By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to Kirill Dmitriev, a Kremlin special envoy, Russia, the United States, and Ukraine are nearing a diplomatic resolution to the ongoing conflict. Dmitriev, who was in Washington for talks with US officials, indicated that a meeting between President Trump and President Putin was likely, contradicting previous reports. He cited President Zelenskyy’s acknowledgement of front-line negotiations as a significant step towards a potential agreement. Dmitriev’s optimistic assessment comes amidst recent US sanctions targeting Russian oil companies and calls for a ceasefire.
Read the original article here
Putin’s envoy claims diplomatic settlement of war is “close,” and honestly, the immediate reaction is a hefty dose of skepticism, right? It’s like hearing a promise that’s been made countless times before, a sort of verbal mirage that vanishes the moment you try to grasp it. The constant pronouncements from the Kremlin about peace feel more like strategic pronouncements designed to shape perception rather than a genuine desire to negotiate.
This talk about a settlement seems to be yet another tactic in the playbook, and a familiar one at that. It’s hard to shake the feeling that these “diplomatic claims” are simply a way to push their existing, frankly absurd, demands. The real diplomatic conversations, the ones that might actually lead somewhere, seem a long way off. It’s almost universally understood that true diplomacy hinges on Russian forces withdrawing from Ukraine. Until that happens, any talk of settlement feels like a prelude to more of the same.
The pattern is clear, and it’s not hard to recognize. History has taught us not to trust this regime. The potential motives, which are hardly hidden, include delaying or weakening the effectiveness of sanctions, as well as perhaps, creating doubt in the international support of Ukraine. The key seems to be playing the long game to wear down the opposition, using deceptive language to achieve their aims.
The potential for a Trump-led negotiation is raised, but the assumption is that Russia’s strategy would change depending on the outcome of future events. It’s suggested that negotiations would halt if the former President were to back down from his stance. It’s a very cynical assessment, that seems to point towards a strategy of manipulating political figures.
Let’s be clear; there’s a strong sentiment that this isn’t a genuine offer of peace but a calculated attempt to gain some ground, some advantage. The current situation demands that Ukraine be provided with as much support as possible and that Russia is not allowed a respite to regroup and rearm. The idea of any pause is met with great resistance, as it’s feared it would allow Russia to consolidate its gains and prepare for further attacks.
The response to the claim of an imminent settlement is overwhelmingly dismissive. There’s a general sense that this regime can’t be trusted. Any proclamations coming from them are viewed with suspicion and are often interpreted as the opposite of what is actually happening. It’s seen as another attempt at manipulating public opinion.
There is a feeling of déjà vu, it seems as though this has all happened before. The suspicion is that the current statements are nothing new, a rehash of old lies and a continuation of the same tactics. Any words or actions from the Kremlin, especially when they touch on peace, are considered as having hidden motives.
It’s natural to feel that this is a manipulative tactic, and that the claims are just an effort to sow division and confusion. The belief is that the objective is to try and influence Western support for Ukraine, to slow down sanctions or even hinder military aid. It’s a strategy that has been repeated, with some believing that both sides are playing good cop, bad cop in order to achieve their aims.
If it were to come to a settlement, and assuming that it were genuine, the terms would, of course, be critical. It is highly unlikely that they would be in Ukraine’s favor, judging by the current stance of the regime. The implication is that the “settlement” being offered is actually a demand for Ukraine to surrender.
The prevailing view is that Russia will make demands and people will simply laugh. There’s a strong indication that the only acceptable outcome is Russia’s withdrawal to its own borders. Any talk of settlement or diplomacy that does not include this is automatically considered meaningless.
Finally, the whole narrative is seen as repetitive and boring. There’s a certain weariness about the whole topic. This is just the latest in a long line of pronouncements, and the responses are almost predictable.