“Russia will not unilaterally de-escalate.”
China News Weekly: Before the start of the meeting in Alaska, it was widely believed that the “best outcome” was to promote a local and short-term ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. But in fact, Trump and Putin are not publicly mentioning the word “ceasefire”. Does this mean that the issue of a temporary ceasefire still needs to be addressed at future meetings among the leaders of the US, Russia, and Ukraine?
There are two levels of negotiations here. The first level is about the ceasefire, and the second level is about a political solution. Negotiations on the first level will be relatively easy, which means maintaining the current contact line between Russia and Ukraine and making some relatively small exchanges of territorial control based on it.
The second level of negotiations is much more complex. There are many differences between Russia and Ukraine on political solutions, such as the future status of Ukraine, security guarantee schemes, whether restrictions can be set on the size of Ukrainian armed forces, and whether the most radical nationalistic groups can be suppressed… On these issues, both sides have not reached a consensus.
It is important to discuss a ceasefire while discussing a political solution.
A ceasefire without political progress will be very fragile and will soon be destroyed.
For Trump and Putin,
Moreover, a ceasefire also requires proper supervision mechanisms instead of mutual accusations for violating the ceasefire agreement as in the past. Therefore, the discussion between Trump and Putin in Alaska is just the beginning of a long process. Of course, it is important to initiate this process and ensure that both sides can bridge the gap in understanding and gradually reach a consensus.
China News Weekly: So, after Alaska, is it possible for Russia to take some battlefield degradation measures to show its goodwill in promoting the peace process?
Russia may take unilateral degradation actions only when there are specific breakthroughs in the peace process. Russia’s current stance is that they have already made efforts this year by proposing a suspension of attacks on energy infrastructure, but Ukraine did not agree. Currently, Russian forces are making slow progress on the ground, and the battlefield dynamics are favorable for Russia rather than Ukraine. In the bigger picture, Russia may win militarily but also lose politically. This issue is much more complex than the black-and-white situation on the battlefield.
Therefore, we should still take gradual steps towards the direction of a ceasefire, such as suspending specific types of attacks or suspending confrontations in some areas. But this requires a new round of direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, as well as specific discussions on the ceasefire at the working level.
China News Weekly: In the current battlefield situation, who may benefit more from a short-term ceasefire?
Both sides will accuse each other of gaining more advantages from a short-term ceasefire, and I believe both sides have reasons to make such claims, as they both try to rearrange their resource deployment during the ceasefire period to strengthen their military capabilities. The real question is: How long can a short-term ceasefire last? As we just discussed, if there is no progress in political solutions, the ceasefire will not last. Like cycling, the probability of falling is related to how fast you move. If you cycle too slowly, you are more likely to fall. Therefore, after initiating a short-term ceasefire, all parties need to speed up their actions and move steadily towards a political solution. This is the only way to make a short-term ceasefire sustainable.
China News Weekly: At the end of the Alaska summit, Putin invited Trump to visit Moscow in English. Is it possible for Trump to really visit Russia?
First of all, for Russia, the holding of the summit in Alaska indeed suggests that the next summit between the two countries’ leaders should take place in Russia. I believe this could be the initial reason why Russia agreed to hold the meeting in Alaska, as Putin hoped to host Trump in Russia itself.
Moreover, when the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine is already on the table, Putin can claim that it is reasonable for him to go anywhere in Russia, as “I will fly anywhere in the world to sign a peace agreement”.
If the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not resolved, the US and Russia may engage in contact and cooperation on some bilateral agenda, but the level of such cooperation will be limited. For Trump, if he wants to develop economic opportunities between the US and Russia, he needs to lift sanctions first; if he wants to reshape the relationship between the US and Russia, he needs to change the way Americans view Russia.
However, all these must await the end of the conflict. Trump’s efforts are not just about the contact made at the Alaska summit, but he must bring more specific results to the American public.
China Newsweekly: Some analysts believe that regardless of the outcome in Alaska, Trump has made Russia and Ukraine more dependent on the US to end this conflict through a peace process that lasted for half a year. In other words, Trump’s peace process is no longer a joke as mocked by public opinion, but has really given the US some advantageous positions on the Russia-Ukraine issue. How do you view this viewpoint?
Indeed, when Trump came to power, many people thought his vision of peace was not serious, that he would be trapped by the domestic political agenda of the US, and that his actions in diplomacy would be limited or that he would only cause trouble. However, what we are seeing now is not retreat, but rather活跃度，extreme活跃度. Trump has been extremely active in participating in conflict resolution globally, from Russia and Ukraine to Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan… This is true for almost every conflict.
This means that we should indeed take Trump’s peace process seriously. He is not just making statements but taking practical actions. In terms of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he is currently the only one who can organize a process of indirect negotiations between heads of state and promote direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Whether we like it or not, it has made a significant impact on the situation.
It is still too early to say that he has achieved any success. The actual situation is that all parties are approaching Trump and seeking his support. In Trump’s view, this may already mean a victory.
Time will tell whether these efforts can be translated into a lasting and stable peace plan.
China News Weekly: How long does this “time” take? Trump has been promoting the de-escalation and ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine situation for more than half a year. Many analysts have repeatedly emphasized that both Russia and Ukraine are exhausted. However, peace seems still very far away. When can we see real progress?
So far, both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated great resilience. The conflict has lasted for three and a half years, yet the leadership, economic status, and social structure of both sides are still within the range of stable operation. Unfortunately, people are becoming accustomed to living under conflict conditions.
The driving force of a large-scale military conflict is “self-perpetuation,” which is the inertia of war. Some powerful interest groups will be interested in continuing the fight, and there will be strong resistance from the public society. Both sides in the conflict will feel that time is on their side. This means that it will be difficult to reverse the situation and achieve a ceasefire. However, we still need to strive for it. In this conflict, regardless of who gains more territory or who is in the ascendant, the cost for all sides is increasing every day. Contact Cao Ran at caoran@chinanews.com.