By THE TRIBUNE staff

KYIV

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Friday visit to France for talks with President Emmanuel Macron – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, joining in virtually – was another attempt by Kyiv to attract support by Europe’s only real powers.

Zelensky in the end went home with another “verbal victory”. Berlin and Paris quickly were “demanding” Russia remove troops it has stationed in areas along its border with Ukraine. Some estimates put the build-up as high as 40,000, with an enormous amount of military hardware to boot.

Great pronouncements are obligatory bravado following protocol meetings, and this was no exception.

But if Kyiv had a Ukrainian hryvna – or a euro, or dollar – for every “verbal victory” from the West – it would be in control of Moscow by now – let alone regaining control over areas in its Donbass region – part of its eastern districts of Donetsk and Luhansk – controlled by pro-Moscow proxies since 2014.

Verbosity is one of the few tangible instruments the West has to try and influence Moscow. It has supplied some military support to Kyiv in the way of weapons sales. But it is in no position – be it NATO, Washington, Berlin, Paris, or the EU – to intervene militarily.

Russian state TV has showered its population with a steady bombast about possible impending war.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials have also been banging their own doom drums.

Ukraine’s Defense Minister Andriy Taran told the European Parliament last week that Russia would ultimately have 110,000 troops within 56 tactical battalions at its disposal in (Moscow-annexed) Crimea and near Ukraine’s borders, saying the built-up force could be used for “unpredictable, escalatory actions.”

BLUSTER, BUT FEW DISMISS ENTIRELY

Few serious analysts, however, want to write off the stare-down entirely as Moscow bluffing.

“If it’s just a ‘show of strength,’ Russia is doing an awful lot to make it wholly convincing,” Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), wrote on Twitter on April 14.

Western talk of the full support of Ukraine, for instance, did nothing to stop Moscow from blocking Ukrainian vessels from movement in areas of the Black Sea last week. The cost was basically zero for Moscow.

MORE TIT FOR TAT

The Czech Republic, a bit player among NATO powers, on Saturday suddenly expelled 18 Russian diplomats from Prague. It says the Kremlin agents engineered two 2014 explosions at a Czech arms depot where weapons slated to be sent to Ukraine were stored.

The question as to why Prague Castle made this move at precisely this time was – though rather obvious – not answered.

Ukraine and Russia each tossed out a diplomat. Yet, surprisingly, the two countries still have official relations.

Moscow and Washington each threw out 10 of the other’s diplomats on Friday after the new sanctions over U.S. charges of Russian election meddling and cyber attacks.

So, pundits in the West – with its increasingly weak understanding of the Kremlin (many such commentators gushed with a certainty of “an end” to the “Cold War” 30 years ago, and the discipline atrophied) – are left to guess-size, ruminate, and publish wildly speculative accounts of what might be to come – is Moscow preparing for a new “Ukraine adventure”?

It is like the Kremlinology of old without access to Moscow circles or even extremely rigorous analyses of a rather predictable Soviet Communist behaviour – which actually made Kremlinology possible during the USSR.

KEY OUTCOME FROM BERLIN, PARIS ENGAGEMENT IS ZELENSKY’S “OLIVE BRANCH”

Perhaps the most noticeable thing of late is the Ukrainian leader Zelensky’s recent support for “quadrilateral” talks between Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin and Paris.

But the Kremlin has basically ignored Zelensky’s peace offering.

And its recent moves indicate it is more interested in dealing with Europe and the U.S. directly.

This was already clear at the end of March, when Merkel and Macron held three-sided talks – with Putin.

Then, Zelensky was a non-invitee, even though the situation in his country was ostensibly the motivator for the pow-wow.

The Ukrainian leader’s absence was explained away by the fact that the discussions were not just confined to Ukraine. Though the troika talked about Ukraine, obviously no understanding was reached.

The Kremlin has used a consistent line of “plausible deniability” – that it is actually Ukraine planning for military action against Moscow-supported and financed areas in eastern Ukraine, though, given Kyiv’s military disadvantages, this would seem to be impossible from any military standpoint.

There is no indication whether the Russian president would actually move from positioning troops to using them. Fears are growing that things might spin out of control and into an entirely new and dangerous escalation.

But going beyond the areas of eastern Ukraine it already controls would entail huge risks militarily and Moscow might get bogged down.

But faced with the threat, the countries of the “Normandy format” have had little option but to declare “solidarity” with Ukraine.

