Follow us on social

google cta
Diplomacy Watch: New revelations shed light on early talks

Diplomacy Watch: New revelations shed light on early talks

Comments from a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team help clarify why initial peace negotiations collapsed

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Russia offered a peace deal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality in talks last April, an offer that Ukraine rejected on the grounds that Moscow could not be trusted to uphold the deal, according to Davyd Arakhamiia, a Ukrainian politician who led Kyiv’s delegation to the negotiations.

“They really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality,” Arakhamiia said in a recent interview. “It was the most important thing for them. They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to — as Finland once did — neutrality and committed that we would not join NATO.”

The wide-ranging interview belies the Biden administration’s claim that talks were “not about NATO” and that Ukraine’s relationship to the bloc was a “non-issue.” It also adds nuance to the debate around former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s alleged role in scuttling the negotiations.

According to Arakhamiia, Johnson met with officials in Kyiv and “said that we would not sign anything with [the Russians] at all, and let's just fight.” However, the Ukrainian official denied that his team was on the verge of signing a deal — a decision he says could only have come from a direct meeting between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia — and insisted that Johnson’s comments were meant as advice, not a command.

Another reason for rejecting Russia’s proposal, per Arakhamiia, was that such a move would require an amendment to Ukraine’s constitution, which stipulates that the country intends to join NATO. Ukrainian officials have also previously cited Russian atrocities in Bucha as a key motive for pulling out of talks.

Arakhamiia’s comments suggest that Ukraine’s relationship with NATO will be a major factor in any future peace negotiations but highlight the political difficulties that Kyiv would face if it decides to offer neutrality in exchange for an end to the war.

“We can’t go to the negotiating table right now. We’re in a very weak negotiating position,” Arakhamiia added. “Why would we sit down for talks right now? What, let’s just stay where we are? Do you think Ukrainian society would accept that?”

Meanwhile, the war has largely ground to a stalemate in its second year, which has seen an uptick in casualty rates on both sides. Fighting will likely slow on the frontlines as Ukraine’s brutal winter sets in. (Just this week, a snowstorm in southern Ukraine killed at least 5 people.)

These factors, combined with Russia’s manpower advantage and wavering Western support, have created the conditions for a renewed negotiating effort, according to Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute.

“The full engagement of the United States in the peace process from the outset will be necessary if negotiations are to have any chance of success,” Lieven wrote in RS this week. “Only a U.S. administration can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Ukrainian government, while also offering reasonably credible security guarantees for the future.”

“And only a U.S. administration,” he continued, “can threaten Moscow that, for some time to come, massive U.S. military and economic aid to Ukraine will continue, while at the same time offering the Kremlin compromises on wider issues of vital importance to Russia.”

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken played down accusations that the West has a “sense of fatigue” in its support for Ukraine, arguing that “we must and we will continue to support Ukraine,” according to Reuters. The comments followed a NATO-Ukraine meeting in Belgium and were likely aimed at assuaging Ukrainian concerns that the war in Gaza will pull attention and resources from Kyiv’s fight with Moscow. Despite Blinken’s rosy take, it remains unclear whether the U.S. Congress will be able to pass a new Ukraine aid package over the opposition of many House Republicans.

— The U.S. believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin “won't make a peace or a meaningful peace before he sees the result of our election” in 2024, according to an anonymous senior official who spoke with reporters after the Brussels meeting.

— Polish truckers expanded their blockade of Ukrainian border crossings on Monday amid allegations that Ukrainian companies are undercutting their business and hauling goods within the European Union, according to Euronews. The protests, which have forced thousands of trucks into days-long waits at the border, are in part a result of the EU’s 2022 decision to cancel a permitting system that limited the number of Ukrainian trucks that could cross the border. While Polish truckers want to reinstate that system, Ukraine argues that Russia’s Black Sea blockade has made it impossible to adhere to the pre-war caps.

— Turkey will likely ratify Sweden’s bid to join NATO “within weeks,” according to the Swedish foreign minister. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long held up Sweden’s accession to NATO due to Stockholm’s relationship with Kurdish groups that Turkey considers to be terrorists as well as a series of protests in which far-right Swedish activists burned copies of the Quran, Islam’s holy book.

— Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attended this week’s summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, leading some states to boycott the meeting, which is being hosted by NATO-member North Macedonia, according to AP News. Lavrov’s visit marks the first time that he has set foot in a NATO country since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russian officials claimed that they have received “a lot of requests for bilateral meetings” on the sidelines of the summit, which brings together a wide swathe of European and Central Asian leaders.

U.S. State Department news:

The State Department did not hold a press briefing this week prior to publication.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
USS Defiant trump class
Top photo credit: Design image of future USS Defiant (Naval Sea Systems Command/US military)

Trump's big, bad battleship will fail

Military Industrial Complex

President Trump announced on December 22 that the Navy would build a new Trump-class of “battleships.” The new ships will dwarf existing surface combatant ships. The first of these planned ships, the expected USS Defiant, would be more than three times the size of an existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Predictably, a major selling point for the new ships is that they will be packed full of all the latest technology. These massive new battleships will be armed with the most sophisticated guns and missiles, to include hypersonics and eventually nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The ships will also be festooned with lasers and will incorporate the latest AI technology.

keep readingShow less
Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?
An Israeli Air Force F-35I Lightning II “Adir” approaches a U.S. Air Force 908th Expeditionary Refueling Squadron KC-10 Extender to refuel during “Enduring Lightning II” exercise over southern Israel Aug. 2, 2020. While forging a resolute partnership, the allies train to maintain a ready posture to deter against regional aggressors. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Patrick OReilly)

Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?

Middle East

On November 17, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he would approve the sale to Saudi Arabia of the most advanced US manned strike fighter aircraft, the F-35. The news came one day before the visit to the White House of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has sought to purchase 48 such aircraft in a multibillion-dollar deal that has the potential to shift the military status quo in the Middle East. Currently, Israel is the only other state in the region to possess the F-35.

During the White House meeting, Trump suggested that Saudi Arabia’s F-35s should be equipped with the same technology as those procured by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly sought assurances from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who sought to walk back Trump’s comment and reiterated a “commitment that the United States will continue to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in everything related to supplying weapons and military systems to countries in the Middle East.”

keep readingShow less
Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.
Top image credit: Miss.Cabul via shutterstock.com

Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.

Middle East

The Trump administration’s hopes of convening a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi either in Cairo or Washington as early as the end of this month or early next are unlikely to materialize.

The centerpiece of the proposed summit is the lucrative expansion of natural gas exports worth an estimated $35 billion. This mega-deal will pump an additional 4 billion cubic meters annually into Egypt through 2040.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.