Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

The gop couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

There is one struggling party in US right now, and it’s not the Democrats.

No Justins, No Peace

GOP baffled that ‘we don’t care if you die’ is not a winning slogan.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

How any woman could possibly vote for this smug smarmy piece of misogynistic crap is beyond understanding.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

I was confident that someone would point it out and thought why not me.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Today’s gop: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War for Ukraine Day 843: The Global Peace Summit

War for Ukraine Day 843: The Global Peace Summit

by | 23 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , ,

Painting by NEIVANMADE. It has a white background an in the center are Soldiers in green doing air defense by firing at incoming Russian missiles in the upper right. The missiles are red and yellow. In the upper left, written in green, is the text: "SAVE THE BRAVEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!" Below the Soldiers, also written in green, is "SUPPORT FOR KHARKIV"

(Image by NEIVANMADE)

Quick Rosie update: she’s doing fine. There’s seems to have been no systemic negative side effects of the chemo this past week. Her next treatment is Monday. Thank you all for the good thoughts, well wishes, prayers, and donations.

Right now the skies over Ukraine are quiet. However, as the Global Peace Summit kicks off we have have the butcher’s bill from last night’s Russian attacks on Kharkiv:

Here is President Zelenskyy’s address from the Global Peace Summit. Video below, English transcript after the jump.

Today Is the Day When the World Begins to Bring Just Peace Closer – Speech by the President of Ukraine at the First Plenary Session of the Global Peace Summit

15 June 2024 – 19:45

Madam President, thank you.

Thank you for your efforts to organize the Summit and bring about a just peace.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Today is the day when the world begins to bring a just peace closer.

I thank everyone who has worked for this day – every leader, all the teams and advisors, all the states. One hundred and one state and international organizations are now at the Summit, and this is a tremendous success, our success, the common success of all those who believe that a united world, united nations, are stronger than any aggressor.

Distinguished leaders and representatives of states and international organizations! Everyone who is here today for the sake of a just peace!

I am pleased to welcome everyone to the first Peace Summit, which can be the first step towards a just end to the war of Russia against Ukraine. And when we end it justly and fairly for Ukraine – on the basis of international law – then every nation in the world will be able to count on the same justice and fairness, on the same effectiveness of the UN Charter, with regard to its rights. And then these words will once again have their full power: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and – so important! – of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” These are the first words of the UN Charter, but they are also the words that describe the Essence of the Peace Formula, which became the basis of the Peace Summit and encouraged all parts of the world and different nations – with equal respect – to participate in our joint work – the Peace Summit. Our unity here proves that the very idea of international law remains alive and effective. Your presence here proves that the UN Charter and the basic conventions are not a formality, but the real foundations of coexistence among peoples. Our principles are clear:

No one has the right to wage a war of aggression against a neighbor and undermine one of the basic principles of the UN Charter – the territorial integrity of states. No one has the right to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. No one has the right to undermine food, energy or any other security of the world and its regions. No one has the right to kidnap the children of another nation. No one has the right to undermine peace. We are able to ensure the effectiveness of such principles – these are globally important principles.

I am grateful to you, distinguished leaders and representatives of states and international organizations, for proving that the world may not fall into total war anymore… The war, Russia unfortunately brought to us – to Ukraine, to our homes, to Ukrainian cities and villages, and hundreds, hundreds of them were unfortunately completely burned by Russian bombs, artillery and missiles. Putin has taken the lives of thousands of our people. Why? Because he wants to take over a neighboring country. I do not wish this to anyone. I sincerely wish that all of you, all the peoples of the world, every child, every family, could simply live without war. And I want this for all Ukrainians. Ukraine has the right to peace. Just like all of you.

Ladies and gentlemen!

We must stop this war. Based on the UN Charter, respect for international law, the just interests of the Ukrainian people, and the idea of the undeniable value of human life – life, not war.