It was therefore entirely logical for Macron, Merkel and Zelensky to urge Russia to reduce the number of troops on the Ukrainian border, even if little tangibly can be done.

And so the question remains — can European countries have any sort of influence on the Kremlin at all?

BIDEN MAY BE THE REAL TARGET OF KREMLIN DESIRE TO TALK

Though he was not in Paris, another figure – U.S. President Joe Biden – may be the real key.

So, Biden called Putin last week to express concern about Ukraine, as well as Russian cyber attacks.

But at the same time, in a somewhat unusual move, Biden first told Putin that the increase in sanctions was coming. And, he added publicly, a de-escalation was necessary.

“Now is the time to de-escalate. The way forward is through thoughtful dialogue and diplomatic process,” Biden said. “The U.S. is prepared to continue constructively to move through that process. My bottom line is this: where there’s an interest in the United States to work with Russia, we should.”

Biden went on to propose a meeting with Putin to be held this summer.

Whatever the outcome of such a possible meeting, it is clear that the Kremlin may get part of what it wants – “recognition” as a force – and a nuclear superpower – to be reckoned with.

Washington could thus pursue a dialogue dealing specifically with disarmament issues. On that score, Biden has a greater degree of mutual understanding with Putin than did ex-President Trump.

SUMMIT PREPARATIONS DURING A GRAVE CRISIS?

And though there were the routine denunciations of new U.S. sanctions, by the Kremlin, overall, key officials also sounded an upbeat note.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said preparations for a Russian-U.S. summit – as suggested by the U.S. president – were proceeding.

To back that up, Kremlin figures like lawmaker Leonid Slutsky, the head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia’s lower house of parliament, sounded almost cheery. He called Biden’s stated readiness to engage in broader talks “a step away from confrontation to dialogue”.

“Such a position meets not only mutual interests but also the interests of international security,” Slutsky said in remarks carried by Russian news agencies. “The good news is that the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers have confirmed their readiness for interaction on issues of strategic stability and arms control.”

Moscow may have a strong interest in such a meeting. And it knows full well that moves to start a declared conflict with Ukraine – beyond parts of that country it already holds de facto control over – would put a quick end to any diplomatic opening.

As long as there is a hope of holding a meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents, Putin will likely steer clear of rash actions. Yes, Russian troops could remain on the Ukrainian border – there is nothing to prevent a country basing troops in its own territory.

In Paris and Berlin, calculations may be somewhat different. We don’t know exactly what the presidents of France and Ukraine discussed in the Elysée Palace beyond the protocol-language support for Kyiv and reinforcing a cease-fire which is often violated.

But let us not forget that Macron was the principal backer, in the summer of 2019, of a resumed dialogue with Putin and hosted him in the medieval Fort de Brégançon before the Biarritz summit.

Analysts at the time said Macron’s interest was not confined to securing peace in Ukraine’s Donbass.

He also had – obscure to many outsiders – concomitant goals in areas like limiting Russian influence in France’s former African colonies, notably the Central African Republic. Mercenaries from “private” Russian companies are practically propping up the extremely weak authorities in Bangui, though this seems to have nothing to do with any Kremlin interest in Africa, but rather Moscow “staying in the game” geopolitically.

RUSSIAN-GERMAN “NORD STREAM 2” GAS PROJECT MUDDIES THE MIX

To add to the complexity, the main issue affecting relations with Moscow and Kyiv is the construction of the “Nord Stream 2” gas pipeline which runs via the Baltic Sea to Germany. The line is 95 percent complete and once put into operation, it will become a real alternative to the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine.

In addition to a major blow to Kyiv financially, it would free Moscow of any disinclination to be more brazen in Ukraine.

Washington sees the Russian project as a lever to increase Europe’s energy dependence on Russia.

Washington’s latest sanctions introduced by the White House make no mention of Nord Stream 2. The Biden administration concedes that any bid to toughen sanctions on the pipeline was a “difficult issue”.

Such caution by the U.S. is seen as a bid not to cause tensions with Berlin when Washington might have to count on Germany’s support.

Andrei Kortunov, a long-time Russian political analyst, summed up the cautious, wait-and-see attitude.

“I don’t think anyone wants a real, big war, since the costs of such a conflict will exceed the political dividends. It’s difficult to predict what such a conflict might lead to, given that the stakes are very high. But an unintended escalation could occur.” Kortunov is the Director-General of the Russian International Affairs Council.