The 35-minute meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which took place in Manila within the framework of the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, at first glance did not yield any breakthrough results.

The parties did not announce any progress on the ceasefire, nor the start of new negotiations, nor any political agreement. However, the statements made after the meeting showed a much more important reality. Today, Washington and Moscow do not agree not only on the terms of settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, but also on the question of where the negotiation process should start.

After the meeting, in a conversation with journalists, Marco Rubio announced that he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed US-Russia relations, as well as the need to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.

According to him, “new ideas” will be needed to end the Russian-Ukrainian war.

He noted that the previous proposals were “unacceptable for Ukraine at that time”.

“And I don’t think they would be acceptable to them now either. In fact, probably even less acceptable,” said the head of the State Department, without clarifying exactly what proposals we are talking about.

“If peace is to be established, it will be due to certain new ideas and new concepts, and we are ready to offer some of them in suitable terms and formats, if the opportunity arises and the conditions are created. We are ready to take on that role,” added Rubio.

He noted that what US President Donald Trump wants most is for “people to stop dying” so that Ukraine can live in peace, Ukrainians can return to their homeland and restore it, and that five thousand young Russians are not killed every week.

“He [Trump] thinks this is a stupid and pointless war. And if we can play our part in ending it, we’re going to use the power and influence of the United States to do it. We are ready to do so if such an opportunity presents itself, and I hope it will. And this is exactly what we consistently bring to the consciousness of both sides,” Rubio concluded.

According to the results of the meeting, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Lavrov presented to the head of the State Department “the real situation on the contact line” and “emphasized the inadmissibility of further arming the Kiev regime.”

Lavrov “confirmed the readiness of the Russian side regarding the political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict”, noting that Moscow is committed to the proposals put forward by the American side at the Anchorage summit.

Earlier, Bloomberg reported that Russia no longer plans to return part of the occupied territories to Ukraine as part of a possible deal to end the war. According to the interlocutors of the publication, Vladimir Putin refused any territorial concession because the Kremlin now considers the informal agreements reached during the Anchorage summit of the Russian and US presidents to have failed.

In other words, according to the Kremlin, the basis for negotiations already exists, and the problem is not the lack of new ideas, but the fact that Washington has so far been unable or unwilling to move forward in the directions of the already discussed ideas.

This was perhaps the main political outcome of the meeting. If Rubio actually declares that the existing negotiation logic has been exhausted, proposing to search for new solutions, then Lavrov claims that there is no need to search for new solutions, because the initial political basis has already been formed. According to Russia, it is now the turn of the United States to clarify whether Washington is ready to continue the process on which verbal understandings were previously reached.

However, the negotiation impasse is not only caused by the differences between Washington and Moscow. The position of Europe also plays a key role in the Ukrainian settlement process, which in recent years has become not only one of the main political supporters of Kiev, but also an important factor affecting the continuation of the war. According to Moscow, the continued military and financial support of European countries is one of the circumstances that allows Ukraine to continue its resistance.

Russian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin believes that the Russian side insists that any negotiation process can be effective only when taking into account not only the positions of Washington and Moscow, but also the fact that Europe has become one of the main pillars of Ukraine’s security.

According to him, according to the Kremlin’s logic, if Western support continues at the same level, reaching a political agreement on ending the war becomes more difficult, because Kiev continues to have the opportunity to maintain military resistance.

“At the same time, Europe’s approach is based on other calculations. This very circumstance creates one of the most complicated contradictions in the negotiation process. Washington is trying to find a resolution that would allow ending the war, Moscow wants the future agreement to take into account its military-political demands, and Europe and Kiev are trying to gain an advantage. It is the differences between these three approaches that currently complicate the path to any final agreement.” 168.amKhramchikhin said in a conversation with

He believes that in the background of these geopolitical rearrangements, the factor and role of the South Caucasus is also gaining special importance and it is the Ukrainian war that has significantly changed the balance of power in the region in recent years.

“If a new phase really begins in Russian-American relations, it may have a direct impact on the South Caucasus as well. Possible agreements between the great powers or the deepening of contradictions can change the environment in which regional processes are taking place today, but currently there are no results or even a normal negotiation process in the negotiations between the Ministry of Defense and the Russian Federation.

The Rubio-Lavrov meeting showed that the main issue surrounding the end of the war is still not only the conditions under which the conflict can end, but also who and with what principles will form the post-war international order,” Khramchikhin said.

—