Conversational Charm

From Izvestia, April 4, 2025, p. 1. Condensed text:

Editors’ Note. – Russia and the US have taken three steps forward in the negotiations process, said Kirill Dmitriyev, the Russian president’s special envoy who visited the US April 2-3. There he held meetings with key members of the US administration. . . . At the same time, despite the ongoing dialogue between Moscow and Washington, Brussels and Kiev continue to sabotage the settlement of the conflict. This Izvestia article explores who else is resisting Russian-American normalization. . . .

* * *

The head of the RDIF commented that Russia and the US have taken three steps forward in the negotiations process.

The Russian envoy discussed the restoration of dialogue between Russia and the US, the possibility of resuming direct flights between the countries, a ceasefire in Ukraine, and cooperation in the Arctic and on rare earth metals. He emphasized that differences remain between the countries, but the best way to overcome distortions about current relations is through direct dialogue.

The RDIF head’s trip took place amid preparations for the second meeting of the Russian and American delegations on normalization of bilateral relations. The first had been held in Istanbul on Feb. 27.

Moscow and Washington have already achieved “certain successes in eliminating bilateral irritants,” but there are no significant breakthroughs yet, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the previous day. According to him, the work is focused on simplifying the visa process, improving reciprocal travel arrangements and addressing financial transfers for diplomatic institutions.

The fact that Russia was not on the list of countries against which the US is imposing customs duties was also an important signal of some normalization of relations. In addition, Roscongress reported that US companies have already applied to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in 2025. This indicates glimmers of interest from US businesses in resuming economic ties despite persistent sanctions barriers.

One of the key issues on the agenda of US-Russia negotiations is the revival of the Black Sea Initiative, which was suspended in the summer of 2023 [see Vol. 75, No. 29-30, pp. 3-6]. Official Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the previous agreement “was fulfilled in the part that concerned Ukraine” but was not fulfilled with regard to Russia.

Now there is talk about the renewal of the agreement, which is being hampered by the European Union – Brussels does not intend to lift sanctions on Rosselkhozbank [Russian Agricultural Bank] and reconnect it to the SWIFT international payment system, which is a critical condition for the implementation of the initiative.

“The sanctions issue may be discussed in the very near future. So far, the situation with the lifting of restrictions is complicated, but if at least some of the Western restrictions are lifted, this would already be significant progress,” Konstantin Blokhin, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Center for Security Studies, told Izvestia.

There are also alternatives to the initiative in case of difficulties lifting sanctions. It is possible to revise the terms of the deal – for example, to find another bank to carry out export operations or to involve intermediary structures that will legally assume responsibility for the cargo already in Russia, said Ivan Loshkaryov, Ph.D. in political science and associate professor of the political theory department at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, in an interview with Izvestia.

Thus, Dmitriyev’s visit can be called both a continuation of the negotiations on the financial and economic track and the consultations that began in Riyadh on March 24, which were attended by Russian Senator Grigory Karasin and Sergei Beseda, an adviser to the head of the Federal Security Service [FSB]. It was then that the parties laid the groundwork for a possible resumption of the Black Sea Initiative.

A no less significant point of the negotiation track was the discussion of the agreements reached by Putin and Trump following their two telephone conversations on Feb. 12 [see Vol. 77, No. 7, pp. 3-7] and March 18 [see Vol. 77, No. 12, pp. 3‑9]. The leaders agreed on a 30-day ban on strikes against Russian and Ukrainian energy facilities, with the possibility of extension. So far, Ukraine has not honored its commitments.

Against this background, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov handed Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Waltz a list of ceasefire violations by Ukraine, while Sergei Lavrov stressed that Moscow was waiting for “concrete actions, not promises.” Although Donald Trump stated yesterday that Russia and Ukraine are cooperating well with the US on conflict resolution, many details of that cooperation remain outside of public statements. Despite progress in the US-Russian dialogue, external and internal forces continue to sabotage the settlement process. Ukraine, the EU, and even certain groups within the US are creating barriers to normalization. Kirill Dmitriyev said during the trip to Washington that “numerous forces interested in maintaining tension” stand in the way of restoring dialogue between Moscow and Washington. The RDIF head pointed out that they deliberately distort Russia’s position and try to derail any steps toward cooperation, “sparing neither money nor resources.”

In particular, according to experts, the Ukrainian leadership sees the negotiations as a threat primarily to its political position.

“We will see some clarifications and some details. It is important that this will be based on the proposals prepared by the Ukrainian side,” Zelensky said. This only demonstrates Kiev’s desire to maintain its bellicose narrative, which is trying and will continue to try to sabotage the negotiation process, Ivan Loshkaryov said.

“For the current Ukrainian leadership, this is a way to retain power, while moving forward with negotiations increases the likelihood of losing it. However, the constant violations of the ceasefire are unlikely to change the overall direction of the Trump administration’s policy, since it has already spent a lot of resources on this, including image resources [i.e., credibility – Trans.]. Against this background, public and nonpublic pressure on Kiev will grow, but there is still room for maneuvering between Washington and Brussels as external sponsors of the Ukrainian side, and the sabotage attempts will continue,” Ivan Loshkaryov told Izvestia.

Moving forward on a Ukrainian settlement by Russia and the US, of course, prompts rare calls for dialogue on the part of the EU as well. Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that France or Britain should enter into negotiations with Vladimir Putin. Slovakia and Hungary have traditionally favored a quick resolution of the conflict.

But overall, EU and NATO rhetoric is still quite belligerent. . . .

Inside the US, the resistance comes from the anti-Russia lobby. Despite the change in administration, some authorities, even from the Republican Party, remain opposed to dialogue with the Russian side.

“Democratic Senator Adam Schiff is very visible. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham didn’t go anywhere, either. There’s not much change at the Council on Foreign Relations. This lineup of influential players could go on and on. No one has disappeared ‘for good’ anywhere, even after changing their main place of work. Maybe the rhetoric has softened a bit, but in general there are no radical changes. It is naïve to expect a full-fledged ‘détente’ as long as Americans do not sense the value of normal relations with Russia or really fear Russia as an equal,” Mikhail Mironyuk, associate professor of the department of politics and management at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, told Izvestia.

Dmitriyev’s visit to Washington confirmed that the Russia-US dialogue continues, but its effectiveness is limited by external players and internal resistance. As long as Brussels and Kiev continue to sabotage the implementation of the agreements, and American hawks continue to block normalization, it is premature to talk about full-fledged normalization. However, the very fact of negotiations leaves room for cautious optimism.