Day: February 13, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting with members of the Security Council via video link at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia February 13, 2024. Sputnik/Alexander Kazakov/Pool via REUTERS /File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
MOSCOW/LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion of a ceasefire in Ukraine to freeze the war was rejected by the United States after contacts between intermediaries, three Russian sources with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.
The failure of Putin’s approach ushers in a third year of the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and illustrates just how far apart the world’s two largest nuclear powers remain.
A U.S. source denied there had been any official contact and said Washington would not engage in talks that did not involve Ukraine.
Putin sent signals to Washington in 2023 in public and privately through intermediaries, including through Moscow’s Arab partners in the Middle East and others, that he was ready to consider a ceasefire in Ukraine, the Russian sources said.
Putin was proposing to freeze the conflict at the current lines and was unwilling to cede any of the Ukrainian territory controlled by Russia, but the signal offered what some in the Kremlin saw as the best path towards a peace of some kind.
“The contacts with the Americans came to nothing,” a senior Russian source with knowledge of the discussions in late 2023 and early 2024 told Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation.
A second Russian source with knowledge of the contacts told Reuters that the Americans told Moscow, via the intermediaries, they would not discuss a possible ceasefire without the participation of Ukraine and so the contacts ended in failure.
A third source with knowledge of the discussions said: “Everything fell apart with the Americans.” The source said that the Americans did not want to pressure Ukraine.
The extent of the contacts – and their failure – has not previously been reported.
It comes as U.S. President Joe Biden has for months been pushing Congress to approve more aid for Ukraine, but has faced opposition from allies of Republican presidential nomination frontrunner Donald Trump.
The Kremlin, the White House, the U.S. State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) all declined to comment.
Putin sent thousands of troops into Ukraine in February 2022, triggering a full-scale war after eight years of conflict in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian forces on the one side and pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russian proxies on the other.
Ukraine says it is fighting for its existence and the West casts Putin’s invasion as an imperial-style land grab that challenges the post-Cold War international order.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says he will never accept Russia’s control over Ukrainian land. He has outlawed any contacts with Russia.
A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.
The U.S. official said that there appeared to have been unofficial “Track II” conversations among Russians not in the government but that the United States was not engaged in them.
The U.S. official said Putin’s proposal, based on what has been publicly reported, was unchanged from past demands that Russia hold on to Ukrainian territory. The official suggested that there appeared to be frustration in Moscow that Washington had repeatedly refused to accept it.
Putin told U.S. talk-show host Tucker Carlson last week that Russia was ready for “dialogue”.
Intermediaries met in Turkey in late 2023, according to three Russian sources.
A fourth diplomatic source said that there had been Russian-U.S. unofficial contacts through intermediaries at Russia’s initiative but that they appeared to have come to nothing.
The U.S. official said he was unaware of unofficial contact through intermediaries.
According to three Russian sources, Putin’s signal was relayed to Washington, where top U.S. officials including White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met.
The idea was that Sullivan would speak to Putin’s foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, and set out the next steps, one of the Russian sources said.
But when the call came in January, Sullivan told Ushakov that Washington was willing to talk about other aspects of the relationship but would not speak about a ceasefire without Ukraine, said one of the Russian sources.
The U.S. official refused to be drawn on any details of Sullivan’s purported calls, or whether such a conversation with Ushakov took place.
One of the Russian sources expressed frustration with the United States over Washington’s insistence that it would not nudge Ukraine towards talks given that the United States was helping to fund the war.
“Putin said: ‘I knew they wouldn’t do anything’,” another of the Russian sources said. “They cut off the root of the contacts which had taken two months to create.”
Another Russian source said that the United States did not appear to believe Putin was sincere.
“The Americans didn’t believe Putin was genuine about a ceasefire – but he was and is – he is ready to discuss a ceasefire. But equally Putin is also ready to fight on for as long as it takes – and Russia can fight for as long as it takes,” the Russian source said.
The Kremlin sees little point in further contacts with the United States on the issue, the Russian sources said, so the war would continue.
Writing by Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow; Additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington; Editing by Alex Richardson
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
As Moscow bureau chief, Guy runs coverage of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Before Moscow, Guy ran Brexit coverage as London bureau chief (2012-2022). On the night of Brexit, his team delivered one of Reuters historic wins – reporting news of Brexit first to the world and the financial markets. Guy graduated from the London School of Economics and started his career as an intern at Bloomberg. He has spent over 14 years covering the former Soviet Union. He speaks fluent Russian.
US will not talk to Putin on Ukraine war – Google Search https://t.co/7kdCqeu6ns
–https://t.co/7Yh7KBOlM6.— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) February 13, 2024
Shelling of Armenian positions
In the morning, the Armenian Ministry of Defense issued a statement reporting that units of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces had opened fire from small arms towards Armenian positions near the settlement of Nerkin Hand. The statement indicated that four soldiers were killed and one was wounded in the incident.
Baku stated that they conducted “Revenge” operation in response to “yesterday’s provocation by the Armenian Armed Forces” in the Kapan-Zangilan section. According to the Azerbaijani side, an Azerbaijani border guard was injured due to shelling from the Armenian Armed Forces.
