Does anyone else find it strange that there appears to be no diplomatic effort at all by the NATO powers, or the EU, to engage with Putin and Russia and try and talk our way out of the Ukraine conflict? Not in the least because - in my view - if cornered Russia will use nuclear weapons.
And then no-one will win.
Thoughts?
18 comments:
There is only one solution Putin will agree to -- Ukraine surrendering a large amount of its territory. He's made that very clear, many times.
Given that Ukraine is unwilling to agree to this, negotiating with Putin is a waste of time.
Why would NATO agree to Russia winning, when it is currently losing?
I struggle to think of any wars where a negotiated settlement mid-conflict actually helped. Generally they just kick off again anyway, or they live like the Koreas, in suspended war.
On top of that, Putin has made it abundantly clear that he ignores any agreements Russia signs anyway. So you make a peace, which he then just breaks. Russia agreed very publicly to allow Ukraine to exist provided it handed over its nuclear weapons. It was a very good agreement, brokered by NATO. And then Putin ignored it.
Mark. Indeed. And of course Putin's trump (sic) card is his nukes.
Why stop now when all those Slavs are dying wholesale?
Bill Evans' Peace Piece is highly overrated. Give Peace a chance? No way!
Putin's second trump card is the short memories of those who forget how many cross-my-heart promises to be house trained he has broken already.
"There is only one solution Putin will agree to -- Ukraine surrendering a large amount of its territory. He's made that very clear, many times,"
Bollocks. There is only one solution that NATO will agree to, which is Russia withdrawing from all of what was Ukranian territory, including Crimea. Russia and Ukraine were well on the way to concluding a different peace deal in April, but Boris Johnson was sent to tell them to desist. Offering Hobson's choice is not negotiation.
"Why would NATO agree to Russia winning, when it is currently losing?"
Why would Russia agree to NATO winning when it, NATO, is currently losing? Ukraine is going to run out of men before Russia, so unless NATO sends in the Germans, Poles, French, Americans and our own brave boys, in the long run, they were always going to lose.
"On top of that, Putin has made it abundantly clear that he ignores any agreements Russia signs anyway. So you make a peace, which he then just breaks."
On top of that, NATO has made it abundantly clear that they will ignore any agreement Russia signs anyway. Minsk anyone?
"Russia agreed very publicly to allow Ukraine to exist provided it handed over its nuclear weapons. It was a very good agreement, brokered by NATO. And then Putin ignored it."
Russia agreed to allow Ukraine to exist provided there was no eastward expansion of NATO. It was a very good agreement, brokered by NATO. And then NATO ignored it. In any case,the nuclear weapons didn't belong to Ukraine, they were the USSR's nuclear weapons situated in Ukraine. I don't think the US would be very happy if all the countries where they have military bases suddenly started claiming that all the arms and armaments on those bases belonged to them. Russia, as the "successor state" to the USSR, got to keep the nukes.
"Putin's second trump card is the short memories of those who forget how many cross-my-heart promises to be house trained he has broken already."
That's only the two, for the ace of trumps you have to look elsewhere. As Harold Pinter put it:
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."
L, I'm surprised at you. I would have thought that you, of all people, would have sussed that the Ukraine War is all about money. Firstly there is the billions that can always be made from war but secondly, or perhaps more importantly, there is the desire of Western interests to return Russia to the pre-Putin days when it was "a gas station with nukes", selling its natural resources cheap to Western businesses who could sell them on at a vast profit and importing everything from the west, even food. NATO can't just march in on a pretext, as they did in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, because of those nukes in the gas station, so other methods need to be tried. Unfortunately, those other methods haven't worked. Sanctions have hurt Europe more than Russia, Putin is more popular than he was before the war and the NATO-trained Ukraine armed forces have failed even to stop the Luhansk and Donetsk militias and the Wagner PMC army of convicts, let alone the Russian Army. The reason why there is no negotiation is that Russia is prepared to negotiate, but NATO is not prepared to accept anything other than total surrender on the part of Russia. The fact is that anything else will be perceived as failure by NATO and failure is not an option, not with so many European governments facing civil unrest and the US facing that and a presidential election next year. It takes both sides to negotiate and if one side can't afford to and can only make unrealistic demands, then negotiation doesn't happen, as we see.
I think Bayard calls it right.
B. I posted a deliberately open question. Wars are ALWAYS about money and resources, in this case oil / gas.
Whenever I see the Ukrainian conflict, invariably the popular opinion is that the Russians started it and you are not allowed to have a different opinion. This was published by NATO quoting Stoltenberg:
"The other thing I will say is that the war didn't start in February last year. The war started in 2014. And since 2014, NATO Allies have provided support to Ukraine, with training, with equipment, so the Ukrainian Armed Forces were much stronger in 2022, than they were in 2020, and 2014. And of course, that made a huge difference when President Putin decided to attack Ukraine…”
So, who started this conflict? Russia or Ukraine? Stoltenberg used 2014 as the start point, for those that remember, it was the Maidan Coup, and it was a coup no matter how it’s been dressed up - just research the comments by Victoria Nuland at the time. After the dissolution of the USSR, promises were made by NATO, primarily there would be no Eastward expansion of NATO. Look how far NATO extends now compared to 1990. Russia made it clear it had red lines - No Eastward expansion of NATO and Ukraine to remain neutral. Well, NATO lied and was inviting Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. Given almost every invasion of Russia has come through Ukraine, one might well understand why they wanted it neutral. Not surprisingly, Russia took Crimea back. Crimea was largely Russian and Svastopol is an important Naval base for Russia. Donbas wanted autonomy within Russia and separatists were supported by Russia - important to consider as the Russian language had been banned.
