„After the so-called Alaska Summit, the gloomy mood has not yet dissipated. Therefore, the atmosphere at yesterday's meeting in the White House seemed significantly improved and brighter.
Some were even quick to see a breakthrough. Let's be more cautious in drawing such conclusions in this saga, because, as we know, the devil is usually in the details,“ Linkevičius wrote on his Facebook page.
The diplomat noted that the European leaders' visit to help Zelensky paid off.
„The voice and coordinated arguments of the five European leaders and two heads of institutions significantly strengthened President Zelensky's position. He didn't feel as alone as he did in February.
No one attacked, lectured, or even praised him, and he even found an opportunity to joke. European leaders have learned their lesson, as Trump often forms an opinion based on the last person he spoke to.
In this case, the most positive signs are the talk of security guarantees for Ukraine and the fact that the US is ready to contribute to this „in some way.“ But unfortunately, this is talk, because no one knows what „something similar“ to Article 5 of the NATO treaty means, at least for now,“ he stressed.
Linkevičius noted that, although not as emphatically and categorically as after Alaska, it was hinted that there was a need to discuss territories.
„No one provided any details. This is where the ambiguities begin.
It so happened that in Alaska, President Trump, using his terminology, gave Putin quite a few cards.
After the summit, not only Putin but also Trump categorically stated that Ukraine must give up some of its territories. In addition, they abandoned their constant and fundamental demand, which had been emphasised until now, first to declare a ceasefire.
It must be assumed that Putin convinced Trump that no ceasefire would help if the „root causes of the conflict,“ as he understands them, were not removed. And this, as we know, means not only the transfer of territories „written into“ the Russian Constitution, but also, at a minimum, Ukraine's renunciation of NATO membership and demilitarisation.
If NATO countries, in pursuit of their intentions to create „something similar“ to the guarantees of Article 5, deploy their forces on Ukrainian territory, if Ukraine, to quote Chancellor Merz, makes a strong army (which, incidentally, is necessary), how would this be compatible with Putin's repeated and categorical demands?
It may be possible to arrange a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky, or even a trilateral meeting with Trump, or even a quadrilateral meeting, as proposed by President Macron. Still, if these categorical preconditions do not change, then nothing will change,“ wrote Linkevičius.
The diplomat speculated that Putin is deliberately demanding that Zelensky cede part of his territory to Russia as a condition for „long-term peace,“ knowing full well that Zelensky will not agree to this.
„Then all he will have left to say is that Russia wants peace, but Ukraine and its European allies are standing in the way. Unfortunately, if he does not change his mind, Trump will agree with Putin's assessment.
And we will be back to square one. Persuasion, moralising, and diplomatic manoeuvres will not change Russia. Only force and tangible pressure, which certainly exist but are still being delayed, will change Russia. While a friendly conversation was taking place in the White House, Russia attacked Ukrainian cities again with its ballistic missiles. So far, this is the response,“ Linkevičius concluded.