logo
Putin's absence from Russia-Ukraine talks shows lack of intent to achieve peace: Analysts

Putin's absence from Russia-Ukraine talks shows lack of intent to achieve peace: Analysts

CNA15-05-2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be attending peace talks in Istanbul on the war in Ukraine on Thursday (May 15), despite calls from his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy for him to show up.
Russia's delegation will now be headed by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, in what is set to be the first direct peace negotiations between the warring nations since March 2022 – shortly after Moscow invaded its neighbour.
After the Kremlin confirmed Putin would not be attending, a United States official said that US President Donald Trump will also be skipping the talks.
'STALLING TACTIC'
Some observers said Putin's absence shows a lack of intent to attain peace.
'It was something similar to the movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? It was possibly going to be President Putin. It could also have been Trump,' said Aurel Braun, professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto.
'Now, we see that this is more or less a kind of stalling tactic. That is not surprising.'
Braun said Putin 'appears to operate on that basis that he better stall because he is not ready to reach an agreement'.
This would necessitate Putin telling the Russian public that nothing much was gained from a great loss of lives and investment in the war, the analyst told CNA938.
'Circumstantial evidence suggests that somehow, Putin – with Trump coming back to the Oval Office a second time – seems to believe that time is on Russia's side. This is hard to understand,' Braun added.
'Russia has suffered huge losses. It is in deep economic difficulties. Europe is rearming, so Putin may be mistaken in that belief.'
The make-up of Russia's delegation also indicates the lack of importance Moscow places on the meeting, said political analyst Lincoln Mitchell.
He pointed out that Putin did not send, for example, Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov or someone of that level.
Still, he said Zelenskyy 'has his hands tied' and 'cannot be seen as the one who walks away'.
'We've seen the US waver on this from … humiliating Zelenskyy in the White House, to kind of warming up to him. Now, they want things from him. He (also) wants things from the US,' added Mitchell, who is an international and public affairs lecturer at Columbia University.
'He has to signal that he's serious about negotiating, even though Putin is signalling that he's not serious about negotiating.'
Zelenskyy earlier said Putin's absence would signal Moscow is not serious about achieving peace.
ZELENSKYY 'CALLED PUTIN'S BLUFF'
Putin had on Sunday proposed direct talks between Russia and Ukraine 'without any preconditions'.
This followed calls from Western powers for a 30-day ceasefire, after European leaders met in Kyiv on Saturday. Trump then pressed Moscow to accept the proposal.
Braun said Zelenskyy 'called Putin's bluff' in saying he would travel to Istanbul for face-to-face talks if Putin did so too.
'It's obvious this is not what Putin is willing to do. We see that in all the Western capitals in Europe, there's a deep disappointment,' added Braun, who is also a research associate of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.
'The only one who seems to hold out some kind of hope that this is more than a bluff or a delay tactic (is) Trump.'
Mitchell said that if Putin negotiates directly with Zelenskyy, it suggests they are equals - something the Russian leader cannot agree to.
'That's why he started this war, because he does not consider Ukraine a state. So then, to meet one-on-one with their president would be a recognition of that,' he told CNA's Asia First.
On the other hand, Graeme Gill, professor emeritus of government and international relations at the University of Sydney, said it would be 'very unusual' for a head of state to attend such talks at an early stage.
Putin could make an appearance if significant progress is made early in the talks, he added, but this is 'unlikely'.
'I think that the lower-level officials are the ones who will work towards a peace settlement, and we'll just see whether both sides are actually realistically committed to that sort of an outcome,' Gill told CNA's Asia Now.
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE TALKS
In terms of what could be achieved at the talks, Mitchell said he does not expect an immediate resolution given that Kyiv and Moscow 'are pretty far apart'.
'The dialogue is important … but there's no real common ground here that would lead to a fast conclusion of the war, unfortunately. Anything is possible, but there's some distance to cover here,' he added.
Gill said that while Kyiv's and Moscow's positions on issues like territory are currently 'irreconcilable', it is unclear what the 'basic red-line issues' are and what either side is willing to compromise on.
He noted there is 'room for some agreement' on the issue of Ukraine's desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance. Kyiv has said it will be willing to forgo membership in exchange for a security guarantee.
Moscow has said it does not want Ukraine to join NATO, but acknowledged all countries in the region should have security guarantees.
'The issue again is that Russia has the whip hand in terms of the battlefield situation, and therefore that puts it in a much stronger position in the negotiations than Ukraine is,' Gill said.
He added that reaching a settlement is more in Kyiv's interests rather than Russia's.
'If there's no settlement, presumably, what's going to happen is that the war will continue its existing trajectory, and that is that the Russians will continue to gain ground in Ukraine,' he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US: Stocks drop on growing worries over Middle East
US: Stocks drop on growing worries over Middle East