Now we will focus on three points – on what is useful to everyone in the world – without exception. The first point is radiation and nuclear safety. The second is food security. The third is the release of prisoners and deportees, adults and children, military and civilians whose lives have been broken by war…

We will focus on these initial points of the Peace Formula, and in the process of working on them we can reach an agreement and create an action plan for each point of the Peace Formula.

Therefore, this inaugural Peace Summit includes three panels where each participating country can show its leadership. The Peace Formula is inclusive, and we are happy to hear and work on all proposals, all ideas – what is really needed for peace and what is important to you, dear friends. I urge all of you to be as active as possible. I am proud that all parts of the world – all continents – are now represented at the Peace Summit. We have managed to avoid one of the most terrible things, namely, the division of the world into opposing blocs. Here, there are representatives from Latin America, Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia, the Pacific, North America, and religious leaders… One hundred and one participants! And no one has the privilege of deciding for another. This is true multipolarity – when each political pole of the Earth is represented and has its own influence in solving a globally important issue.

No one doubts that the global majority wants to guarantee all aspects of security, including nuclear and food security. The majority of the world definitely supports the principle of territorial integrity of states, sovereignty of nations and equality in relations between peoples. The world majority definitely wants to live without bloody crises, deportations and ecocides… And so, every nation that is not represented now and that shares the same values of the UN Charter in deed and word, will be able to join our work in the next stages. The Peace Formula encourages all the powers of the world to think about ending the war and to propose how to end it, and therefore the very idea of war – has already lost. Putin should switch from the language of ultimatums to the language of the world majority, which wants a just peace.

Distinguished leaders and representatives of states!

What exactly can this Summit deliver?

First is to prove that the return of security is indeed possible. We will work out the steps with you.

Second is to provide a real plan to make every step for peace work. From nuclear and food security to the release of prisoners and deportees, to the complete end of the war without the threat of its new outbreak. I believe it is possible.

Third, there is no need to reinvent the wheel when the UN Charter already defines the foundations of peace and normal coexistence of peoples. So, we just have to return to them. And for this purpose, we need to decide how countries will cooperate, who will be co-leaders, in order to fix and implement an action plan.

These are absolutely clear and achievable goals.

Now there is no Russia here. Why? Because if Russia was interested in peace, there would be no war. We must decide together what a just peace means for the world and how it can be achieved in a truly lasting way. The UN Charter is the basis for us. And then, when the action plan is on the table, agreed by all, and transparent for the peoples, – then it will be communicated to the representatives of Russia. And so that at the Second Peace Summit we can fix the real end of the war. Now we are starting this path. Together, we must prove that the united world is a world of peace, a world that knows how to act correctly.

Thank you for your attention! Thank you for participating in the Summit! And I hope for fruitful work together. Of course, together. We all need peace.

Слава Україні!

The President of Lithuania:

Here’s one Ukrainian Soldier’s take:

“I’m not sure this is going to do anything. Good weapons will do something.”

The Peace Summit starts today in Switzerland. The video shows what Ukrainian Defenders think about it.

Personally, I welcome and totally support the Swiss Peace Summit and am certain of its significance. But the fate of Ukraine is decided on the battlefield. The AFU are the people on whom peace in Europe ultimately depends.

I would like the politicians on whom decisions depend to look into the eyes of our military and their families.

And I am grateful to all those who, while in safety, understand what is happening on the frontlines, feel empathy for Ukraine, and continue to help us.

📹: DW

The US:

Poland:

“I’m sorry to say it, but we, the Western world, are idiots” – Vice Speaker of the Polish Senate Michał Kamiński.

According to him, the Western world is repeating the same mistakes concerning Russia but expects different results.

“It will not happen. If you give them a hand, they will eat you. It’s their nature,” Kamiński added.

Vice Speaker Kaminski is correct!

For you drone enthusiasts:

The reason:

Meet Nazar and Maria. They are a military couple. Nazar is the commander of the artillery battery. Maria is the head of the artillery reconnaissance control point.
They met while studying at the Land Force Academy and married when the full-scale war began.
Now they serve in the same brigade and fight for the common goal: victory and bright future for their family.

