U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms. Blinken said in Finland on Friday that heeding calls from Russia and others for negotiations now would result in a false “Potemkin peace” that wouldn’t secure Ukraine’s sovereignty and or enhance European security. He argued that a cease-fire allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to consolidate control over the territory he has seized, and rest, rearm, and re-attack" would not bring "a just and lasting peace.” Kyiv has given confusing signals about whether a counteroffensive is coming or already underway.
“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that’s the only port available for Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
heh, I’m sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don’t see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they’ve done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it’s worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
But is it so important to have that patch of ground in Crimea? It would also give Ukraine a snap back mechanism if Russia ever reneges on a deal. Fund separatists or start a Russia-backed coup and bombs could be raining down on Russia’s precious warships within minutes. Stick to the deal and everything stays nice and peaceful indefinitely. The price is minor, since Russia already had the base in 2014. The change is that there would need to be a formal treaty that obliges Russia to non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and obliges Ukraine to allow supplies through to the Black Sea fleet. This was previously maintained by having a friendly/neutral Ukrainian government, but now terms must be in writing.
I’d love to see it, but that’s just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don’t know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don’t want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin’s dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they’re prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn’t make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it’s easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I’d want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I’m just saying that, unless you’re commited to genocide, it’s more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn’t fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
The “victors” would not be Russians defeating Ukrainians militarily, but instead reformists Russians changing Russia from the inside. The Russo-Ukraine war will of course be part of the backdrop. Even many military fanboys in Russia are realizing that the war has been incompetently run. With the right person diverting that anger into productive forms, positive change could be achieved. Then there might be a return of outside investment, though I would expect investors to be slow to begin with (once burned, twice shy). Change coming from the West will be viewed with too much suspicion. Only Russians can change Russia.
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don’t know.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there’s some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that’s the only port available for Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
heh, I’m sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don’t see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they’ve done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it’s worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
But is it so important to have that patch of ground in Crimea? It would also give Ukraine a snap back mechanism if Russia ever reneges on a deal. Fund separatists or start a Russia-backed coup and bombs could be raining down on Russia’s precious warships within minutes. Stick to the deal and everything stays nice and peaceful indefinitely. The price is minor, since Russia already had the base in 2014. The change is that there would need to be a formal treaty that obliges Russia to non-interference in Ukrainian affairs and obliges Ukraine to allow supplies through to the Black Sea fleet. This was previously maintained by having a friendly/neutral Ukrainian government, but now terms must be in writing.
I’d love to see it, but that’s just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don’t know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don’t want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin’s dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they’re prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn’t make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it’s easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I’d want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I’m just saying that, unless you’re commited to genocide, it’s more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn’t fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
The “victors” would not be Russians defeating Ukrainians militarily, but instead reformists Russians changing Russia from the inside. The Russo-Ukraine war will of course be part of the backdrop. Even many military fanboys in Russia are realizing that the war has been incompetently run. With the right person diverting that anger into productive forms, positive change could be achieved. Then there might be a return of outside investment, though I would expect investors to be slow to begin with (once burned, twice shy). Change coming from the West will be viewed with too much suspicion. Only Russians can change Russia.
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don’t know.
@BrooklynMan
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there’s some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Yeah, that’s basically what I’m suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.
Interesting, I didn’t realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.
It’s probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it’s not all that useful.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.