Business Times

timean hour ago

  • Business Times

US: Stocks drop on growing worries over Middle East

[NEW YORK] Wall Street stocks fell on Tuesday (Jun 17) after US President Donald Trump hardened his rhetoric on the fighting between Iran and Israel, sparking worries of a broadening conflict. In social media posts, Trump appeared to demand Iran's 'unconditional surrender!' while hinting at a possible US intervention as the fighting moved into its fifth day. 'It's not going in the right direction,' Art Hogan, chief market strategist of B Riley Wealth, said of Tuesday's tone after markets had advanced on Monday on hopes the conflict was contained. The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished down 0.7 per cent at 42,215.80. The broad-based S&P 500 dropped 0.8 per cent to 5,982.72, while the tech-rich Nasdaq Composite Index shed 0.9 per cent to 19,521.09. Anxiety about Iran and Israel has emerged as the market's focal point at a time when investors are also watching the Federal Reserve, which opened a two-day monetary policy meeting. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The Fed is expected to keep interest rates steady as it eschews interest rate cuts for now while monitoring the effects of Trump's tariffs on inflation. On Wednesday, the Fed is also due to release its latest economic projections on growth, unemployment and inflation. Markets digested weaker than expected US economic data. Overall US retail sales fell in May by 0.9 per cent from April to US$715.4 billion, figures that suggested a pullback from April's surge in buying to beat out tariffs. While 10 of 11 sectors in the S&P 500 retreated, the exception was energy, which was buoyed by higher oil prices. Defense-related stocks were another gainer, with Lockheed Martin winning 2.6 per cent and Northrop Grumman 1.2 per cent. AFP

Commentary: Israel and Iran are both letting illusory ambitions cloud their judgment
Commentary: Israel and Iran are both letting illusory ambitions cloud their judgment

CNA

timean hour ago

  • CNA

Commentary: Israel and Iran are both letting illusory ambitions cloud their judgment

TEL AVIV: The rapidly escalating military conflict between Israel and Iran represents a clash of ambitions. Iran seeks to become a nuclear power, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu longs to be remembered as the Israeli leader who categorically thwarted Iran's nuclear programme, which he views as an existential threat to Israel's survival. Both dreams are as misguided as they are dangerous. Iran's nuclear ambitions have always been driven primarily by the goal of securing the regime's survival, not annihilating Israel, which is far more likely to be destroyed at the end of a long war of attrition than under a mushroom cloud. But Israel cannot afford to treat Iran's threats of nuclear Armageddon as mere bloviating, particularly after Hamas' Oct 7, 2023 terrorist attack, which triggered Israel's long, brutal and ongoing offensive against the Iranian proxy in Gaza. It is not wrong to fear a nuclear Iran. THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS A NUCLEAR DEAL But Netanyahu is a key reason why Iran's nuclear programme is as far along as it is. It was over his objections that the so-called P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), together with the European Union, negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, freezing the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme. And it was under pressure from Netanyahu that Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA three years later, spurring Iran to renew its race for the bomb. Israel's audacious attacks on Iran surely will cause further tension between Trump and Netanyahu. Since his return to the White House, Trump has sought a new nuclear agreement with Iran. But this was never going to be an easy process – and not only because Iran has little reason to trust the US. While Trump has no qualms about touting unimpressive (or worse) deals as historic breakthroughs, he surely feels pressure to strike an agreement that is somehow better than the JCPOA that then-US President Barack Obama negotiated a decade ago. Given this, Trump probably views Israel's strikes as useful in limited doses – just enough to increase his leverage in the nuclear negotiations that were already underway. But Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival – and in that battle, no bridge is too far. While Israel initially focused its attacks on nuclear facilities and ballistic missile bases, the conflict has escalated to include targets that could draw the US into the war (such as energy facilities and residential buildings), and it is just getting started. In line with his grand Churchillian ambition – and mirroring the perspective he has brought to his war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – Netanyahu is seeking 'total victory' over Iran. This would render a nuclear deal unnecessary. SO DO THE GULF STATES There is just one problem: Israel is incapable of eradicating Iran's nuclear programme. Israel has struck nuclear sites in Natanz and Isfahan, but the damage to the facilities was limited, partly because Israel recognised the need to avoid unleashing radiation across the region. And Israel does not have bombs that can penetrate Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which is built inside a mountain. Of course, physical infrastructure is only part of the equation. That is why Israel also targeted scientists, as well as top Revolutionary Guard leaders. But Iran's nuclear programme is an expansive and deeply embedded state project. Killing a few – or even a few dozen – individuals will not paralyse it, let alone eliminate it. In any case, Israel still needs the US. And Trump has no interest in letting Israel drive up oil prices or create a rift between him and America's Gulf allies, which just agreed to funnel trillions of dollars in investment toward the US. Nor can Israel hope for the tacit complicity that the Arab states demonstrated in its war against Hamas and Hezbollah. While these countries have no love for Iran, they have a vested interest in regional stability, especially as they work to diversify their economies. A cornered Iran might even attack the Gulf states directly, hitting their oil installations or disrupting transport lanes in the Persian Gulf. These countries want a nuclear deal, not a regional conflagration. DIPLOMACY WILL REMAIN THE ONLY ANSWER Iran probably wants roughly the same. Though it withdrew from scheduled nuclear talks in Oman, its military response has been confined to Israeli targets. Notably, despite having poured billions of dollars into its regional proxies in recent years, it has refrained from activating them – however diminished they may have been rendered by Israel – against American or Arab targets. But if Iran finds itself with its back against the wall, it can force a reluctant Hezbollah and its Iraqi militias into the fight. If not now, when? It is for occasions like this that the alliances were created in the first place. Iran can also incite attacks against Israel elsewhere, such as the West Bank. Moreover, it will probably withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, opening the way for it to achieve nuclear breakout – a process that would take mere months. Iran now risks falling into the same strategic trap that drained the energies of the Sunni pan-Arabism it revolted against in 1979. By pouring its energy and resources into a war of annihilation against Israel, it would jeopardise its primary objective: regime survival. But Iran is not alone in letting illusory ambitions cloud its judgment. If Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear programme, it certainly cannot achieve total victory over Iran's regime. And it is not just Iran: none of Israel's security challenges can be overcome through total victory. No matter how many bombs Netanyahu drops, diplomacy will remain the only answer. Meanwhile, Israel's military hubris is becoming inadmissible to its moderate Arab allies. They wanted Israel as an equal partner in a regional peace, not as a new hegemon.