📷: 42nd Mechanized Brigade

The New York Times has published an article detailing Russia’s demands during the early to mid 2022 negotiations. You know, where they poisoned their own oligarch/emissary. Also, as is par for The New York Times‘ course, the headline is terrible. And the framing is the result of Russia successfully setting the informational theater between 2011 and 2014.

With Russia and Ukraine locked in their third year of all-out war, there is no clear path to military victory for either side. Nor are there immediate prospects for a ceasefire and an eventual peace plan, with both sides sticking to irreconcilable positions.

Yet the issues that would need to be tackled in any future peace settlement are evident, and in fact were at the center of negotiations two years ago that explored peace terms in remarkable detail.

Documents reviewed by The New York Times shed light on the points of disagreement that would have to be overcome.

The documents emerged from negotiating sessions that took place in the weeks after the start of the war, from February to April of 2022. It was the only time that Ukrainian and Russian officials are known to have engaged in direct peace talks.

The talks failed as both sides dug in on the battlefield, but not before negotiators produced multiple drafts of a treaty that was supposed to guarantee Ukraine’s future security while fulfilling some of President Vladimir V. Putin’s demands.

Today, even with hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, Moscow and Kyiv appear further from peace than at any other time since the full-scale invasion. On Friday, Mr. Putin said Russia would agree to a ceasefire only if Ukraine handed over four regions the Kremlin has declared part of Russia and dropped its NATO aspirations. It was essentially a demand for capitulation, which the Ukrainian government immediately denounced.

Ukraine’s current demands — a withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory — also appear unrealistic given Mr. Putin’s apparent resolve and his army’s current advantages. This includes the Crimean Peninsula, which Mr. Putin annexed in 2014 in a swift operation that he considers central to his legacy.

But at some point, both sides could return to the negotiating table again — a scenario that is expected to be discussed as Ukraine gathers scores of countries, though not Russia, for a peace conference in Switzerland this weekend. If and when Ukraine and Russia resume direct negotiations, the issues raised in the documents produced at the start of the war, including the status of occupied Ukrainian territories and Ukraine’s future security guarantees, would remain relevant.

Russia initially wanted Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

“Ukraine recognizes the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as an integral part (subjects) of the Russian Federation and, in this regard, shall make comprehensive changes to the national legislation.”

By April 15, both sides agreed to exclude Crimea from their treaty — leaving it under Russian occupation but without Ukraine recognizing it.

“Paragraph 1 of Article 2 and Articles 4, 5 and 11 of this Treaty shall not apply to Crimea and Sevastopol.”

An examination of the documents shows that the two sides clashed over issues including weapons levels, the terms of Ukraine’s potential membership in the European Union, and specific Ukrainian laws on language and culture that Russia wanted repealed. Ukraine’s negotiators offered to forgo NATO membership, and to accept Russian occupation of parts of their territory. But they refused to recognize Russian sovereignty over them.

Ukraine proposed never joining NATO or other alliances.

“Ukraine does not join any military alliances, does not deploy foreign military bases and contingents …”

Russia demanded that Ukraine make Russian an official language.

“Ukraine, within 30 (thirty) days after signing this Treaty, shall remove all restrictions on the use of the Russian language in any area in accordance with Annex 2.”

Russia, stunned by the fierce resistance Ukraine was putting up, seemed open to such a deal, but eventually balked at its critical component: an arrangement binding other countries to come to Ukraine’s defense if it were ever attacked again.

At the time, little about these peace negotiations was known, and what has leaked out in the two years since has been shoehorned into wartime talking points by each side. Mr. Putin contends the West pressured Ukraine to reject a peace deal; Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry says that “if Russia wanted peace in 2022, why had it attacked Ukraine in the first place?”

