EU’s Kaja Kallas emphasised that even during the Alaska summit, Russia resumed its attacks on Ukrainian territory. She said Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is “still trying to stall and hoping it will go without consequences.”
“He left Anchorage without making any commitment to stop the killing,” the official added.
[…]
In her opinion, the war will not stop until Russia “realises that it is no longer possible to continue it”.
Therefore, Europe will continue to strengthen its support for Ukraine, including through the preparation of a new, 19th package of sanctions against Moscow, the European official assured.
[…]
Kallas noted that European security issues cannot be a bargaining chip.
“The root of the war lies in Russia’s imperialist policy, not in the alleged imbalance of the European security architecture,” she concluded.
[…]
Yes, no question about that. The strange part is that she justifies it by the lack of Putin making a commitment.
Why should Putin make that commitment after meeting Trump and not after meeting Zelenskyy?
Nobody is saying he should’ve done it but rather just says aloud the *expected fact that he didn’t commit to it.
I think that sends the wrong signal. By bringing it up it suggests that it was a possible outcome.
I mean it was possible, just very unlikely.
unexpected
Who had expected the commitment?Why should Putin commit to anything before a negotiation? If Putin is supposed to negotiate with Zelenskyy then the EU cannot have that expectation. If they do then they undermine their previous position.I don’t think anyone had that expectation.
The expected fact would be a commitment.
You’re right, I wrote incorrectly. I meant to say the expected fact.