From Izvestia, April 14, 2025, p. 3. Complete text:
For more than 90 years, relations between Russia and the US have had their ups and downs – from their joint struggle in the anti-Hitler coalition to the conflict in Ukraine. Moreover, the downturn of relations is especially characteristic of recent times, when the [former US president] Joe Biden administration was in power.
Today we are taking the first steps toward restoring political dialogue, including at the highest level. Over the past two months, the Russian and US leaders have spoken on the phone at least twice [see Vol. 77, No. 7, pp. 3‑7, and No. 12, pp. 4‑5]. It is possible that a personal meeting may take place soon.
However, dialogue between Russia and the US does not come easily. The first full-scale negotiations since the beginning of the special military operation [in Ukraine] took place in Riyadh on Feb. 18 [see Vol. 77, No. 8, pp. 3‑7]. At the time, the White House tried, in its characteristic “cowboy” fashion, to push through its position on the Ukrainian issue, but it failed. The Americans were forced to sit down at the negotiating table to resolve systemic problems covering all aspects of bilateral relations, which had been completely destroyed during the previous period.
In the end, the parties agreed to create conditions to normalize the work of diplomatic missions, eliminate aggravating circumstances and shake off the toxic legacy of the Biden administration, as well as start the process of settling the Ukrainian crisis. Thus, the foundation was laid for a new track of negotiations between Russia and the US, along with another track – negotiations on strategic offensive weapons reductions.
At the same time, Russia and the US have different views on how to normalize dialogue. The Russian side believes that trust and full bilateral relations must be restored first before moving to resolve issues of strategic stability, including the Ukraine crisis. The Americans, however, say that the primary task is a ceasefire and truce in Ukraine, and that changes in US-Russian relations should not be expected otherwise. The parties have apparently not yet found common ground.
One of the new developments in the Russian-American dialogue was the countries’ agreement to organize friendly matches between [the Russian] Kontinental Hockey League and [the US] National Hockey League. On the one hand, “hockey diplomacy” is unlikely to solve the [above] problems. On the other hand, while hockey matches alone will not stop the fighting in Ukraine, as a part of sports and a component of soft power, “hockey diplomacy” can restore trust and improve the overall climate between Moscow and Washington. This, in turn, could facilitate a diplomatic settlement, stop the bloodshed and usher in a new era of more restrained and acceptable rivalry.
On April 10, the second round of US-Russian consultations on bilateral relations was held in Istanbul. The Russian delegation was headed by Russian Ambassador to the US Aleksandr Darchiyev, while the American delegation was led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Sonata Coulter. However, as often happens in diplomatic practice, no press statements followed the conclusion of the negotiations – which is not surprising, since such negotiations require silence. Nevertheless, some diplomatic sources say that the talks showed a positive attitude and political will on both sides, since both statements and further actions to reinforce political agreements are important.
The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that in Istanbul the parties set a benchmark for a new round of consultations. And the next step was not long in coming. The very next day, US presidential special envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in St. Petersburg and was immediately received by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Some Western publications are calling this meeting an attempt to get the negotiations on the Ukraine conflict back on the “right track” amid ostensibly growing tensions between Moscow and Washington. At the same time, they recalled the meeting of the contact group on Ukraine that took place simultaneously in Brussels, which points to the fact that the US and Europe have different approaches to the crisis.
However, the Trump administration itself is clearly split over Ukraine. According to Witkoff, the recognition of [the aforementioned] new regions as Russian territories will help to cease fire more quickly. But the second US presidential special envoy, Keith Kellogg, says Kiev will not give up its territorial claims. Kellogg proposed following the example of postwar Berlin and creating zones of responsibility (read: occupation) for the allies (without US troops) and establishing a 30-kilometer demilitarized zone, although he expressed doubt that Moscow would agree to such a proposal. However, Kellogg later stated that the media had distorted his words, emphasizing that he “was not referring to a partitioning of Ukraine” and was speaking about “a post-ceasefire resiliency force in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty.”
It is important to consider that the US president and his entourage are becoming visibly and increasingly impatient about the talks with Russia and Ukraine. There is a clear desire to achieve a ceasefire before April 29, which will mark the first 100 days of Trump’s second term.
Under these circumstances, the first thing Russia needs to continue the dialogue is a return of US-Russian relations to a level based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, noninterference in internal affairs, and mutually beneficial cooperation. The second thing it needs is strategic stability, which involves the creation of a stable system of international relations based on international law and joint political resolution of global and regional crises, including the crisis in Ukraine, which was provoked by the West.
Russia believes that these problems are becoming increasingly important in the context of an international situation that is deteriorating significantly. The confrontation cannot be allowed to escalate to the most threatening situation or to the loss of control over the military-political situation, which could lead to a direct nuclear conflict.