Part 2
Russia did invade but are they the aggressors? Hypothetically, were someone to come up to you, started poking you, provoking you and acting in an aggressive manner, if you retaliated and gave them a bloody nose, who is the aggressor? You or them for starting something? From the Russian perspective, as Stoltenberg said, the Ukrainian army was much stronger and NATO trained, it was a tier one army that was indeed provoking Russia. Ukraine had already banned Russian from being used and AZOV had made it plain that the ethnic Russians were the new unmenschlich to be eliminated or driven out of Ukraine. The numbers killed by shelling the Donbas is often quoted as being about 3,000. Sloppy research, NATO published that figure in 2015. It’s generally accepted now at about 14,000 up to 2022. So, what actually made the Russians invade? Before Putin sent his tanks across the border into Ukraine, he invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention, this is little known in the West and is never mentioned by the media but, because the clause allowed “Responsibility to Act,” and the Russian-speaking population of the Donbas had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people, Russia claimed to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbas, Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense, devised originally by the US and NATO, as it applies to Article 51 which is predicated on fact.
Part 3 to follow.
Prior to the conflict, Rand Corporation published a paper on extending Russia in order to destroy to Russian Federation and bring about regime change. That paper influenced current political thinking despite Rand now saying the West should look for an off ramp as the Russians are proving far more resilient and tenacious than originally thought. Because the West thought Russia could be weakened, no diplomatic solution was sought and I don’t believe the West will seek one either. As for the Russians, they are kicking the living snot out of the Ukrainians but their demands aren’t all that unreasonable. Having invested so much in Ukraine, I don’t think they will look for any solution other than their demands being met. Would this lead to a nuclear confrontation? Russia, despite what is in the Western media, is not losing and were Zelensky successful in drawing the West into his war, I’m not to sure we would beat the Russians so why would he go nuclear? The West on the other hand, I believe would go nuclear first so rather than worry about the Russians, I think we should be far more concerned with our own politicians who are far more likely to go nuclear.
Trevor, quite, there's only one country that has ever used a nuclear bomb in anger and it's not Russia. Nuclear bombs are a deterrent, mostly against the US. How many countries have stuck two fingers up to the US and how many have been subsequently destroyed or at the least regime changed? The ones that weren't have all either been nuclear powers or under the protection of nuclear powers.
Trevor / B. Good points.
Given the antagonistic nature of a USA led NATO you can understand how Russia would get the hump with NATO training and re-armament of Ukraine post the 2014 agreement. Plus the EU's determined expansionism and diplomatic ineptness would also wind them up.
OTOH based on the principle of self determination the Ukraine people have the right to choose who they want to ally with, or to ally with no-one.
The 2014 agreement to which Russia was a signatory guaranteed Ukraine's borders, including the Donbas and the Crimea. If they were going to renege on that why did Russia sign it?
Maybe Russia (like us, the UK) has to accept that its days of empire are over. And like the UK write off all the wealth it spent in its previous subject territories.
Also there has to be some way of stopping the USA and EU acting the way they do - as new empire builders if you like.
Whatever it is a huge diplomatic failure.
"The 2014 agreement to which Russia was a signatory guaranteed Ukraine's borders, including the Donbas and the Crimea. If they were going to renege on that why did Russia sign it?"
If you are referring to the Minsk agreements, the agreement was that Russia would guarantee Ukraine's borders if Ukraine stopped fighting in the Donbass. Ukraine never stopped fighting in the Donbass, so Russia was not bound to respect its borders.
"If they were going to renege on that why did Ukraine sign it?" you might ask. It has subsequently come to light that Ukraine never had any intention of stopping fighting, the Minsk agreements were just a way for Ukraine to buy time to build up their army against the inevitable invasion.
On the subject of Crimea, although it voted along with the rest of Ukraine to be independent of Russia in 1991, its subsequent history was of efforts to be independent of Ukraine, so it is hardly surprising that given the choice between Ukraine and Russia in 2014, the vote was for Russia.
"Maybe Russia (like us, the UK) has to accept that its days of empire are over."
I think they realised that long ago. It's only the Western press that categorises every diplomatic move by Russia as "trying to reestablish its empire" whilst ignoring the very real imperial conquest of countries by the US. Empire has always been all about extracting natural resources from the colonies and selling them manufactured goods, not necessarily colonial administration. Who cares who runs the banana republic, so long as they allow their bananas to be sold at a price that ensures a large profit to the banana company? If the US hadn't organised a coup in Ukraine in 2014, Russia wouldn't be "trying to reestablish its empire" now.
Bayard. I agree about the USA and empire. I don't think the average US blokey wants an 'empire' though.
L, I doubt the average US blokey even knows the US has an empire, despite it being one of the great C19th imperial powers. I expect they think Japan attacked Pearl Harbour simply out of badness and spite.
I have just read an interesting piece by a strategic analyst who calls himself "Black Mountain Analysis". He puts forward the theory that the USA, who basically command NATO, isn't allowing negotiations because they want the war to continue to the last Ukranian. This would fulfil one of their aims in this war, which is to allow as many Ukranians as possible to be killed, so that there is the maximum hatred against Russia in Ukraine when Russia ends up trying to replace the US puppet in charge of Ukraine with one of its own. Also, every bit of Ukranian infrastructure destroyed is something else that Russia will have to pay to rebuild. It's basically just a variant of the age-old "scorched earth" tactic: if you can't defeat them make sure their victory is expensive, very expensive.
The NATO governments get to blame inflation and cost of living crisis on a baddie to distract us from their mismanagement. It's not the trillions of money printing for lock down and years of lack of joined up thinking on energy policy, or poor execution of Brexit, or asymmetric business reliance on China keeping stuff cheap.
Post a Comment