Sounds like a good idea.There is some danger Ukraine with encouragement of the West would just break armistice at convenient time, as I am not sure about motivation of non Western peacekeepers-Kenians and such also "kept peace" in Serbian Krajina territory in 1995 before Croatian atttac. Did not end well.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd say more generally that Putin has stated the full Russian position many times. I think that any "negotiating" position that fails to take him seriously will likely not result in anything like peace, and most of the people talking about negotiation have no desire that it should result in anything like peace. What they want is a continual ratcheting up of military spending and, simultaneously, a continual erosion and destruction of individual liberties. This war has revealed what a farce Western claims to democracy are.
Agreed but to add my 2 cents worth ,Russian economy seems to be doing well and I can't say the same for the West .EU is running on fumes ,economically and the US just keeps printing what it wants .This totally unsound IMO so meeting the wall is not too distant .And personally I don't think Trump will be able to change the tide very quickly if he does at all . My 2 cents from Canada wanting to keep whatever sovereignty we might have .Cheers
The biggest question in my mind is whether there's going to be any difference between Trump and Biden at all. I'm not confident, but maybe Trump is just a tiny bit less warmongering. And of course he isn't a complete vegetable, if that matters. I laughed about his comments about Greenland and Canada, but I wouldn't have if I were Canadian. Still, I don't think anything's going to come of that.
1. Especially taking into account that the Foreign Ministry knows that it won't get all it is asking for, this is as close as one can get to an admission of defeat. Russia probably could have gotten more out of Ukraine as far as political concessions go at the start of the war.
2. As you alluded, this will never be enforced,.certainly not by the West.
3. The West will smell blood, and even these meager concessions will be unacceptable.
The proposal seems nice but is unworkable. (1) Which country will serve as the non-NATO security force? China may be willing to, but India/Brazil/SA are unlikely or incapable of such tasks. Turkey may be willing if a lot of money is offered, but I don't think Russia likes the idea of a cat sitting on the fence to grow too far. NATO would not agree to let Vietnam, NK, or Belarus to serve as the peace keeping force. Central Asia countries do not have the manpower or political courage to do either. (2) The West can still send arms into the remaining part of Ukraine and they will be longer range strike weapons and there is no guarantee that the government in Kiev would heed the welfare of its people or its own sovereign. (3) This trans-Dnieper area as a buffer zone must include both banks of the river and wide enough if the agreement eventually comes to that point. Ukraine should not have any military on the east bank of the Dnieper, only police and civilian officials. But the needed expense is too high.
IMHO the most likely settlement: Russia pushes to the east bank of Dnieper and makes it the defense frontier, plus the coastal area to Transnistria and take back Krivoy Rog and Odessa. I understand the West will not agree with that either. That is why the settlement has to be on the battlefield and continue until the last Banderalist. In terms of costs to Russia in manpower, casualty, expenses, and long-term maintenance cost, this is a better deal for the long term.
We have a precedent Kosovo. That is a great example of NATO demarcation zone failure then there’s Iblib Syria another example on how the west can not be trusted, It’s all the way to the Polish border or the SMO is a failure, Western Ukraine must be cleansed of Nazis this can be done by deportation to the EU or simply make western Ukraine unliveable as the western part has zero economic potential this could be the buffer zone heavily militarised by Russia
Stalin said 50 years peace with the former east Germany and Warsaw Pact countries well that lasted around 70 years. Ukraine must be annexed
Sounds like a likely place for the boundary .What I always thought would be a logical final remedy .Though Russia will have other thought on the matter as it has the upper hand on the final solution .The far right in the West must be pacified if any proper solution is to be found IMHO.
First and foremost Trump must immediately meet with Putin in order to establish dialogue at the highest level. From there Zelinsky must be given Ukrainian authority to establish a second tier level of Ukrainian bureaucrats tasked with establishing detente with appropriate Russian officials. Trump must assure Putin that given return of pre February 2022 Ukrainian territory, (but not including the ethnic Russian speaking regions of the Donbas that voted for separation), NATO nations and particularly the USA will withdraw all military support from Ukrainian territory and will cease agitation for inclusion of Ukraine into NATO membership. Putin must accept that thus Ukraine will become a de-militarised, non-aligned neutral nation and thus with a UN sponsored 5 year surveillance of the pre February 2022 LOC an outbreak of peace could occur. Principal to this agreement will be Trump's Executive Order to withdraw and prevent any future overt or clandestine involvement by all US military and intelligence agencies, direct or contracted from interfering in the sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine's future was never an existential threat to USA.