US Senate passes stablecoin bill in milestone for crypto industry
US Senate passes stablecoin bill in milestone for crypto industry

CNA

timean hour ago

  • CNA

US Senate passes stablecoin bill in milestone for crypto industry

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to create a regulatory framework for U.S.-dollar-pegged cryptocurrency tokens known as stablecoins, in a watershed moment for the digital asset industry. The bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, received bipartisan support, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to back the proposed federal rules. The House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, needs to pass its version of the bill before it heads to President Donald Trump's desk for approval. "It is a major milestone," said Andrew Olmem, a managing partner at law firm Mayer Brown and the former deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump's first term. "It establishes, for the first time, a regulatory regime for stablecoins, a rapidly developing financial product and industry." Stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 dollar peg, are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens. Their use has grown rapidly in recent years, and proponents say that they could be used to send payments instantly. If signed into law, the stablecoin bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assets - such as U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury bills - and for issuers to publicly disclose the composition of their reserves on a monthly basis. The crypto industry has long pushed for lawmakers to pass legislation creating rules for digital assets, arguing that a clear framework could enable stablecoins to become more widely used. The sector spent more than $119 million backing pro-crypto congressional candidates in last year's elections and had tried to paint the issue as bipartisan. The House of Representatives passed a stablecoin bill last year but the Senate - in which Democrats held the majority at the time - did not take that bill up, and it died. Trump has sought to broadly overhaul U.S. cryptocurrency policies after courting cash from the industry during his presidential campaign. Bo Hines, who leads Trump's Council of Advisers on Digital Assets, has said the White House wants a stablecoin bill passed before August. Tensions on Capitol Hill over Trump's various crypto ventures at one point threatened to derail the digital asset sector's hope of legislation this year as Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump and his family members promoting their personal crypto projects. Trump's crypto ventures include a meme coin called $TRUMP, launched in January, and a business called World Liberty Financial, a crypto company owned partly by the president. The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest present for Trump and that his assets are in a trust managed by his children. Other Democrats expressed concern that the bill would not prevent big tech companies from issuing their own private stablecoins, and argued that legislation needed stronger anti-money laundering protections and prohibitions on foreign stablecoin issuers. "A bill that turbocharges the stablecoin market, while facilitating the president's corruption and undermining national security, financial stability, and consumer protection is worse than no bill at all," said Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, in remarks on the Senate floor in May.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store