I’m not interested in celebrity engagements (congratulations!) so I’ll ignore the news of the day.
Let’s talk about a security guarantee for Ukraine. That’s something Ukraine needs for a ceasefire let alone for a more permanent peace.
My proposal is that France and the United Kingdom should provide security assurances for Ukraine. The U. S. should not.
There are many advantages to that. Although their forces are somewhat delipidated today those two countries have had armed forces at a high level of readiness in recent memory. No other European country (other than Russia) has. They do not border Russia or, presumably, have territorial ambitions there.
Neither France nor the UK has invaded Russia in force in two hundred years (they did invade Russia a century ago but not in force).
Poland borders Russia and has territorial disagreements with it. Germany invaded Russia in force 85 years ago, killing an entire generation of Russians in the process so Germany is out.
Guarantees from France and the UK would, presumably, not be as threatening to Russia as a U. S. guarantee. And the U. S. already guarantees France’s and the UK’s security. We provide their backstop as it were. Consequently, if anything short of President Putin’s maximalist demands (acknowledgement of Russia’s possession of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk; “de-Nazification” of Ukraine; demilitarization of Ukraine; Ukraine not admitted to NATO) is to lead to an end of the war in Ukraine, I would think that a ceasefire, a path to EU membership for Ukraine, and French and British security guarantees might be minimally acceptable.
Lately I’ve been reading complaints from British, French, and German pundits that Europeans don’t want to risk their lives to provide Ukraine with a security guarantee. That may be the nub of the problem.
Every list of Russian demands I have seen include Ukrainian disarmament. In that context would any country want to provide security? Putin ‘s stated goal is re-establishing the Russian empire so it would just be a matter of time until he invaded again under some pretext.
Steve
In that Ukraine was sovereign Russian territory for over 300 years, longer than the US has existed, any peace that incorporates Ukraine into the Russian Federation is legitimate. However, considering the prevalance of Ukrainian Nazis, especially, in the western oblasts, Russia might want to set aside a reservation for them.
More importantly, the entire Western Ruling Class, including Trump’s administration, continue to ignore any and all Russian statements on collective security for all of Europe.
The intransgence of the collective West has made any negotiated settlement impossible. This war will be settled on the battlefield.
Putin has most definitely NOT said his goal is to reestablish the Russian empire. Where you got that idea is a mystery. What Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a historic calamity, because it left many Russians stranded in foreign countries. His policy all along has been to pressure those countries to recognize the civil rights of ethnic Russians under their control.
Ukraine is a prime example of this policy. The initial invasion was intended to force negotiations on the implementation of Minsk I and II, which the Ukrainians and Europeans were ignoring. And it worked. The Istanbul agreement would have implemented Minsk I and II, and protected the civil rights of the Ukrainian Russians. Aside from Crimea, all of the Donbas would have remained as a part of a sovereign, independent Ukraine. The US and UK sabotaged that agreement, because they wanted a war with Russia. Well, they got exactly what they wanted. And they are losing it.
How much of Ukraine Russia will annex is hard to tell. The West refuses to negotiate seriously about Russian security concerns. In fact, they won’t negotiate with Russia at all. They simply ignore anything said by the Russians.
One thing that Lavrov brought up yesterday, was the peace treaty signed with Finland in 1944. Finland, like many European countries, had joined the German Nazis in their attack on the Soviet Union. And the Finns had actively participated in the atrocities and war crimes that happened during the siege of Leningrad. Westerners note that Finland agreed to losing territory in that treaty, but Lavrov pointed out that they had also agreed to permanent neutrality, and that Finland would not join any anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance. They have violated that peace treaty.
It might be noted that part of the settlement in Central Europe was that Austria agreed to permanent neutrality, and to not join any anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance. They are in the process of violating that treaty, too.
The implications for a treaty with Ukraine are obvious; Ukraine, with Western connivance, will violate that treaty.So, why should Russian take seriously any negotiations with the West?
bob sykes: In that Ukraine was sovereign Russian territory for over 300 years, longer than the US has existed, any peace that incorporates Ukraine into the Russian Federation is legitimate.
That is incorrect. Russia freely agreed to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum.
bob sykes: More importantly, the entire Western Ruling Class, including Trump’s administration, continue to ignore any and all Russian statements on collective security for all of Europe.
Whatever legitimate security concerns Russia has pale in comparison to their broken promises and violations international law by their invasion of Ukraine. They simply made a landgrab, thinking they would take Ukraine in a few weeks. Since then, they have purposefully terrorized the Ukrainian people. Ukrainians still remember the Holodomor under Moscow’s direction, when millions of Ukrainians died.
Putin can’t be trusted.
bob sykes: Putin has most definitely NOT said his goal is to reestablish the Russian empire.
Putin can’t be trusted.