Posted on 03/15/2022 12:04:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In an interview with Reuters, Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman for decades, made a startling offer. Moscow could end the Ukraine war immediately, said Peskov, if four conditions were met.
Ukraine should cease all military action, recognize Crimea as part of Russia, accept the independence of the Luhansk and Donetsk separatist enclaves, and enact a constitutional commitment to "neutrality," which would prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO.
Were this to be done, said Peskov, the war "will stop in a moment."
As this would restore the situation in Ukraine to the "status quo ante" that existed before Putin ordered the invasion, Peskov's offer seemed not to be believable.
Yet, according to The New York Times, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky "seemed surprisingly open to the idea."
Zelensky "said he had 'cooled down' on joining NATO, saying it was clear the western alliance 'is not prepared to accept Ukraine.'"
As for Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, said Zelensky, "We can discuss and find a compromise on how these territories will live on."
Monday, Ukraine and Russia held a fourth session of peace talks, and expressions of optimism were heard from both sides.
Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak volunteered that Russia is beginning to talk constructively. "I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days."
Yet, Russia's strategic goals, manifest in its unfolding military action, seem to go far beyond the moderate demands of Peskov.
Three weeks into this war, what do Russia's goals appear to be?
First, besiege and bring down the Kyiv government of Zelensky and replace it with a Russian client regime.
Second, divide Ukraine along the lines of the Dnieper River, which bisects the country north to south, and create an East Ukraine as a pro-Russian state.
Third, seize and occupy the entire coast of the Sea of Azov, turn it into a Russian lake, and capture all of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast from the Donbas to Mariupol, Crimea, Kherson, Odessa and Transnistria, the last a slice of seceded Moldovan land Moscow now controls.
This would leave a landlocked rump state of west Ukraine, which would be a buffer between NATO nations Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland -- and Russia-backed East Ukraine.
The Wall Street Journal said Monday that Russia's realization of these goals would be tantamount to victory in Putin's war:
"A Ukraine divided in two, with Russia in control of the east, and a rump, Western Ukraine cut off from the coast might look like a victory to Mr. Putin -- especially if sanctions are removed in some cease-fire agreement."
With this kind of peace in hand, Putin could then warn the NATO nations that if they attacked East Ukraine directly, or indirectly by arming insurgents, they would face "consequences you have never seen."
As no NATO nation risked war to save Georgia from Russia in 2008, or to save Ukraine from the Crimean and Donbas amputations of 2014, it is not likely NATO would risk war with Russia, and a potential third world war, if Russia declared a truce once it got full control of eastern Ukraine.
Where would that leave the West?
The Americans and British would likely treat Putin as a pariah and never meet with him again. But would President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany cut off all communication with Russia, when they have been making daily phone calls to Putin and regular visits to Moscow, even as Putin's war of aggression was raging?
If Russia and Ukraine reached a ceasefire and a truce, would the EU and NATO nations of Europe not swiftly stand down themselves, rather than keep the Ukrainian resistance fighting?
If Kyiv falls to a Russian strategy of encirclement and strangulation, capitulation and conquest, how long would it be before EU nations seek an end to Russia's isolation and a new era of detente?
Or would the continued existence of a regime headed by Putin mean permanent hostility?
Three years after Nikita Khrushchev sent Soviet tanks into Budapest to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Soviet premier was riding up Pennsylvania Avenue in an open convertible with Dwight Eisenhower to spend the night at Blair House before a 12-day tour as the guest of the president of the United States.
As of now, the winner of this Russia-Ukraine war appears to be China.
Given the severity of U.S. sanctions and the ostracism of Russia from the West, China is the only partner nation and economy to which Moscow can turn to recoup its losses.
If this war continues to unfold in a manner that is slow, painful and ugly, China and Russia are likely to establish far better relations with each other than either has with the United States.
But how is China, which is engaged in cultural genocide against its Uyghur minority of 10 million, a racial and ethnic persecution featuring reeducation camps, rapes, forced abortions and sterilizations, a morally superior regime to Putin's?
I'm curious to see if anyone will respond to this point, because I can't possibly fathom what it would be. The Russians are literally demanding that the Ukrainians demilitarize/disarm and pledge not to see any defensive alliances with anyone. Russia surely isn't worried about Ukraine actually invading Russia, so why else insist on demilitarization unless you were planning to bully/blackmail/invade them moving forward?
That time has passed, IMO.
Zelensky knows (or he should know) that short of outright victory and independence from Russia, his days are numbered. You don't defy and humiliate Putin and get to live. Putin has already sent teams into Ukraine to assassinate him. With borders down and troops stood down, like what would happen after a peace deal, they'll succeed next time.
Too obvious, you say? But Putin won't need to be subtle. There are other states in the former USSR that need to see what happens when you defy Mother Russia.
I know the thought of Putin having his boot on the throat of another nation thrills you guys to no end, but I think there's a good chance you will be disappointed.
I don't think Zelenky would ever agree to disarm, which means Russia will have to force the issue by either flattening/depopulating all the cities of Ukraine, or taking them by storm. And then, without a Ukrainian surrender, Russia will have to garrison the entire country into the indefinite future and face an unending guerilla campaign with the Russian economy in a tailspin. Because if he goes that far, Europe and the U.S. will end up cutting off all trade -- eventually even including fossil fuels.
Now, maybe Putin's actually willing to do that, but in that case, he'll need to mobilize and arm another million or so troops. So let's see if he begins that mass mobilization sometime in the next few weeks.
Each side is going to have to give something. Maybe Ukraine staying economically free and sovereign but staying out of NATO and the EU political union.
..........
Russia and Ukraine already agreed to that in the 1994 Budapest accord. Then Russia broke their word and invaded Ukraine. An agreement with Russia is worth nothing.
************
Better to give it a try than continue a war and sanctions that leave everybody worse off. The sanctions may induce Putin to keep his word.
Which is one reason why Zelensky will never agree to a peace deal that requires the Ukraine to demilitarize. And a whole lot of very stubborn and occasionally drunk Ukrainians will join him and continue fighting rather than agreeing to that.
Regardless of the outcome, the sanctions should never come off. The only thing we buy from them is energy and we can get domestically. Russia can never be allowed this kind of leverage again.
so true. This thing was over with as soon as Russia crossed the line. The only question was how many people were going to die.
“I know the thought of Putin having his boot on the throat of another nation thrills you guys to no end”
Why would you think that?
I am an indifferent observer. I have no emotional investment in any of it.
The only worthwhile war goal is regime change in Russia.
For his resignation as President Putin should be offered amnesty, an end to all sanctions, and Crimea, + EU membership for Russia if the new government wants it. The Donbas republics should be autonomous, and Ukraine should get Black Sea oil and gas rights.
Assuming Putin isn't crazy or stupid, he gets his warm water port and a land route to it. He get's promise of no NATO in Ukraine and he has a chance to reestablish energy trade with western Europe. Does he rock this boat or float peacefully?
Who knows?
You’re probably right. I wish Trump was President....
You: Why would you think that? I am an indifferent observer. I have no emotional investment in any of it.
You, in another thread: "Russia is taking back what was stolen from them.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4046923/posts?page=154#154
Wouldn’t matter. Putin was going to do this one way or the other. He knows the math. America CANNOT get involved. We CANNOT have 2 nuclear powers shooting at each other. That’s how we got out of the Cold War alive, never put a nuclear power in a position to lose a war with another nuclear power. Nothing about Trump changes that math.
“But Putin won’t need to be subtle. There are other states in the former USSR that need to see what happens when you defy Mother Russia.”
Belarus and what else?
Everyone else wants to be part of the EU trade block, be richer than some africa nation in GDP and be welcomed at the party with the cool kids.
Each one of these nations has reasons not to be in a block with Russia and China, simply they will get ran over by China needs in the next 5 decades.
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
The only worthwhile war goal is regime change in Russia.
***********
We need a regime change here and in Brussels first.
They’re the bigger threat.
I have an opinion. but no emotional investment.
When you look at how that shook out (both in the 1930s and 1990s) it appears he was right; they certainly are more credible as Czech Republic and Slovakia.
I guess the problem is the reason so many leaders were open to giving the Sudetenland back then, and so many leaders today turned a blind eye to Ukraine’s losses in 2014, are similar - the number of non-natives in the disputed region.
Our Central American mini-wars in the 1980s showed we wouldn’t tolerate a strong power building up too close to us; if the West agreed to Russia sharing a Canada-style (undefended) border with Ukraine in the 1990s, then it played a key role in giving up Russian control of the area at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.