The Times is publishing the documents it obtained in full. They are treaty drafts dated March 17 and April 15, 2022, showing the two sides’ competing proposals and points of agreement; and a private “communiqué” at in-person talks in Istanbul on March 29 that summarized the proposed deal.

The documents were provided by Ukrainian, Russian and European sources, and confirmed as authentic by participants in the talks and other people close to them. Some aspects of these documents have emerged, but most of the material has not been previously disclosed.

In addition to reviewing the documents, The Times spent months interviewing more than a dozen Ukrainian, Russian and Western current and former officials and others close to the talks; they include three members of Ukraine’s negotiating team. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations.

“We managed to find a very real compromise,” Oleksandr Chalyi, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, said at a panel discussion in Geneva last December. “We were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April, to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement.”

The Talks Begin

On Feb. 28, 2022, aides to Poland’s president met a group of senior Ukrainian officials at the border and ferried them by helicopter to a military base near Belarus. The Ukrainians then entered Belarus on their own and met a delegation of Russians led by an adviser to Mr. Putin, Vladimir Medinsky.

It was an unusual moment in the history of warfare: the start of direct talks between the invaders and the invaded, just days after Europe’s biggest war of aggression in three generations had begun.

Some of the Ukrainian negotiators who spoke to The Times thought that Mr. Putin had come to the table so quickly because he never expected his army to stumble so spectacularly. But as far as they could tell, the Russians sitting across from them had little sense of how badly their troops were doing.

When Oleksii Reznikov, the Ukrainian defense minister at the time, said his side had tallied 3,000 Russian soldiers killed in action, Mr. Medinsky appeared surprised and looked over at the top Russian military official at the table.

“No, we only have 80 soldiers” killed, the military official, Aleksandr Fomin, said, Mr. Reznikov recalled.

The negotiators soon shifted to video calls, with the Ukrainians dialing in from a conference room at Mr. Zelensky’s presidential offices, Ukrainian negotiators said, or, a few times, from an underground bunker.

Ukraine made a significant concession: it was ready to become a “permanently neutral state” that would never join NATO or allow foreign forces to be based on its soil. The offer seemed to address Mr. Putin’s core grievance — that the West, in the Kremlin’s narrative, was trying to use Ukraine to destroy Russia.

An Early Draft

Though the two sides engaged in regular video sessions after meeting in Belarus, a treaty draft dated March 17 shows how far apart they remained. The Times reviewed an English-language version that Ukraine provided to Western governments.

Ukraine sought Russia’s assent to international “security guarantees,” by which other countries — including Ukrainian allies who would also sign the agreement — would come to its defense should it be attacked again. It wanted the treaty to apply to Ukraine’s “internationally recognized borders,” even as Russian troops were still trying to take Kyiv.

Ukraine wanted its allies to be treaty-bound to intervene if it was attacked again, such as by…

“…closing airspace over Ukraine, providing necessary weapons, using armed forces in order to restore and subsequently maintain the security of Ukraine as a permanently neutral state.”

The Russian team wanted Ukraine and every other treaty signatory to cancel the sanctions against Moscow they had been levying since 2014 and to publicly call on other countries to do the same. Ukraine was to cede its entire eastern Donbas region and recognize Crimea as part of Russia. A seven-point list targeted Ukraine’s national identity, including a ban on naming places after Ukrainian independence fighters.

The latter demand illustrated one of Mr. Putin’s stated rationales for going to war: he had described Ukraine as an artificial country that should be considered part of Russia.

Russia’s treaty proposals read like a laundry list of Kremlin demands, including that Kyiv-controlled parts of eastern Ukraine be ceded to Russia’s proxy “people’s republics.”

“Ukraine recognizes the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic within the administrative boundaries of the former Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine and, in this regard, shall introduce comprehensive changes to the national legislation.”

“Ukraine shall cancel and henceforth not impose, and also shall publicly call on all states and international organizations to cancel and henceforth not impose, any and all sanctions and restrictive measures imposed since 2014 against the Russian Federation.”

