Follow us on social


Good news: Former US officials reportedly open talks with Moscow

This is a huge step, signaling that long overdue Track II diplomacy could be on the horizon, which is long overdue.

Analysis | Global Crises

NBC News reported this morning that a group of former U.S. government officials have held secret talks with “prominent Russians” here in the United States in order to lay “the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.”

The group included former diplomat and outgoing Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass, as well as former officials Thomas Graham and Charles Kupchan, who has written for Responsible Statecraft on the importance of diplomacy in the Ukraine conflict. 

According to NBC, which was quoting “people briefed on the discussions,” the group met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for several hours in New York in April.

This is a welcome step, even though there are no indications that the White House endorsed what I would call Track 1.5 diplomacy between the former U.S. officials and the Russians.

Still, it benefits the US and Ukraine in several ways. There are many misconceptions about diplomacy, which is often viewed as merely a give-and-take. Even worse, negotiations in the context of Ukraine have been erroneously treated as the start of a cease-fire.

This is opposed by many since Russia still illegally occupies large parts of Ukraine. A cease-fire under these circumstances, the argument goes, would give Moscow undue leverage in talks and an opportunity to regroup and take more Ukrainian territory.

But negotiations are not the beginning of a cease-fire. In most wars, fighting and talking goes on simultaneously. Instead, talks are needed — particularly Track II diplomacy — because they serve several purposes.

First, Track-II is intelligence gathering. As the fighting goes on, talks are needed to assess how the other side reacts to changing realities on the ground. Is their resolve weakening? Are they overconfident? What are they seeing that we are missing?

And how will they react to future hypothetical scenarios on the battlefield? Second, if we want to end the war, Track-II is needed to explore possible pathways to real negotiations and a lasting solution.

When real talks start, you don't want to go flying blind; you want to know as much as possible to maximize your chances of success. Track-II talks can prove crucial to that end.

In fact, even when official negotiations are ongoing, a back-channel is often needed to, in a more risk-free environment, test ideas and proposals. This is what happened in the diplomacy that led to the Iran deal, as I describe in detail in my book, "Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy." While official talks where ongoing between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Germany, the UK, France, Russia and China), the U.S. still opened a back-channel to Iran in Oman to quietly address the most politically sensitive issues of the nuclear talks. 

Third, you want to quietly signal potential openings on your end in order to encourage voices on the other side to push for greater flexibility on their end —  which they likely won't if they believe it's a lost cause. But there has to be a there-there to justify such a risk.

But isn't this going behind the back of Ukraine? Not at all. First of all, Track II negotiators are not authorized to decide anything. They aren't negotiating. They are exploring ideas and gathering intel.

Second, the information they gather is of tremendous value to the Ukrainians — particularly if the Ukrainians aren't themselves in a position to engage in such talks right now. Ukraine benefits from more, not less, info.

If anything, the most valid critique is not that these talks are happening, but why they haven't happened earlier. Because all of the points listed here were equally valid a year ago.

Aritra Deb/shutterstock
Analysis | Global Crises
Chris Murphy Ben Cardin

Photo Credit: viewimage and lev radin via

Senate has two days to right Menendez’s wrongs on Egypt


Time is ticking if senators want to reinstate a hold on U.S. military aid to Egypt following indictments this week against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is accused of taking bribes in exchange for greasing the skids for Cairo to receive weapons and aid.

On September 22, the Southern District of New York indicted the New Jersey Democrat, his wife Nadine Arslanian Menendez, and three associates on federal corruption charges. Prosecutors alleged that the senator accepted bribes, including gold bars, stacks of cash, and a Mercedes-Benz convertible, using his position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to benefit the government of Egypt. The FBI is now investigating Egyptian intelligence’s possible role.

keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Laying the groundwork for a peace deal in Ukraine

Diplomacy Watch: Domestic politics continue to challenge Ukraine’s allies


Last week’s edition of Diplomacy Watch focused on how politics in Poland and Slovakia were threatening Western unity over Ukraine. A spat between Warsaw and Kyiv over grain imports led Polish President Andrzej Duda to compare Ukraine to a “drowning person … capable of pulling you down to the depths ,” while upcoming elections in Slovakia could bring to power a new leader who has pledged to halt weapons sales to Ukraine.

As Connor Echols wrote last week, “the West will soon face far greater challenges in maintaining unity on Ukraine than at any time since the war began.”

keep readingShow less
What the GOP candidates said about Ukraine in 4:39 minutes

What the GOP candidates said about Ukraine in 4:39 minutes


The second Republican debate last night hosted by Fox news was marked by a lot of acrimony, interruptions, personal insults and jokes that didn't quite land, like Chris Christie calling an (absent) Donald Trump, "Donald Duck," and Mike Pence saying he's "slept with a teacher for 30 years" (his wife).

What it did not feature was an informed exchange on the land war in Europe that the United States is heavily invested in, to the tune of $113 billon dollars and counting, not to mention precious weapons, trainers, intelligence and political capital. Out of the tortuous two hours of the debate — which included of course, minutes-long commercials and a "game" at the end that they all refused to play — Ukraine was afforded all but 4 minutes and 39 seconds. This, before the rancor moved on — not to China, though that country took a beating throughout the evening — but to militarizing the border and sending special forces into Mexico to take out cartel-terrorists who are working with the Chinese.

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis