The meeting between the heads of Russian and American diplomacy on Friday in Geneva did not lead to any tangible result as expected, but the two countries agreed to continue the dialogue to try to find a solution to the Ukrainian crisis.
“In Geneva, Blinken and Lavrov do not slam the door of diplomacy”, abstract The weather. The meeting between the heads of American and Russian diplomacy, Friday January 21, “did not lead to a solution”, notes the Swiss newspaper, but the two countries have agreed to continue the dialogue to try to find a solution to the Ukrainian crisis “which threatens the security of Europe”.
After this meeting with his counterpart Sergey Lavrov, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated that Russia must prepare for a response “fast and severe” if it dares to invade Ukraine militarily following having massed troops on its borders. The Russian Foreign Minister, who described these exchanges as”helpful and frank” but said it was too early to say whether the two sides might resolve their differences, insisted during a press conference on Moscow’s willingness to receive a written response from the United States on its demands for guarantees in matters of security. Both said they were willing to continue the dialogue and try to address each other’s concerns.
“Frank but unproductive” exchanges
For the Kyiv Post, “the US-Russian talks in Geneva are frank but unproductive”. “A frank exchange of views and nothing more, was how observers summed up the outcome of the latest US-Russian talks aimed at defusing heightened tensions stemming from Russia’s threatening behavior towards Ukraine and the West. ” This meeting, reports the Ukrainian daily, was the latest in an intensive series of meetings between Western allies and Russia in response to the latter’s threat in mid-December to carry out unspecified military actions if their “safety guarantees” were not quickly taken into account.
The climate of Friday’s talks, which lasted an hour and a half at the Hotel President Wilson, was “slightly more relaxed”, observes however The weather. the New York Times, seems of the same opinion, titling ‘US and Russia take more measured stance in Ukraine talks’. “The conciliatory tone and lack of ultimatums suggest both sides are trying to contain tensions and buy time for diplomacy”, deciphers the American newspaper.
“But the appearances of relaxation (…) do not deceive however, resumes The weather. The tension between Russia and the United States, NATO and the Europeans remains dangerously high. The two interlocutors also agreed that it was time to “calm down the emotions” following a rhetorical escalation which raised fears of a point of no return.
“Already a victory for Russia”
“Positive fact, continues Le Temps, things did not stop at purely verbal promises”, since the United States will provide Russia next week with a written response to the latter’s security requirements.
“Moscow has secured an agreement that the United States will provide a written response to its European security demands next week, the head of Russian diplomacy said”, holds back The Moscow Times. Washington had previously rejected claims “binding” of Moscow – in particular the prohibition for Ukraine to join NATO and the withdrawal of forces and weapons from the alliance in Eastern Europe, recalls the Russian newspaper.
The Guardian notes for his part that the United States offers Russian President Vladimir Putin a summit with his American counterpart Joe Biden “in a last ditch effort to stop the slide towards a new war in Europe”. And this “as Russia continues to build up its forces along the Ukrainian border and announces new naval exercises in the Black Sea.”
“In a way, this show is already a victory for Russia, regardless of the outcome of the crisis”, analyse Anthony Zurcher, reporter from BBC in North America. “This is a diplomatic conflict of which Moscow is the craftsman. His forceful moves have prompted a week of furious activity from the Americans and their allies, at a time when the United States would rather focus on what it sees as a future-defining competition with a China more and more powerful.”