“Ban, with the introduction of criminal liability, the glorification and propaganda in any form of Nazism and neo-Nazism, the Nazi movement and organizations associated therewith, including holding public demonstrations and processions, construction of monuments and memorials and naming toponyms, in particular, streets, settlements and other geographical objects.”

The draft included limits on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces and the number of tanks, artillery batteries, warships and combat aircraft the country could have in its arsenal. The Ukrainians were prepared to accept such caps, but sought much higher limits.

A former senior U.S. official who was briefed on the negotiations, noting how Russian forces were being repelled across northern Ukraine, said Mr. Putin seemed to be “salivating” at the deal.

American officials were alarmed at the terms. In meetings with their Ukrainian counterparts, the senior official recalled, “We quietly said, ‘You understand this is unilateral disarmament, right?’”

Leaders in Poland — early and strong supporters of Ukraine — feared that Germany or France might try to persuade the Ukrainians to accept Russia’s terms, according to a European diplomat, and wanted to prevent that from happening.

To that end, when Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, met with NATO leaders in Brussels on March 24, he held up the March 17 text, said the diplomat, who was present.

“Which of you would sign it?” Mr. Duda asked his counterparts, the diplomat said.

None of the NATO leaders spoke up.

A Breakthrough in Istanbul?

A few days later, on March 29, Russia and Ukraine’s representatives met at an Istanbul palace on the Bosporus. To some, the talks felt like a breakthrough driven by Russia’s battlefield struggles.

After each military setback, a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team said, Mr. Putin “reduced his demands.”

In Istanbul, the Russians seemed to endorse Ukraine’s model of neutrality and security guarantees and put less emphasis on their territorial demands. Afterward, Mr. Medinsky, Russia’s lead negotiator, said Ukraine’s offer of neutrality meant it was “ready to fulfill those principal demands that Russia insisted on for all the past years.”

Ukraine summarized the proposed deal in a two-page document it called the Istanbul Communiqué, which it never published. The status of Crimea was to be decided over a 10- or 15-year period, with Ukraine promising not to try to retake the peninsula by force; Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin would meet in person to finalize a peace treaty and strike a deal on how much Ukrainian territory Russia would continue to occupy.

Zelensky and Putin would meet to hash out final differences, according to the discussions in Istanbul.

“The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting on … … 2022 between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia with the aim to sign an agreement and/or make political decisions regarding the remaining unresolved issues.”

The communiqué, provided to The Times by a Ukrainian negotiator, described a mechanism in which other countries would intervene militarily if Ukraine were attacked again — a concept that the Ukrainians pointedly designated as Article 5, a reference to the mutual defense agreement in Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

To the Ukrainians, binding security guarantees were at the core of a potential peace deal that multiple countries would sign on to.

“Possible guarantor states: Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, Israel.”

“The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the event of aggression, any armed attack on Ukraine or any military operation against Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States, after urgent and immediate consultations between them … will provide … assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack…”

But Russian officials sent mixed signals in public on whether the Kremlin was really ready to sign onto the deal. The Russians and Ukrainians returned to hourslong negotiating sessions by video call, exchanging treaty drafts via WhatsApp, negotiators said.

‘The Boss’

In early April, after Russia withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, images of massacred civilians in the suburb of Bucha, some with their hands tied with white cloth, shocked the world. For Ukrainians, the idea that their country could strike a compromise with Russia seemed more remote than ever.

But Mr. Zelensky, visiting Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Russia dismissed the Bucha atrocities as a staged “provocation.”

“Colleagues, I spoke to RA,” Ukraine’s lead negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia, wrote on April 10 in a WhatsApp message to the Ukrainian team. “He spoke yesterday for an hour and a half with his boss.”

“RA” was Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who played a behind-the-scenes role in the talks. His “boss,” Mr. Putin, was urging the negotiators to concentrate on the key issues and work through them quickly, Mr. Arakhamia wrote. (A member of the WhatsApp group showed that message and others to reporters for The Times.)

