Europe loser a great loser of Alaska; Putin’s political boycott failed – Mehr News Agency | Iranian and world news

Mehr News Agency, International Group- Roya Fereydouni: US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Alaska on Friday at an important meeting to discuss peace and control in Ukraine. The meeting was the first to face the two and a half years in Ukraine.

Although the war in Ukraine was the main focus of the meeting, Ukrainian President Walodimir Zelnsky was not invited to attend it. “Russia and the United States are two neighboring countries, and their visit to Alaska has been a rational move,” the Russian president said at a joint news conference with Trump. He emphasized that the negotiations were held in the “constructive space” and assessed the results positively. Donald Trump also described the talks as “constructive and productive” and stated that it has been agreed on many issues.

In this regard, Mehr reporter with “On the Sinan Gazelt“The lawyer and expert of international relations have a conversation that follows:

After the Ukrainian War, Western countries have tried to politicize Russia to put it in political isolation. How do you evaluate Putin and Trump’s visit to Alaska?

Naturally, Putin has been welcomed by a detailed ceremony on the United States, despite the continued sanctions, indicating that sanctions against Russia have failed. The meeting also indirectly shows that the United States will be reluctant to lift sanctions against Russia in the short term, even in the short term. That such a visit to American soil is in itself a diplomatic and victory for Russia and must be evaluated from this perspective.

On the other hand, this is a major failure for Europe. Because European countries, especially the German and French governments, insist on the continuation and even intensification of sanctions against Russia. But the United States, despite his NATO partners against the Russian president and targeted sanctions, accepted him with very detailed formalities. So this was the biggest sign of the failure of the policy of isolation and sanctions against Russia, at least diplomatic.

Every A few Trumps are trying to show themselves the savior of peace in the world, but this time there seems to be many challenges in the Ukrainian war, and Moscow and Kiev are still far from reaching the agreement. What do you think is the most important obstacle to the peace of the two countries?

Disputes between Moscow and Kiev are not merely about the challenges between the two countries; The process that began in Ukraine was in fact one of the fronts in which the Western bloc was against Russia and even in general against the East. Of course, there are certain internal issues between Russia and Ukraine, such as the division of land, who will remain under control, how will it be in the event of a ceasefire or peace agreement, whether compensation will be paid, and many other questions. There are many differences in these areas. Some areas under Russian -controlled are accepted as Moscow soil. There are also areas where war is still underway. But resolving these issues is not just about resolving the disputes of Moscow and Kiev; This was also the case at the US meeting. In fact, resolving these issues can only be resolved by resolving disputes between the Western and Russian blocs, and if such a solution is realized, other issues will be completed.

Therefore, the problem of Ukraine’s problem depends on Russia’s relations with the United States and later with Europe, especially in Britain, rather than dependent on the Moscow -Kiev agreement. There are now positive developments between the US and Russia, but both within the US and Europe are factions and factions that oppose the normalization of relations with Russia. In the future, the conflict between these factions is likely to intensify. Because in Europe there is a possibility of tensions, there will be disagreement in the United States about the normalization of relations with Russia. This leads to the deepening of differences within the Western bloc, and we may see unexpected developments.

Another important point is that the end of the war can have heavy consequences for many European governments. Because the hardline wing in the West wants to continue the war. If the war ends, these groups may lose their political and economic influence. Therefore, unfortunately on the issue of Russia and Ukraine, we will continue to see the provocations of forces that do not want peace.

Ukraine’s view of the issue of more peace on the end of their occupation by Russia is then an agreement. But this time Zelksky seems to have a positive look at the Alaska meeting. We will also see Zelnsky’s meeting with Trump. Please explain Ukraine’s position on the peace agreement?

In my opinion, Zelkski alone cannot solve this problem, as it requires US and European support. Current developments show that the United States is at least seeking to normalize and peace with Russia. Zelksky will now turn to European forces, especially Britain, and will support them to continue the war. But Europe is in a weak position, and without the United States it is unclear how much it can resist Russia.

Therefore, insistence on continuing the war may mean weakening and even being dismissed. Trump is now a “peaceful” gesture, but we have seen many examples that he is unreliable. Before the Iran -Israeli war, the Americans were at the negotiating table with the Iranians, but at the same time Israel attacked Iran with US support. Russia has repeatedly tried to negotiate with Ukraine, but the West responded with military operations. There are also movements in the South Caucasus to cut off Russia and Iran. Or Syria is one of these examples. So it is clear that neither Trump nor the US government can be trusted. The fact that today the US and Trump government play the role of “savior of peace” does not prevent them from being plotting against Russia and Iran at the same time. So just because the negotiations are positive, one cannot expect a complete peace agreement. The contradictions between the East and the West are unsolved contradictions

Even if a ceasefire or peace agreement arises today, new clashes will begin in the future on the Ukrainian front, Iran, Palestine or elsewhere in the Middle East. As I said, these differences are inevitable and can only end when one side imposes its will on the other.