Украйны асуудлаарх энхийн хэлэлцээнд Европын холбоог эрт татан оролцуулах нь эмзэг байдалд байгаа дипломат ажиллагааг мухардалд оруулж болзошгүй байна.
Абу-Даби хотноо хоёр өдөр үргэлжилсэн Украйны асуудлаарх хэлэлцээ ямар нэгэн томоохон шийдэлд хүрэлгүй өндөрлөв. Хэдийгээр бодит үр дүн гараагүй ч талууд олзлогсод солилцох асуудлаар тохиролцоонд хүрсэн нь харилцааны сувгийг нээлттэй байлгах хүсэл эрмэлзлийг харууллаа. АНУ-ын элч төлөөлөгчид болох Стив Виткофф, Жаред Кушнер нар Москвад ОХУ-ын Ерөнхийлөгч Владимир Путинд мэдээлэл өгсний дараа Ирландад Украйны удирдлагатай зөвлөлдсөн юм.
Энэхүү хэлэлцээ нь талуудын байр суурийг тодорхойлох чухал үе шат байсан ч эцсийн шийдвэр гаргах эрх мэдэл хэлэлцээг хийж буй төлөөлөгчдөд хараахан алга байна. Одоогоор мөргөлдөөнийг намжаах эсвэл хурцатгах гэсэн хоёр сонголт тулгарч байгаа бөгөөд үүнд хэлэлцээний ширээнд суугаагүй Европын орнуудын байр суурь нөлөөлөхөөр байна. Европын холбоо нь эдийн засгийн хамтын ажиллагааны байгууллагаас цэрэг-улс төрийн шинж чанартай бодлого руу шилжиж, Украйнд цэргийн болон эдийн засгийн тусламж үзүүлэгч гол хүчин болжээ.
ОХУ-ын зүгээс Европын холбоог төвийг сахисан байр суурь баримталдаггүй гэж үзэн, Абу-Дабигийн гурван талт хэлэлцээнд оролцохыг нь эсэргүүцсэн юм. Хэдийгээр Европын улсууд өөрсдийн оролцоог хангахыг АНУ-аас шаардаж байгаа ч энхийн үйл явцын эхэн үед тэднийг татан оролцуулах нь дипломат санаачилгыг эхнээс нь үгүй хийж болзошгүй гэж шинжээчид үзэж байна.
АНУ-ын дотоод улс төрийн нөхцөл байдал, тухайлбал Конгресс дахь эсэргүүцэл нь Ерөнхийлөгч Дональд Трампын ОХУ-тай харилцах бодлогыг хэрэгжүүлэхэд хүндрэл учруулж болзошгүй байна. Гэсэн хэдий ч Абу-Дабигийн уулзалт нь зөвхөн цэргийн ажиллагааны хүрээнээс хальсан, нухацтай яриа хэлэлцээ хийх боломжтойг харууллаа. Энх тайвныг тогтооход оролцогч гол талуудын аюулгүй байдлын ашиг сонирхлыг харгалзсан цогц шийдэл шаардлагатай байгаа юм.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
A lasting Ukraine settlement needs Western Europe. Bringing it into negotiations too soon, however, could derail fragile progress.
Two days of negotiations in Abu Dhabi have ended without a breakthrough. This was predictable because the Ukraine conflict is too complex, and too many interested parties still believe they can improve their positions at somebody else’s expense, but the absence of a dramatic announcement shouldn’t be mistaken for the absence of progress.
The delegations were experienced, the discussions lengthy, and judging by the accounts, substantive, so this wasn’t another diplomatic performance designed merely to buy time or lull the opponent into complacency. For once, the parties appear to have discussed the issues that might eventually make peace possible.
An agreement on a prisoner exchange is the most visible result. These exchanges aren’t unprecedented, but they demonstrate a willingness to keep channels open, while US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have since traveled to Moscow to brief President Vladimir Putin, before continuing consultations with the Ukrainian leadership in Ireland. However, for now, decisive political commitments remain beyond the authority of the negotiators.