A spokesperson for Mr Abramovich said his role “was limited to introducing representatives from both parties to each other” and that following that initial stage, he “was not involved in the process.”

Mr. Arakhamia’s message suggested that Mr. Putin was micromanaging not only Russia’s invasion, but also its peace talks. At another point, Russia’s lead negotiator, Mr. Medinsky, interrupted a video conference by claiming that Mr. Putin was phoning him directly.

“The boss is calling,” Mr. Medinsky said, according to two Ukrainian negotiators.

Mr. Putin’s involvement and intentions during the 2022 talks were subjects of debate in Kyiv and Washington, Ukrainian and American officials said. Was he truly interested in a deal? Or was he merely trying to bog Ukraine down while his troops regrouped?

“We didn’t know if Putin was serious,” said the former senior U.S. official. “We couldn’t tell, on either side of the fence, whether these people who were talking were empowered.”

One Ukrainian negotiator said he believed the negotiations were a bluff on Mr. Putin’s part, but two others described them as serious.

On April 15, five days after Mr. Abramovich told the Ukrainians about his meeting with Mr. Putin, the Russian negotiators sent a 17-page draft treaty to their president’s desk.

Sticking Points

Similar to the month-earlier version, the April 15 draft includes text in red highlighting issues in dispute. But such markings are almost entirely absent from the treaty’s first pages, where points of agreement emerged.

Negotiators agreed that Ukraine would declare itself permanently neutral, though it would be allowed to join the European Union.

Russia dropped its earlier objections to Ukraine’s full-fledged E.U. membership.

“The Parties to this Treaty share the understanding that Ukraine’s status as a permanently neutral state is, subject to the provisions of this Treaty, compatible with Ukraine’s possible membership in the European Union.”

Much of the treaty would “not apply” to Crimea and another to-be-determined swath of Ukraine — meaning that Kyiv would accept Russian occupation of part of its territory without recognizing Russian sovereignty over it.

But crucial sticking points remained. Russia wanted the firing range of Ukraine’s missiles to be limited to 25 miles, while Ukraine wanted 174 miles — enough to hit targets across Crimea. Russia still wanted Ukraine to repeal laws related to language and national identity, and to pull back Ukrainian troops as part of a cease-fire.

Russia’s ceasefire proposal declared that Ukraine would need to withdraw its troops on its own territory.

“Ukraine carries out the withdrawal (return) of units of its armed forces, other armed formations, weapons and military equipment to places of permanent deployment or to places agreed upon with the Russian Federation.”

The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.

To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.

Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.

“The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States … on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all Guarantor States, will provide … assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack…”

With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”

There is more at the link.

You’ll notice that then, as just yesterday, the core of Putin’s demands haven’t changed very much. There is nothing for Ukraine to negotiate here, because there is no one to actually negotiate with on the Russian side.

Well, yeah, this is what we’ve been saying since 2022.

In Istambul and elsewhere, the Kremlin was issuing knowingly unacceptable and absurd demands to Ukraine – essentially, Ukraine’s complete surrender, military disarmament, extensive territorial concessions, and Ukraine effectively staying defenseless and invariably unable to repel another Russian invasion.

Moreover, as idiotically as it sounds, Russians, as part of “security guarantees,” indeed demanded that they have the veto right regarding any sort of Western defense aid to Ukraine in case it is attacked again by Russia.

They never seriously wanted peace or even something remotely similar to a real settlement via compromise.

They were terribly embarrassed by their humiliating defeat at Kyiv in late March 2022, and they were re-grouping their shattered forces from north Ukraine to Donbas — only to initiate another grand phase of the war in the east in mid-April 2022.

So, quite frankly, the idiotic cult of “You had a deal in Istambul, and you declined it” should better read “the deal” on paper and finally stop embarrassing itself.

