Ukraine Will Have To Make Territorial Concessions to Russia
Oct 8, 2024 22:07:51 GMT -5
Post by maybetoday on Oct 8, 2024 22:07:51 GMT -5
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS: Everyone Now Agrees Ukraine Will Have To Make Territorial Concessions to Russia – But What Would That Entail? – the Azov Nazis Will Be a Problem
by Paul Serran
Oct. 8, 2024 5:40 pm
Up until very few months ago, it was anathema in the West to openly discuss any outcome for the war in Ukraine that was not a complete Kiev victory, driving the Russian ‘hordes’ back to the national borders, with many even implying the 1991 borders – i.e. including the Crimean peninsula.
But that was then, and now a different song is playing with relentless Russian advances – remember, that only in August and September, about 820 square kilometers (509 square miles) came under Russian control.
In the Donetsk and Zaporozhie fronts, the Russian advances are multiple, and are crippling the frail Ukrainian defenses.
Now, everyone – even in the Globalist MSM – feels free to discuss peace talks that include Ukraine having to make huge territorial concessions.
But the exact measure of what such a deal would entail is still seen very differently in the West and in Russia. And there’s also the question of the Ukrainian Nazis that most probably won’t accept any compromise.
Financial Times, as an example of MSM voice, has reported on the upcoming winter finding Ukraine ‘with the mood darker than ever’.
The population view on the war ‘is shifting: from a determination that the war can end only with Russia’s army driven from Ukraine, to the reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement that leaves the bulk of the country intact may be the best hope.’
And ‘even some western capitals that previously insisted on the need to defeat Russia’s Vladimir Putin militarily are recalibrating their goals’.
Financial Times reported:
“There is talk behind closed doors of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over the roughly one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied — though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognized — while the rest of the country is allowed to join Nato or given equivalent security guarantees. Under that umbrella, it could rebuild and integrate with the EU, akin to West Germany in the cold war.
This scenario relies, however, on ambitious assumptions. One is that the US and its allies must be prepared to offer Nato membership or the necessary guarantees, when they have so far been reluctant to grant Kyiv a binding path into the alliance. It would require a huge and costly deployment of forces by the US and its partners — and leave them on a cold war-style tripwire.
A second assumption is that Russia’s president can be induced to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But preventing Ukraine from joining Nato was one of his ostensible war aims. It is doubtful, too, that Putin has an incentive to agree to land-for-peace talks while he believes his forces can still expand their gains.”
But there’s the problem of getting the winning Russians to agree. Why would they? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave a comprehensive interview to Newsweek. My favorite Russian analyst and aggregator Simplicius, writing on Substack, was kind enough to spell out the conditions he presents for us.
“AFU must withdraw from DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye, and Kherson. These republics were all officially annexed by Russia on September 30, 2022 as enshrined in the Russian Constitution, which makes it final.”
And it’s not the part that’s already conquered of these regions, it’s the ‘full pre-war borders of those states’.
Ukraine in this case would have give up Kherson city, as well as Zaporozhye city, a huge industrial center of which has a population of nearly 1 million.
Lavrov is careful to mention that the recognition of these realities on the ground is part of the demand. It’s not a matter of ‘temporarily’ ceding control of them.
Russia also will demand a ‘neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear status for Ukraine’.
But what could possibly make Russia trust that point? This may require the inclusion of other major BRICS powers like China as guarantors.
One of the reasons for the war: ‘Securing the rights of all Russian-speakers’.
And, of course, there’s a big demand: demilitarization and deNazification of Ukraine.
Speaking about Nazis, Russian opposition journalist based in Latvia, Leonid Ragozin has a report on what an impediment the Azov Nazis and other radical movements will be to any peace settlement.
“Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko told [the press] that the far right will dub any talks with the Russians capitulation and called them ‘a threat to democracy’.
A senior Azov movement figure, Maksym Zhorin, says that ‘yes indeed they will’ [fiercely object to it] and calls the far right ‘the foundation of country’s security’.
Zhorin is the deputy commander of the 3rd Detached Assault Brigade, an elite unit under the political control of the far right Azov movement. For Azov movement and multinational securocratic interests behind it, the war is a lucrative business. […] They are not going to give it up easily.
One can engage in cheap and silly talk about ‘only 2% of Ukrainians supporting the far right’ but they have all the military and political capability to upset any peace and they care little about 98% of Ukrainians. They succeeded in derailing the 2019 Paris agreements between Putin and Zelensky.
