Trump envoy can’t name a single concession Russia will make in peace deal
Trump envoy can’t name a single concession Russia will make in peace deal
Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, who met with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, said a deal over Ukraine’s raw earth minerals could be signed this week.
Summary
Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, in a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, failed to specify any Russian concessions in a potential Ukraine peace deal despite detailing demands on Ukraine.
After claiming a "friendship" with Putin, Witkoff spoke vaguely about "territorial" and "economic" concessions from both sides. He also claimed a U.S.-Ukraine deal on raw earth minerals would be signed soon.
When confronted with Russian state TV footage suggesting Trump’s stance aligns with Putin’s, Witkoff insisted diplomacy requires communication.
His remarks fueled concerns over Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine.
You're viewing a single thread.
I remain unimpressed by CNN reporters because he has not asked the most important question: What will guarantee Russia's adherence to any kind of peace deal?
It's boring to repost it the Nth time but the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was quite clear about these matters:
- Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories...
- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest...
- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Yet, putin kicked nearly every single point in the memorandum the moment he felt ready. Why would the same leader act differently in the future?
It's eerily similar in my view to the Abraham accords. Trump negotiated bypassing Palestinians and then we got Oct 7 and the war that spiraled from it. These "deals" are as flimsy as a CyberTruck, but it's also very trumpy. He gets to act like a peacemaker and then his successor will deal with the consequent shit. Same thing happened in Afghanistan.
*edit: also, if someone wants to be "fair" (i'd rather say naive) one can consider the official Russian narrative, but again that narrative explicitly goes against the Budapest Memorandum, meaning, they are very open about not respecting treaties they sign.
CNN was bought by a right wing shitbag. They are FOX News in a trench coat
While I understand your perspective, the Abraham accords are different because they are deals between Israel and other countries, without including Palestine. Here the deal would be between the main protagonists Ukraine and Russia.
The security guarantees will likely need to be provided by European countries, although Russia seems against having troops from any NATO member country in Ukraine.
they are deals between Israel and other countries, without including Palestine. Here the deal would be between the main protagonists Ukraine and Russia.
That's exactly my point. The present style of negotiations makes the impression like this was a deal between Russia and USA.
I’m not sure about that. The US Secretary of State met with Zelenskyy in Munich before meeting with Lavrov in Saudi Arabia. There was also a US envoy in Ukraine a couple days ago to conduct additional discussions with Zelenskyy.
For now, the US is playing a mediator role and talks to each side separately.
Let's say that there is an honest, clear, standard diplomatic protocol running as you described. Trump's concurrent activity, specifically mentioned in this interview, sets the tone and not in a positive way.
Yes, let’s wait and see what actually happens.
Well Palestinians were involved with negotiating the Oslo accords, and that gave rise to Hamas anyway. Palestine is a fascist society and as you say there isn't much point in having an agreement with fascists unless there's some kind of military force to ensure they follow it. At this point Palestine is just a proxy in Iran's "Axis of Resistance" and it doesn't seem like Iranians much care how many Arabs die so long as it hurts their enemies. It makes sense for Arab countries to work together with Israel against their common adversary of Iran. Trying to keep normalized relations between Iran's adversaries as some kind of motivator in a vain hope that Iran's proxies will suddenly make a peace agreement separate from the country that's funding them is a little naive.
With Ukraine it's the opposite way. It's Russia that's the fascist society and yeah, there needs to be military guarantees that they won't do as Hamas does and just build up their forces and strike when it suits them while ignoring any agreement made.
Oh, man, the white colonialist invader's propaganda never ceases to be an entertaining parroting of the "it's the natives whose land we stole and whose children we murdered who are violent barbarians and the real baddies" same line as used way back in the 19th century against Indian tribes in America and the natives of the territories occupied by the British Empire.
"They're the real Fascists for not laying down and taking it whilst we as a self proclaimed 'people chosen by <divinity>' rape them!!!"
Trully, Zionists have Western Values - specifically, the Western Values from two centuries ago.
The point I was making is that you can't make lasting peace through flimsy one-sided negotiations, but the trump brand of peacemaking is about quick "results" with single-presidential-term durability that solves very little on the long run, just pushes the problems to the next presidential term (which may be his own this time...).
Your comparison of Hamas and Russia doesn't only lack nuance but blatantly ignores crucial geopolitical differences in worldwide influence, military might, and general motivations, which are all totally beside the point of the present discussion.
Uhh... you brought up how it's similar to the Abraham accords without any kind of nuance. I added a small amount of additional detail. But instead of accepting your initial comparison lacked nuance, you're trying to play the uno reverse card which is an immature (and dishonest) style of discussion.
If someone ignores all the cues about the discussion's context (trumpian peace) let it be implied (thread's topic; my first post), or explicit ("the point I was making" and beside the point of the present discussion), they shouldn't complain about the discussion's style either.