One has to be either childishly naive or just simply shamelessly pursuing an agenda to unironically call THAT a ‘peace deal’, and, moreover, put the blame on Ukraine for not buying this crap.

The Pokrovsk direction:

Vovchansk, Kharkiv Oblast:

Donetsk Oblast:

Kreminna front:

That’s enough for tonight.

Your daily Patron!

There are no new Patron tweets or videos. Here is some adjacent material.

Open thread!

Reader Interactions

23Comments

  2. 2.

    Cathie from Canada

    Our Molly is on chemo now too – the first one was very rough on her, and on us, but the last two have been fine and her attitude, appetite and enthusiasm are back to normal. It’s a journey, isn’t it

  9. 9.

    YY_Sima Qian

    I am surprised that Ukraine was willing to sign up to such unjust & humiliating terms (de facto accepting Russian occupation of Ukrainian territories beyond that already seized in ’14) back in Apr. ’22, given that it had already defeated the Russian thrust toward Kyiv & the Russian Army was getting bogged down in most of the other sectors. It is highly instructive what the reporting points where – precisely the leverage points that Putin wants to retain to be able to manipulate Ukrainian politics to effect a pliant regime there.

    Putin was a fool for not taking that deal, but his ambitions for Ukraine were & are maximally revanchist.

    Unless the situation changes significantly on the battlefield, I am not sure the terms that the two sides might be able to agree to would be all that different for the foreseeable (& it will require Putin to retreat from his maximalist ambitions), & it will still be as unjust as it would have been in Apr. ’22.

  11. 11.

    Adam L Silverman

    @YY_Sima Qian: I’m waiting for actual Ukrainians who know to verify what The NY Times has reported here. It is entirely likely this is sourced from Russia’s side.

  12. 12.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Adam L Silverman: We’ve seen a number of reporting from various sources pertaining to the then secret negotiations, & the broad contours seem to be fairly consistent as far as what Ukraine was willing to accept? Although you are right that all of the sourcing of these reporting are from people interested in reaching some kind of accommodation w/ Russia, & see the current War in Ukraine as dangerous, a distraction, or a dangerous distraction.

    As they say in negotiations, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but I am still surprised that Ukraine was willing to entertain such terms. I am not sure we will hear any confirmation from the Ukrainian participants, seems it would be political suicide in Ukraine.

  13. 13.

    Adam L Silverman

    @YY_Sima Qian: Given Charap was trying to find a way to launder Putin’s remarks yesterday into something palatable and he and his coauthor of the Foreign Affairs piece that got trashed by people actually involved with the 2022 negotiations are still flogging it, I expect he served as source for this reporting. And given his publicly stated connections to the Russian foreign policy community, I expect he’s laundering their garbage for them into The NY Times’ reporting.

  14. 14.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Adam L Silverman: Good point there on Charap. Amazing that he is still treated as a member in good standing among the DC FP circles, & retains such influence even in the Biden Administration that is strongly opposed to Putin’s revanchism, & not draw any fire from the plethora of Russia Hawks.

    OTOH, anyone counseling for some strategic empathy in the Great Power Competition w/ the PRC is followed by character assassinations & innuendos from the multitudes of China Hawks.

    Curious dynamic.

  15. 15.

    Adam L Silverman

    @YY_Sima Qian: What makes you think the Biden administration is strongly opposed to Putin’s revanchism? I’ve seen no evidence that they are.

  17. 17.

    YY_Sima Qian

    @Adam L Silverman: Well, they are do not want Putin to win in Ukriane, & have indeed invested much political capital & devoted much US resources toward that end, & certainly have worked to thwart Putin’s potential designs for the Baltics & Scandinavia. Not strong enough perhaps, & we certainly can & have questioned their competence & assumptions in execution, but I don’t think we can say that the Biden Administration is only weakly opposed to Russian revanchism.

