lexpress.fr
Russia's Unwavering Stance in Ukraine: Putin's Refusal to Negotiate
Dimitri Minic, a researcher at IFRI, explains Vladimir Putin's refusal to negotiate in Ukraine, highlighting Russia's objective of Ukraine's political submission and the failed attempt by Donald Trump to influence Putin's policy.
- How did Donald Trump's attempt to resolve the conflict influence Russia's actions?
- Russia exploited Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, using flattery to cultivate the idea that abandoning Ukraine was necessary. This strategy, while not achieving complete success in compelling Ukraine's surrender, allowed Russia to manage Trump and continue military operations.
- What are the main reasons behind Russia's refusal to negotiate a peace settlement in Ukraine?
- Russia seeks Ukraine's complete political submission, viewing any resolution solely through total Ukrainian capitulation. This intransigence, as explained by Dimitri Minic of IFRI, stems from Russia's defined objectives in the conflict.
- What are the broader implications of Russia's unwavering stance and the failure of Trump's intervention?
- Russia's intransigence reveals its long-held belief in its historical role in influencing European affairs, demonstrated by past attempts to push the US out of European affairs. Trump's inability to pressure Ukraine and Europe exposed a miscalculation by Russia regarding US influence and the limits of Trump's willingness to concede to the Kremlin.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the conflict primarily through the lens of Russian motivations and actions, focusing extensively on Putin's intransigence and strategic maneuvering. While it mentions Ukrainian resistance and US involvement, the narrative weight leans heavily towards Russia's perspective and strategies, potentially underrepresenting the Ukrainian experience and agency. The headline (if any) would significantly influence this perception.
Language Bias
The language used, while generally neutral in its presentation of facts, subtly favors a critical portrayal of Trump's naiveté and Russia's manipulative tactics. Terms like "grotesque cocktail of vanity and arrogance" and "manipulative" are loaded and express negative judgments. More neutral phrasing could replace these subjective assessments.
Bias by Omission
The analysis omits a detailed examination of Ukrainian perspectives and strategies. While the article mentions Zelensky's interactions with Trump, it lacks a comprehensive presentation of the Ukrainian government's position and actions throughout the conflict. This omission could leave the reader with an incomplete understanding of the multifaceted nature of the conflict.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a simplified dichotomy between Russia's unwavering pursuit of political submission and Trump's supposed ability to broker a quick peace. This framing neglects the complexities of the geopolitical situation, the diverse interests of various actors, and the potential for different forms of conflict resolution.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article directly addresses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, highlighting the intransigence of Vladimir Putin and the resulting negative impact on peace and security. The discussion of failed negotiations, misunderstandings between world leaders, and the lack of progress towards a peaceful resolution clearly demonstrate setbacks in achieving sustainable peace and justice. The actions described, such as using flattery to manipulate Donald Trump and disregard for Ukraine's sovereignty, undermine international cooperation and the rule of law, key components of SDG 16.