Sounds like a good idea.There is some danger Ukraine with encouragement of the West would just break armistice at convenient time, as I am not sure about motivation of non Western peacekeepers-Kenians and such also "kept peace" in Serbian Krajina territory in 1995 before Croatian atttac. Did not end well.
Sounds like CIA propaganda designed to inflame anti-Putin sentiment in Russia.
How many times have Putin/Lavrov said De-Nazification & Demilitarization?
Demilitarization is almost complete.
Not disagreeing with you, but I'd say more generally that Putin has stated the full Russian position many times. I think that any "negotiating" position that fails to take him seriously will likely not result in anything like peace, and most of the people talking about negotiation have no desire that it should result in anything like peace. What they want is a continual ratcheting up of military spending and, simultaneously, a continual erosion and destruction of individual liberties. This war has revealed what a farce Western claims to democracy are.
Agreed but to add my 2 cents worth ,Russian economy seems to be doing well and I can't say the same for the West .EU is running on fumes ,economically and the US just keeps printing what it wants .This totally unsound IMO so meeting the wall is not too distant .And personally I don't think Trump will be able to change the tide very quickly if he does at all . My 2 cents from Canada wanting to keep whatever sovereignty we might have .Cheers
The biggest question in my mind is whether there's going to be any difference between Trump and Biden at all. I'm not confident, but maybe Trump is just a tiny bit less warmongering. And of course he isn't a complete vegetable, if that matters. I laughed about his comments about Greenland and Canada, but I wouldn't have if I were Canadian. Still, I don't think anything's going to come of that.
If and to the extent accurate:
1. Especially taking into account that the Foreign Ministry knows that it won't get all it is asking for, this is as close as one can get to an admission of defeat. Russia probably could have gotten more out of Ukraine as far as political concessions go at the start of the war.
2. As you alluded, this will never be enforced,.certainly not by the West.
3. The West will smell blood, and even these meager concessions will be unacceptable.
The proposal seems nice but is unworkable. (1) Which country will serve as the non-NATO security force? China may be willing to, but India/Brazil/SA are unlikely or incapable of such tasks. Turkey may be willing if a lot of money is offered, but I don't think Russia likes the idea of a cat sitting on the fence to grow too far. NATO would not agree to let Vietnam, NK, or Belarus to serve as the peace keeping force. Central Asia countries do not have the manpower or political courage to do either. (2) The West can still send arms into the remaining part of Ukraine and they will be longer range strike weapons and there is no guarantee that the government in Kiev would heed the welfare of its people or its own sovereign. (3) This trans-Dnieper area as a buffer zone must include both banks of the river and wide enough if the agreement eventually comes to that point. Ukraine should not have any military on the east bank of the Dnieper, only police and civilian officials. But the needed expense is too high.
IMHO the most likely settlement: Russia pushes to the east bank of Dnieper and makes it the defense frontier, plus the coastal area to Transnistria and take back Krivoy Rog and Odessa. I understand the West will not agree with that either. That is why the settlement has to be on the battlefield and continue until the last Banderalist. In terms of costs to Russia in manpower, casualty, expenses, and long-term maintenance cost, this is a better deal for the long term.
We have a precedent Kosovo. That is a great example of NATO demarcation zone failure then there’s Iblib Syria another example on how the west can not be trusted, It’s all the way to the Polish border or the SMO is a failure, Western Ukraine must be cleansed of Nazis this can be done by deportation to the EU or simply make western Ukraine unliveable as the western part has zero economic potential this could be the buffer zone heavily militarised by Russia
Stalin said 50 years peace with the former east Germany and Warsaw Pact countries well that lasted around 70 years. Ukraine must be annexed
Sounds like a likely place for the boundary .What I always thought would be a logical final remedy .Though Russia will have other thought on the matter as it has the upper hand on the final solution .The far right in the West must be pacified if any proper solution is to be found IMHO.
First and foremost Trump must immediately meet with Putin in order to establish dialogue at the highest level. From there Zelinsky must be given Ukrainian authority to establish a second tier level of Ukrainian bureaucrats tasked with establishing detente with appropriate Russian officials. Trump must assure Putin that given return of pre February 2022 Ukrainian territory, (but not including the ethnic Russian speaking regions of the Donbas that voted for separation), NATO nations and particularly the USA will withdraw all military support from Ukrainian territory and will cease agitation for inclusion of Ukraine into NATO membership. Putin must accept that thus Ukraine will become a de-militarised, non-aligned neutral nation and thus with a UN sponsored 5 year surveillance of the pre February 2022 LOC an outbreak of peace could occur. Principal to this agreement will be Trump's Executive Order to withdraw and prevent any future overt or clandestine involvement by all US military and intelligence agencies, direct or contracted from interfering in the sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine's future was never an existential threat to USA.