The Ukraine war thread
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 18:42 last edited by Renauda
Putin Won’t Settle for Less than a Betrayal of Ukraine
But there would have to be an agreement on ending the war in Ukraine, or else the summit would fail. What would such an agreement look like? Putin’s demands are clear, and they would require significant concessions from the United States — concessions that, if granted, would leave Ukraine adrift and at Russia’s mercy.
The first item on Putin’s wish list would be the recognition (including by Ukraine) of Russia’s territorial gains. He would insist on keeping all the territories Russia currently occupies, as well as those he has formally annexed but not yet fully controls. This is a prospect Zelensky has repeatedly rejected. It goes without saying that Ukraine would be asked to withdraw from Kursk, which it invaded, to dubious benefit, some months ago.
Equally important would be Ukraine’s formal, permanent neutrality. This was a major sticking point during the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022. At the time, Ukraine sought real security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression. Russia, however, insisted on a mechanism that would allow it to be consulted — and potentially veto — any Ukrainian request for external assistance.
Putin would likely agree only to meaningless guarantees — ones that could not be effectively invoked if Russia were to launch another attack. As in Istanbul, he would want to leave Russia and its potential partners (like China and Belarus) in a position to veto any Ukrainian request for external assistance. For that reason, it is very doubtful that Putin would ever agree to a European peacekeeping contingent to enforce the agreement.
Would Trump agree to such a framework? If he did, it would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and would leave the country defenseless against future aggression.
-
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 18:48 last edited by
Which is all he really wants - time to strengthen the economy and restore the military.
-
Putin Won’t Settle for Less than a Betrayal of Ukraine
But there would have to be an agreement on ending the war in Ukraine, or else the summit would fail. What would such an agreement look like? Putin’s demands are clear, and they would require significant concessions from the United States — concessions that, if granted, would leave Ukraine adrift and at Russia’s mercy.
The first item on Putin’s wish list would be the recognition (including by Ukraine) of Russia’s territorial gains. He would insist on keeping all the territories Russia currently occupies, as well as those he has formally annexed but not yet fully controls. This is a prospect Zelensky has repeatedly rejected. It goes without saying that Ukraine would be asked to withdraw from Kursk, which it invaded, to dubious benefit, some months ago.
Equally important would be Ukraine’s formal, permanent neutrality. This was a major sticking point during the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022. At the time, Ukraine sought real security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression. Russia, however, insisted on a mechanism that would allow it to be consulted — and potentially veto — any Ukrainian request for external assistance.
Putin would likely agree only to meaningless guarantees — ones that could not be effectively invoked if Russia were to launch another attack. As in Istanbul, he would want to leave Russia and its potential partners (like China and Belarus) in a position to veto any Ukrainian request for external assistance. For that reason, it is very doubtful that Putin would ever agree to a European peacekeeping contingent to enforce the agreement.
Would Trump agree to such a framework? If he did, it would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and would leave the country defenseless against future aggression.
wrote on 13 Feb 2025, 19:09 last edited by@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Putin Won’t Settle for Less than a Betrayal of Ukraine
Seems like he got that this week.
-
wrote on 14 Feb 2025, 01:26 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 14 Feb 2025, 14:42 last edited by
I don't know Wicker, but he's spot on:
-
wrote on 14 Feb 2025, 19:53 last edited by Renauda
Russian picks its negotiating team:
Naryshkin was the FSB hood who received a public bollocking from Putin three years ago when it became painfully obvious the Ukrainians were not greeting the invading Russian troops with bread and salt offerings.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 15:42 last edited by Renauda
The rare earths are primarily concentrated in the Donbas region under Russian control. However there are also deposits in the annexed but as yet unoccupied regions of Zaporizhie. Yeah, it’s a snag alright.
Map:
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aF3c3/2/
More information on topic:
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 15:48 last edited by
So the question facing Zelensky seems to be do you want to be a vassal state of Russia, the US or both? Ugly.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 16:11 last edited by
I doubt the deal, if it were to go through, would make it a vassal state of the US. Rather, how would such an arrangement affect Ukraine’s aspirations to join the EU down the road. The devil is in details of the US proposal. At this stage it is not clear what the US wants or how it will get Putin out of the occupied regions where the rare earths are located.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 16:51 last edited by jon-nyc
It doesn’t even offer anything in return. It’s ’you’re desperate, give us half your stuff’. Embarrassing to be an American these days.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 16:57 last edited by
US troops on Ukrainian soil is not nothing. It's very chastening of Russian reinvasion ideas.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 17:38 last edited by Renauda
True enough however if their mission is only to safeguard the mining operations how credible a deterrent to any future Russian aggression is that?
Until the details of any proposal are made public, it is all pure speculation. My suspicion at this point is that the US proposal presented would essentially assign the US unfettered sovereignty over the land, subsurface mineral rights and all infrastructure within the boundaries of any concessions. There could be as well provisions for free transportation corridors through Ukrainian territory to ports and border crossings. Effectively, a conglomerate of Cold War era American sector West Berlins but outside the scope of the NATO treaty.
-
wrote on 15 Feb 2025, 17:49 last edited by
Jon,
When will your son be ready to go to a service academy?
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 02:06 last edited by
Kasparov:
What is Trump asking from Putin? So far he has a list of gifts for Russia and a list of demands for Ukraine.
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 02:30 last edited by Renauda
I listened to an interview on satellite radio this afternoon with the Polish Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski ( Anne Apelbaum’s spouse). Sharp guy, a real no nonsense statesman - reminds me of the late George Schulz with a touch of Gromyko’s poker face approach to diplomacy. Certainly knows the Russian mentality and his statements gave me confidence in what is unfolding. Putin might just find himself in check mate if he doesn’t negotiate in good faith and offer up Ukrainian territory.
In the last few hours Starmer has offered British troops for deployment to Ukraine. Expect Poland and even France and others to follow in the next few days.
We don’t know what all is on the agenda in Saudi Arabia. Of course Ukraine is on the agenda but you can be rest assured so is Iran and other Russian assets in the ME. Maybe even the Norks. There is a sound reason Europe is not invited.
Putin’s hand is weak and if he again doubles down that hand will get even weaker.
The goal at this point is a firm armistice and a long stable Cold War.
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 02:59 last edited by Mik
In 91 I was saying the celebrations of the USSR demise were premature, that the world was in fact less stable, more dangerous than before. That has proven true.
It had greater potential promise as well, but that did not materialize. At least not yet.
I’ll look for that interview. We will never get that kind of nuance from the White House.
-
In 91 I was saying the celebrations of the USSR demise were premature, that the world was in fact less stable, more dangerous than before. That has proven true.
It had greater potential promise as well, but that did not materialize. At least not yet.
I’ll look for that interview. We will never get that kind of nuance from the White House.
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 05:22 last edited by RenaudaNot the same interview with Sikorski that I heard on the sat. radio, but very similar in tone and scope.
This from yesterday, 15 February:
Link to video -
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 12:42 last edited by
Thanks!