    They, & much of the DC FP circles, are just so conventionally & instinctually primacist that they are risk averse in what they see as a secondary theater relative to their central organizing principle for foreign & domestic policy, which of course is the Great Power Competition w/the PRC, because the PRC is the greater challenge to US primacy, even though Putinist Russia is the greater & more present threat to any semblance of international order.

  18. 18.

    lowtechcyclist

    Why should we bother doing anything for Ukraine? The Russians will eventually win anyway.

    Yes, this is sarcasm. But if Adam is going to be spreading hopelessness in threads about domestic politics, he deserves a helping of it here.

  19. 19.

    Adam L Silverman

    @lowtechcyclist: If you do this again, I will ban you. Are we clear?

    What you can’t seem to realize is that 25 US states are already managed, illiberal democracies. They have a facade of electoral legitimacy running in front of authoritarian one party control of all state government – the governership, the legislature, and the judiciary. Additionally, the Supreme Court has been subverted – as in out administrated – as a result of a done in broad daylight 40 year campaign to capture it. Similarly, the 5th circuit and, to a lesser extent, the 11th circuit. The DOJ is run by a Federalist Society member who is politically a genteel center rightist and whose primary concern is protecting the DOJ – not the constitution, not Americans, not America – at all costs. The FBI is run by a Federalist Society hard right career Republican/movement conservative legal apparatchik. A concerted and organized effort has been made through threats, intimidation, and actual violence to run anyone who is professional or seeks to run municipal functions such as electoral and public health boards in a professional manner out and replace them with extremist MAGA supporters. Which is why at least a plurality of municipal electoral commissions are now run by folks that think Steve Bannon is the way to follow. There is targeted political violence occurring every day against Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Muslims, those that look Arab or Muslim, LGBTQ, and immigrants or anyone that looks like an immigrant. It is not getting much coverage because local news has been gutted and the national news outlets that function as gatekeepers choose not to report it as it interferes with their narrative. Local law enforcement, through their unions and because they are unafraid to act as an occupying force, largely control every municipality in the US. A significant number of the rank and file belong to or sympathize with violent extremist organizations like the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, the III Percenters, and others. A significant number of the leadership belong to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, as does the rank and file, which is itself a violent extremist organization.

    The ridiculous pro-GOP gerrymander in NY that gave the GOP the majority in the House, has not been fixed and will not be fixed before the 2024 elections. New more extreme gerrymanders have been put in place in NC and TX. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi are in open violation of Supreme Court orders to reestablish or establish an additional majority minority district. They will not do so and nothing can make them do so. At the same time Democrats tie themselves into knots to comply with Supreme Court decisions no matter how extreme and factually and legally wrong because the institutions have to be preserved. All while GOP trifecta states engage in outright, blatant nullification of Supreme Court orders they don’t like, as well as Federal statutes and executive actions they disagree with.

    The civil war you think I’m predicting has been here for almost a decade now. The subversion – the out administration – is almost complete. The violence – physical violence, threats, and intimidation – that facilitates this is getting worse.

    I’m not telling anyone to give up, I’m telling everyone that their normalcy bias and the normative ways and means they think will achieve the ends they want to accomplish if they just try harder is contributing to the ongoing losses. Now is the time to make your own plans. Will you stay or go? Can you go? If you can’t, can and will you fight?

    Or you can continue to live in happy gumdrop rainbow fairy land.

  20. 20.

    lowtechcyclist

    If you do this again, I will ban you. Are we clear?

    Wow, that’s one impressive overreaction. That at least is clear.

    This is an impressive effort, but it is ultimately futile. Florida is a managed, illiberal democracy where the elected officials pick their voters instead of the voters picking their elected officials.

    But

    I’m not telling anyone to give up

    Okay then.

    And if people were to get banned from here for comments like mine in #18 above, this would become a hellaciously different place from what it is. You should be ashamed of even making the suggestion.

  22. 22.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Adam L Silverman: ​
     

    You’ll see me in this evening’s update? Unlikely, as I haven’t read it in months. But feel free to make mountains out of molehills in my absence.

Comments are closed.