Letter From the Editors

The equation for ending the Ukraine conflict just keeps getting more complicated following the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska. Now that the two leaders have parted ways, pundits are trying to figure out if a solution is one step closer or two steps farther away. Fyodor Lukyanov notes the fact that this isn’t obvious from the get-go is actually a good sign – it means the return of real diplomacy. “The difference between real diplomacy and its substitutes is the absence of a predetermined ending,” posits Lukyanov. And instead of digging in their heels, real diplomacy means all parties involved are prepared to make concessions.

Of course, like a true businessman, Trump was quick to pass the buck to his European frenemies. After showering European leaders with compliments during their meeting following the Anchorage summit, Trump did agree to US participation in “security guarantees” for Ukraine – causing his transatlantic guests to breathe a sigh of relief. However, Europe will now essentially be on the hook for those guarantees. The math so far looks like this: The EU will give Kiev funds to buy US weapons. And since Trump’s plan basically takes NATO out of the equation, Kiev can no longer count on the famous Art. 5 of the NATO Charter, writes Kommersant’s Sergei Strokan.

Russia’s top diplomat already dismissed the idea of the EU sending peacekeepers to Ukraine. Instead, Sergei Lavrov proposed a peacekeeping mission under the auspices of the Big Five – i.e., UN Security Council members. Although ostensibly this would still involve British and French troops.

Meanwhile, in terms of clout, the Big Five are apparently no match for Russia’s Big Four – its major cell phone carriers, who pushed through a controversial ban on WhatsApp and Telegram calls recently. Whatever pockets of resistance in parliament remained (namely, the ever-vigilant RFCP and A Just Russia – For the Truth’s Sergei Mironov), they have by all indications been eliminated. This leaves the nonestablishment opposition to pick up the free speech banner. Last year’s presidential hopeful Boris Nadezhdin submitted a petition to hold a rally on Moscow’s Sakharov Prospekt. He also called on the Duma opposition parties to form a coalition, but apparently no one RSVP’d. “The parliamentary parties must have received a signal from above to dial back their activity,” Nadezhdin believes. So hopes that Mironov would rush to the rescue with his engraved sledgehammer swinging have been, well, dashed. With an election in the offing, the Duma parties don’t want to rock the boat. What’s more, according to NG sources, there are no plans to conduct social polls on restricted Internet and messaging access, “so as not to politicize the issue.” In 2025, the parliament really is no place for discussion. Indeed, Russia’s political and media landscape today is a far cry from the one we saw in 2000, when the Kursk submarine sank during training exercises. In a haunting homage, Aleksandr Urzhanov recalls how in the space of 10 days – Aug. 12-22 – the entire country lived and breathed only that unfolding, tragic story. Today, it seems unthinkable that one media story would hold the public’s attention for so long. “In a world of post-truth, alternative facts, negative growth and special military operations, remembering the Kursk means seeing in a new way how we ourselves have changed over 25 years,” writes Urzhanov. The Kursk was Vladimir Putin’s first big test as president. At the time, he was seen as a newbie learning the ropes of a difficult job. Hence his awkward meeting with the widows of the sailors, not to mention his disturbingly curt explanation “It sank” in his Larry King interview. But today, Urzhanov sees something more sinister behind that noncommittal façade – the ruthlessness of someone for whom death and murder were routine. Had we known that 25 years ago, would anything have changed for Russia and the world? And how will today’s events, receding in the rearview mirror of history, look in another 25 years?