An investigation into this incident has been initiated in Armenia. The military police stated, “If this circumstance is confirmed, the perpetrators will be brought to justice.” However, Baku did not await the results and proceeded with a punitive operation. In light of this, Armenian politicians asserted that “the Azerbaijani authorities simply needed a pretext.”
According to political observer Hakob Badalyan, Baku continues to leverage the use of force and seeks to extract political concessions from Armenia. He does not rule out the possibility that Azerbaijan “will persist in military operations to address specific issues and capture additional positions.”
The day before, Baku reported not only that an Azerbaijani border guard was wounded but also that on February 12, units of the Armenian Armed Forces opened fire on positions in the northeastern part of the border. Yerevan responded that this information “does not correspond to reality.”
“Azerbaijan is looking for pretexts for escalation on the border“
The Armenian Ministry of Defense reports that on February 13, from 05:30 to 09:30, units of the Azerbaijani armed forces fired at Armenian positions near the village of Nerkin Hand. Initially, it was reported that two Armenian soldiers were killed, but later, it was confirmed that four people died. The wounded man’s condition is moderate.
The Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the incident as “another provocation” by the Azerbaijani armed forces.
Commenting on the information received the night before from Baku and the morning military operation, the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced:
“This indicates that Azerbaijan is looking for pretexts for escalation on the border. […] We strongly condemn these actions of Azerbaijan resorting to military provocations, we call to refrain from steps that destabilize the situation and return to negotiations. Once again, we reaffirm the proposals previously voiced by the Armenian side to implement reliable measures aimed at increasing border security.”
Тhere are no conscripts among the killed
“Some of the bodies of those killed have already been taken out, and there are no conscripts among them,” said Andranik Kocharyan, head of the parliamentary commission on defense and security, to reporters.
According to the deputy, the victims, aged between 40 and 67, are all members of the Yerkrapah Volunteer Union:
“The volunteers were stationed on guard duty, and a situation arose where the shooting began, resulting in casualties and one wounded individual. The official investigation will determine the legality of the shelling.”
“They were targeted from positions within Armenia’s sovereign territory”
Former Armenian Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan asserted that Armenian military personnel came under fire from Azerbaijani positions situated on the sovereign territory of Armenia:
“They were targeted from positions within Armenia’s sovereign territory, where they [Azerbaijani armed forces] had previously encroached. Any presence of Azerbaijani military near Armenian settlements or along inter-settlement roads is unlawful and criminal.”
Tatoyan underscored that the Azerbaijani side is exhibiting “unrestrained behavior.” He viewed all peace-related statements from Baku as “false declarations” amid deep-seated animosity towards Armenians and the propagation of enmity.
The map published on Tatoyan’s Facebook page, illustrating the locations of Azerbaijani positions within Armenian territory
“The criminal acts carried out by Azerbaijan must be stopped”
Armenian Ambassador-at-Large Edmon Marukyan wrote on his X page:
“First, Azerbaijan declares that there was fire from the Armenian side, as if there was a wounded person, then the Armenian side declares that it will investigate the incident, and the Azerbaijani side attacks and kills and injures people without waiting for any investigation, thus showing that they were prepared for an attack and were just looking for a cause.
Thus, it is obvious that Azerbaijan does not give up its “traditional” criminal, aggressive behavior and first spreads unchecked, one sided, fake news as if there was a shooting from the Armenian side, and then carries out a ready-made operation in the sovereign territory of Armenia, killing and distorting new lives.
This chain of criminal acts carried out by Azerbaijan must be stopped. The international community must condemn this chain of vile unprovoked actions carried out by Azerbaijan and call Azerbaijan to withdraw its occupational forces from more than 215 square kilometres of sovereign territory of Armenia, which is an aggression by virtue and provocation against Armenia.”
Comment
According to political observer Hakob Badalyan, the Azerbaijani side is attempting to coerce Yerevan into making political concessions by leveraging the threat of force:
“Azerbaijan is seeking to capitalize on the current international climate and exploit its military superiority for political gain. To accomplish this, it applies pressure on Armenia either through direct military action or by employing the threat of force.”
The analyst believes that Baku aims to secure concessions that would significantly bolster its position in political negotiations with Armenia and with stakeholders invested in the Caucasus region. These concessions extend beyond the provisions outlined in the peace agreement with Armenia:
“They are directly or indirectly linked to the broader Caucasian agenda, of which the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a central component.”
Badalyan warns against being misled by the “lulls observed at the border,” suggesting that despite a prolonged period of calm, there has been no significant change in the situation. He recalls that before the 44-day war of 2020, the Azerbaijani side also maintained a similar pause for some time.
Regarding the morning incident and the potential reaction from the international community, Badalyan notes that “managing and containing Baku is a difficult task” due to varying interests among different centers and Azerbaijan’s adeptness in exploiting these differences.
He suggests that the international community has essentially left Armenia and Azerbaijan to navigate negotiations “one on one” to avoid bearing responsibility. According to Badalyan, international partners are attempting to distance themselves to evade accountability for potential tensions:
“Under these circumstances, it would be extremely naive to believe that there is an international community capable of assessing Azerbaijan’s actions and rebuking them.”
Follow us – Twitter | Facebook | Instagram
Shelling of Armenian positions
Совещание с постоянными членами Совета Безопасности • Президент России https://t.co/Ywz83goHmT pic.twitter.com/Fq40sFB2qr
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) February 13, 2024