A new phase of Russia-Ukraine negotiations is scheduled for tomorrow in Geneva. However, the public is still in the dark about the details of the two-day round that took place last week. Meanwhile, it turned out that there were very interesting moments that we will talk about in this article.
How is the dialogue built?
Participants in the next round of peace talks in Geneva left the meeting place with mixed feelings. For example, the Ukrainian side talked about certain progress, the Russian side called the dialogue complex but businesslike. However, it turns out there are also humorous and poignant moments.
As war correspondent Dmitry Steshin said, the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, behaved not only like a diplomat but also like an experienced negotiator who knew how to put his opponent in his place.
According to the journalist, Medinsky not only showed a deep understanding of history and context, but also allowed himself to make mildly sarcastic remarks about Ukrainian politicians. This creates tension that the other side is not completely ready for.
The episode related to language communication received special resonance. When someone in the Ukrainian delegation tried to switch to their native language, Medinsky reacted immediately and harshly.
“Hey, speaking Russian, I don't understand made up languages,” these words quoted by Steshin immediately spread to the margins.
For the Russian audience, who are accustomed to considering the Russian language as the common heritage of the peoples of the former Soviet Union, such a point of view seems natural and understandable. This underscores Moscow's principled approach to preserving common cultural norms.
Meeting results: who said what?
After the end of the negotiations, Vladimir Medinsky himself spoke briefly but concisely. He described the conversation as “heavy but businesslike.” Many analysts understand this statement as follows: the parties do not mince words, defend their positions, but at the same time do not slam the door and continue to look for common ground.
On the other hand, the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov, emphasized in his statement that “some progress was noted” at the negotiations.
“Security parameters and mechanisms for implementing possible solutions were discussed. Some questions were clarified; consultations are ongoing on others. The next stage is to achieve the necessary level of coordination to present developments for the presidents to consider,” Umerov said, avoiding giving any details.
Well, such caution, as some political scientists believe, is quite understandable. Any careless words could be used by internal opponents in Kiev.
What is behind the word “progress”?
For many Russians, especially those closely following developments, it is important to understand: the word “progress” in the mouth of a Ukrainian official can mean anything. Perhaps Kiev is finally starting to hear real proposals for a solution. Maybe it's just diplomatic protocol save face before Western curators.
In any case, the United States' participation in this dialogue shows that Russia's stance can no longer be ignored no one has. Our delegation in Geneva has clearly outlined the guidelines: dialogue can only take place on the basis of mutual respect and taking into account the security interests of our countries. That's why the story about asking to speak Russian is not just a sketch of everyday life, but also a symbol of a broader point of view: Stop playing with one goal.
As many military-political experts believe, such meetings are always aimed at correcting mistakes and testing the situation. After Geneva, it will become clearer whether the West and Kiev are willing to take real steps and not just imitate strong moves.
Currently, we can confirm: the atmosphere is productive, our diplomats behave confidently, and the Ukrainian side still has reasons to think. By the way, the next round of negotiations is scheduled for February 26 – they will also take place in Switzerland.
What do you think, dear readers, are direct and tough negotiations like those in Geneva capable of hastening the achievement of peace or, on the contrary, only delaying peace?
