Russian invasion of “third”; The peak of the “America” ​​and “NATO” gap in the warm season of diplomacy

‌Mehr News Agency, International Group, Hassan Shokouhi Nasab: About a week ago (April 7), the third city of Ukraine was targeted by one of Russia's deadliest missile attacks since the beginning of the war; An attack by local and international media reported the number of victims killed more than five (including Yuri Yola, the Brigade Commander of the Artillery) and over 100 wounded.

The purpose of the attack, which took place around 9:50 am, was to the third state university and its conference hall; The place where the official awards ceremony was to be held to the Ukrainian territorial defense brigade. This led to the removal of the regional governor Walodimir Arthuch; Because military ceremonies in a populous area were a dangerous move for the people of that area.

The attack was carried out precisely in the middle of the vague atmosphere of informal talks between Washington, Moscow and some European countries to begin the peace process. Many observers believe that Russia wanted to send a specific message: the Kremlin will enter into a possible talks with Europe and Ukraine, which has the highest hand on the battlefield, and even Kiev's important military summit is not far from Moscow.

Reactions to a third attack; Two different paths of NATO and US

Russia's deadly attack on the third city caused a wave of international reactions, but the gap between NATO and the United States was more apparent than ever. NATO immediately condemned the attack as a “war crime”. NATO Secretary -General Mark Route emphasized the uncertainty of the coalition of Ukraine's territorial integrity, saying, “NATO remains not only in the word, but in practice, alongside Ukraine.”

On the other hand, Washington showed a completely different reaction. The United States, who is involved in designing a plan to end the war, refused to sign a Group 2 statement to condemn the attack on a third.

According to diplomatic sources, the Trump administration's foreign policy team believes that the issuance of strong statements against Russia at this stage could eliminate the opportunity for direct talks with Moscow. The decision not only raised Kiev's concern, but was also interpreted by some members of the Group 2 as Washington's obvious retreat from his security commitments.

This gap has once again highlighted the contradiction between Europe and the United States against the Ukrainian war; Where NATO seeks to maintain cohesion and deterrence against Russia, while Washington prefers to achieve a practical result by reconciliation and negotiation with Moscow.

So far, the US and Russia have held three rounds (two rounds in Riyadh and one in Istanbul). The first meeting of Riyadh was held in late February last year between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

In the first round of these negotiations, the two sides agreed on four basic axes. The first axis of the full reopening of the two countries' embassies in Washington and Moscow was to bring them back to full diplomatic performance. The second axis of agreed was the formation of a high -level team to achieve a sustainable and acceptable solution for all parties involved in the Ukrainian war. The mission of this high -ranking team will be to negotiate peace in Ukraine and strengthen economic cooperation.

Peting the normal path of geopolitical and economic cooperation between the two great US and Russian powers, which could be achieved by the end of the Ukrainian war, was the third axis that was agreed. Finally, in the fourth axis, all negotiators emphasized the continuation of the negotiation process and emphasized their willingness to advance the process.

They announced their positions after the second round of the Riyadh Summit, held at the Ritz Carlton Hotel behind closed doors on Monday.

The White House announced after the new Riyadh summit that “bilateral talks at the technical level” focused on the Black Sea situation as well as an agreement to stop attacks on “Russian and Ukraine energy facilities” proposed by US President Donald Trump.

According to the White House, the United States has also pledged to restore Russia's access to the global market for export of agricultural products and fertilizers, reduce maritime insurance costs, and increase access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.

The statement found that Moscow and Washington were both committed to “working to achieve sustainable and sustainable peace” to end the Ukrainian conflict.

On the other hand, a Kremlin spokesman Peskov said about the talks: “The temporary stoppage of sanctions is valid for a period of five days and can be renewed with a mutual agreement. If the ceasefire violates each party, the other party can be out of its commitment.” We have agreed with Washington on a list of Russian and Ukrainian infrastructure that are included in the ceasefire agreement.

The latest round, or the third consultations on the Russian and US delegations, began on Thursday (April 5) in Istanbul, Türkiye. Representatives of the two countries agreed during a four -hour negotiations on the roadmap for restoring Russian diplomatic real estate, facilitating the visa process and the conditions of diplomat traffic, and holding a new meeting on banking services.

The weight of the scales of field developments in favor of Moscow at the same time as the peace talks

While NATO is trying to send more equipment to Ukraine, the United States has launched secret talks with Russia, which is based on some reports that part of the Ukrainian eastern territory is in exchange for a ceasefire. It is also said that in the draft US agreement, the issue of Ukrainian membership in NATO is also included; A condition that was part of Russia's red lines from the beginning. However, the Ukrainian President Walloudimir Zelnski has explicitly stated that he will not accept any agreement that will lead to land transfer.

In recent months, after the start of Donald Trump's second round of presidency and the key to the White House-driven peace talks, field developments in Ukraine have shown changes in Russia's favor. With the decline in US military and financial support for Ukraine and more focusing on peace talks, Russia has been able to advance on various fronts, especially in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.

Analysts believe that the change of Washington's approach, which is now looking for a diplomatic solution to end the war, has reduced the sending of advanced weapons to Ukraine. This, along with the fatigue of the long war, has led Ukrainian forces to face a shortage of equipment and morale in some areas.

In contrast, Russia has taken advantage of this opportunity to increase its attacks on strategic areas such as Donbass, Zapurgia and Khason and has been able to control or consolidate some areas. Also, Moscow has put more pressure on Ukraine's defense lines by strengthening its forces and using new tactics.

At the same time, hope for peace talks has also increased. Given the Trump administration's willingness to reduce foreign commitments and focus on domestic issues, efforts are being made to mediate and reach an agreement that includes privileges for Russia; A situation that has raised concerns among European allies and Ukrainian officials about the possibility of reducing international support for Kiev and its impact on the future of Ukraine's war and territorial integrity.

The end of the speech

Recent events, especially Russian invasion of Ukraine's third city and the opposite reactions between NATO and the United States, are a sign of a gap in the Western bloc and a turning point in war equations. What appears in the media's disagreement is in fact a reflection of two different strategies towards the future of the war: the continuation of Ukraine's uncertain support or the effort to rapidly end in the form of an agreement with Russia. These two approaches represent a deeper crisis in the West over the costs, goals, and scope of commitments against a war of erosion.

On the other hand, Russia has found a new atmosphere to redefine its position on the battlefields and at the negotiating table, relying on accurate analysis of US internal developments and changing the Trump administration's foreign policy. Changing the balance of power on the battlefield, along with the increasing doubts of the West, can provide conditions for a “realistic” agreement. In addition, the relative successes of the Russian military on the eastern fronts and the reduction of foreign pressure have provided the Kremlin's negotiations to make significant achievements in Moscow if the agreement is reached.