Together with other far right movements, they staged a menacing campaign to prevent Zelensky from reaching a last-minute deal on the eve of the Russian full-out invasion in 2022. They are a major political and military force that should be reckoned with when peace talks start in earnest. If peace is finally reached, these professional soldiers and especially drone operators will fill up the ranks of organized crime in Europe and beyond.”
link
by Paul Serran
Oct. 8, 2024 5:40 pm
Up until very few months ago, it was anathema in the West to openly discuss any outcome for the war in Ukraine that was not a complete Kiev victory, driving the Russian ‘hordes’ back to the national borders, with many even implying the 1991 borders – i.e. including the Crimean peninsula.
But that was then, and now a different song is playing with relentless Russian advances – remember, that only in August and September, about 820 square kilometers (509 square miles) came under Russian control.
In the Donetsk and Zaporozhie fronts, the Russian advances are multiple, and are crippling the frail Ukrainian defenses.
Now, everyone – even in the Globalist MSM – feels free to discuss peace talks that include Ukraine having to make huge territorial concessions.
But the exact measure of what such a deal would entail is still seen very differently in the West and in Russia. And there’s also the question of the Ukrainian Nazis that most probably won’t accept any compromise.
Financial Times, as an example of MSM voice, has reported on the upcoming winter finding Ukraine ‘with the mood darker than ever’.
The population view on the war ‘is shifting: from a determination that the war can end only with Russia’s army driven from Ukraine, to the reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement that leaves the bulk of the country intact may be the best hope.’
And ‘even some western capitals that previously insisted on the need to defeat Russia’s Vladimir Putin militarily are recalibrating their goals’.
Financial Times reported:
“There is talk behind closed doors of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over the roughly one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied — though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognized — while the rest of the country is allowed to join Nato or given equivalent security guarantees. Under that umbrella, it could rebuild and integrate with the EU, akin to West Germany in the cold war.
This scenario relies, however, on ambitious assumptions. One is that the US and its allies must be prepared to offer Nato membership or the necessary guarantees, when they have so far been reluctant to grant Kyiv a binding path into the alliance. It would require a huge and costly deployment of forces by the US and its partners — and leave them on a cold war-style tripwire.
A second assumption is that Russia’s president can be induced to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But preventing Ukraine from joining Nato was one of his ostensible war aims. It is doubtful, too, that Putin has an incentive to agree to land-for-peace talks while he believes his forces can still expand their gains.”
But there’s the problem of getting the winning Russians to agree. Why would they? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave a comprehensive interview to Newsweek. My favorite Russian analyst and aggregator Simplicius, writing on Substack, was kind enough to spell out the conditions he presents for us.
“AFU must withdraw from DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye, and Kherson. These republics were all officially annexed by Russia on September 30, 2022 as enshrined in the Russian Constitution, which makes it final.”
And it’s not the part that’s already conquered of these regions, it’s the ‘full pre-war borders of those states’.
Ukraine in this case would have give up Kherson city, as well as Zaporozhye city, a huge industrial center of which has a population of nearly 1 million.
Lavrov is careful to mention that the recognition of these realities on the ground is part of the demand. It’s not a matter of ‘temporarily’ ceding control of them.
Russia also will demand a ‘neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear status for Ukraine’.
But what could possibly make Russia trust that point? This may require the inclusion of other major BRICS powers like China as guarantors.
One of the reasons for the war: ‘Securing the rights of all Russian-speakers’.
And, of course, there’s a big demand: demilitarization and deNazification of Ukraine.
Speaking about Nazis, Russian opposition journalist based in Latvia, Leonid Ragozin has a report on what an impediment the Azov Nazis and other radical movements will be to any peace settlement.
“Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko told [the press] that the far right will dub any talks with the Russians capitulation and called them ‘a threat to democracy’.
A senior Azov movement figure, Maksym Zhorin, says that ‘yes indeed they will’ [fiercely object to it] and calls the far right ‘the foundation of country’s security’.
Zhorin is the deputy commander of the 3rd Detached Assault Brigade, an elite unit under the political control of the far right Azov movement. For Azov movement and multinational securocratic interests behind it, the war is a lucrative business. […] They are not going to give it up easily.
One can engage in cheap and silly talk about ‘only 2% of Ukrainians supporting the far right’ but they have all the military and political capability to upset any peace and they care little about 98% of Ukrainians. They succeeded in derailing the 2019 Paris agreements between Putin and Zelensky.
Together with other far right movements, they staged a menacing campaign to prevent Zelensky from reaching a last-minute deal on the eve of the Russian full-out invasion in 2022. They are a major political and military force that should be reckoned with when peace talks start in earnest. If peace is finally reached, these professional soldiers and especially drone operators will fill up the ranks of organized crime in Europe and beyond.”
link
