By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Brazilian President Lula da Silva plans to personally urge Russian President Putin to participate in face-to-face peace talks with Ukrainian President Zelensky in Istanbul on Thursday. These talks, if they occur, would mark the first direct engagement between Putin and Zelensky in over three years. The Kremlin has yet to confirm Putin’s attendance but will announce the Russian delegation on Thursday. Ukraine frames Putin’s participation as a crucial test of his commitment to peace negotiations.
Read the original article here
Brazil’s President Lula has declared his intention to directly tell Vladimir Putin to “go to Istanbul and negotiate, dammit.” This forceful statement highlights Lula’s belief in the necessity of diplomatic engagement to resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The bluntness of his language underscores the urgency he feels in pushing for a negotiated settlement.
The effectiveness of such a direct approach, however, remains highly questionable. Putin’s history of actions suggests a low likelihood of him complying with a request, no matter how forcefully delivered. Previous attempts by world leaders, from direct pleas to less confrontational suggestions, have met with resistance and a lack of substantive progress.
This raises concerns about the potential for Lula’s efforts to be perceived as naive. Some observers suggest that understanding Putin’s motivations requires acknowledging his apparent disregard for international norms and his unwavering pursuit of specific geopolitical objectives. Simply urging negotiation might be viewed as insufficient to alter his strategic calculations.
Lula’s decision is further complicated by the geopolitical context. Brazil, as a member of BRICS, an economic alliance that includes Russia, finds itself in a delicate position. This alliance presents both opportunities and constraints in addressing the Ukraine conflict. While Lula might hope to leverage BRICS’ influence on Russia, the group’s internal dynamics and the differing national interests of its members could complicate any cohesive approach to pressuring Putin.
The criticisms leveled at Lula’s plan are diverse. Some argue that Putin has no incentive to negotiate while he believes he is making progress militarily and that sanctions have not significantly impacted Russia. Others point out that any negotiation must involve concessions from both sides, and a simplistic demand for Putin to “negotiate” ignores the complexities of the conflict and the vast differences in perspectives. The criticism emphasizes that it’s not just about Lula’s words but about the broader lack of understanding among some of the international community about what constitutes a realistic approach to negotiation.
A recurring theme in the criticism is the perception of unrealistic expectations. The belief that a strong statement alone can sway Putin’s decisions underestimates the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the entrenched positions of the parties involved. It highlights a crucial point about how diplomacy requires a clear-eyed assessment of power dynamics and the willingness to compromise.
Ultimately, Lula’s announcement underscores the international community’s persistent search for a peaceful resolution. While his direct approach might be perceived as unconventional or even naive by some, it reflects a determination to engage with Putin and encourage him to consider diplomatic solutions. However, it also serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in persuading a leader who appears to be operating under different rules of engagement.
The success of Lula’s initiative hinges on many factors, including the willingness of both sides to find common ground and the ability of the international community to exert sufficient pressure to encourage a negotiated settlement. The cynicism surrounding Lula’s announcement is a reflection of the deep-seated skepticism about the feasibility of a peaceful resolution as long as Putin remains unwilling to compromise. The situation demands a clear-headed approach acknowledging the complexities involved, rather than simplistic calls for negotiation without considering the underlying power dynamics and political realities.