Henri Vanhanen wrote that the discussions held in St. Petersburg once again demonstrated, in his opinion, the difficulty of negotiating with Russia. He reported that the Kremlin considered the proposals prepared in Oslo to be almost useless but simultaneously stated its willingness to continue negotiations and spoke about the approaching end of the war. Vanhanen described this as contradictory and believed Russia was holding its demands steady without revealing what it would be willing to compromise on. According to Vanhanen, Moscow sought to shift the discussion to the post-war European security order and the security guarantees that would be given to Russia. He regarded the guarantees as absurd because, according to him, Russia had started the largest offensive war in Europe in decades. Referring to previous Russian demands, he assessed that the guarantees could practically grant Moscow influence over which countries would join NATO and what kind of defense arrangements neighboring countries could make. He added that the U.S. President could not promise such things on behalf of other NATO countries or independent European states. Vanhanen argued that European security should not be built by giving an aggressor the right to dictate the defense of other countries. In his view, mutual arms control and the reduction of military risks could be negotiated, but Russia's demands for a sphere of influence should not be presented as security guarantees. He reported that Zelensky had announced Ukraine was ready to freeze the war at the current front lines. Vanhanen considered this a significant practical compromise and clarified that it did not, in his opinion, involve a legal cession of territories to Russia. He compared this to Russia's stance and wrote that Ukraine had indicated what it would accept, while Russia had stated what it would not accept. Vanhanen described the situation as revealing regarding Trump's negotiation tactics. He wrote that the United States had already loosened the pressure of sanctions on Russia and had agreed to diesel cooperation, but he assessed that there were no signs of similar political concessions from Moscow. According to him, the continuation of negotiations could benefit Russia by keeping Washington interested in economic cooperation, giving time to advance military objectives, and providing an opportunity to wait and see if Trump's impatience would again be directed toward Ukraine. Vanhanen asked how many times Trump would be willing to reward Putin for his willingness to negotiate without substantial changes in his actions. He considered the diplomatic work of Stub and Støre the previous day to be important because, in his opinion, they had restored the Americans, Ukrainians, and Europeans to a common preparation. However, he warned that a single successful negotiation day should not obscure the fact that Moscow's public demands remained unchanged. Vanhanen concluded by stating that in peace negotiations, what mattered was not the number of meetings with Putin but what he was willing to do to end the war. #Venäjä #neuvottelut #rauha (translated)