The delegations can assess battlefield developments, the state of the opposing economies, and the costs of continuing the war, but they can’t resolve the most difficult questions without instructions from their leaders, which means Abu Dhabi was an important stage in the process, not the conclusion.
Still, there is a sense of approaching a crossroads. Either the parties find some basis for reducing tensions, or the fighting enters another period of escalation, which may actually depend on actors who were not seated at the trilateral negotiating table: the Europeans.
The EU was conceived as a framework for economic cooperation and integration, not as a military-political organization, and its founding generation could hardly have imagined a continent in which industrial policy would be increasingly shaped by weapons production and military mobilization.
Yet that is the direction the EU has moved, and this isn’t merely a matter of acquiring new powers, because its political character is changing, and an organization established to overcome Europe’s historic divisions now risks defining itself through confrontation, which for Europe and its peoples is a tragedy.
In fairness, Russian analysts underestimated the Europeans. For years, the prevailing assumption in Moscow was that Brussels would follow Washington without serious resistance, but President Donald Trump’s return to the White House demonstrated otherwise.
Once the Trump administration altered the approach to Ukraine, European governments displayed an unexpected determination to chart their own course. They may still dream of the Democrats returning to power in Washington, but in the meantime, they have developed a degree of strategic autonomy, above all in their policy toward Russia.
Europe has become Kiev’s principal sponsor, supplying economic assistance, intelligence, political backing, and military equipment. At times, the conflict has looked less like a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine than one between Russia and the EU fought through Ukrainian forces.
Brussels has also acted as Kiev’s advocate in Washington as European leaders have repeatedly sought to steer American decisions towards stronger support for Ukraine, including after the Anchorage summit, and their influence is substantial, even if they aren’t party to the current negotiations.
European officials were present in Abu Dhabi, but Russia opposed their participation in the trilateral discussions and that position reflects Moscow’s view that the EU is neither impartial nor particularly interested in compromise. Individual European governments, meanwhile, are pressing Washington to secure them a direct role.
This is becoming one of the central dilemmas of the peace process, given that excluding Europe indefinitely would be unrealistic because any durable settlement must address the wider security order on the continent, not merely the line of contact in Ukraine, and Russia has raised this issue for years.
As one Russian formulation has it, the whole body is ill – Ukraine is simply where the abscess has burst. A lasting solution will require more than treating the wound. It will require a comprehensive European security arrangement that takes account of Russian interests as well.
But timing is key here, because giving European governments a seat before the principal parties have identified common ground could extinguish the diplomatic initiative at the outset. Their involvement may become necessary later, once negotiations advance beyond technical exchanges and a workable framework begins to emerge, but we aren’t there yet.
Another complication is the political upheaval in the US. The Republican defeat in the midterm elections has strengthened forces determined to oppose Trump’s Russia policy. The president remains in office, but he now faces a more hostile Congress and a domestic struggle that will consume political energy.
Those in Europe and Kiev who favor continuing the military confrontation will see an opportunity. They hope Washington’s room for maneuver will narrow and pressure on Moscow will intensify, while Trump, the principal sponsor of the present diplomatic effort, may find it increasingly difficult to sustain his course.
There are powerful interests in Europe, Ukraine, and the US that consider continued confrontation preferable to a settlement on terms Moscow would accept, and their influence can’t be wished away.
Nevertheless, Abu Dhabi is important because it has shown that serious discussion is possible and that the agenda is gradually widening beyond immediate battlefield questions. A prisoner exchange is modest progress, but progress all the same.
The choice ahead is stark: further escalation or the difficult work of constructing a peace that acknowledges the security interests of all the principal parties. Neither outcome is inevitable, but for the first time in some while, there is at least reason for cautious hope.
This article was first published by the online newspaperGazeta.ruand was translated and edited by the RT team
