this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)

World News

2310 readers
110 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
sovietsnake@lemmygrad.ml
ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml
58
NYT publishes the Istanbul agreement between Russia and Ukraine. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The document was prepared in 2022, but was not signed. The New York Times publishes an alleged copy of the agreement. Main points from the document:

▪️ The states that guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine are Great Britain, China, Russia, USA, France. In brackets – Belarus and Türkiye

▪️ Ukraine must maintain permanent neutrality and not fight on the side of the guarantor state or any third state

▪️ Ukraine cannot conduct military exercises with the participation of foreign armed forces without the consent of the guarantor states.

▪️ The guarantor states pledged not to enter into military alliances with Ukraine, not to interfere in the internal affairs of the country and not to send troops into its territory.

▪️ All mutual sanctions and prohibitions between the Russian Federation and Ukraine are canceled, but a number of provisions of the agreement do not apply to Crimea, Sevastopol and a number of other territories

▪️ The maximum number of personnel, weapons and equipment for the Ukrainian Armed Forces in peacetime is no more than 342 tanks, 1029 armored fighting vehicles and 96 MLRS.

▪️ The maximum firing range of MLRS and missile weapons is no more than 280 km. Ukraine has pledged not to produce or buy weapons with a higher firing range in its country

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RedColossus@lemmygrad.ml 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To think Ukraine could’ve walked out of this with nothing more than a bloody nose and a bruised ego. At this point Russia has no incentive to stop, they’ve mitigated the sanctions, found states willing to buy their oil and gas and learned to produce weapons of war without importing parts… militarily they’re winning and it’s unlikely Ukraine can reasonably expect to fight much longer without a total adult male conscription (like the Nazis did once the USSR breached Germany’s borders) and even then, it would destroy their population in exchange for buying time, not a victory.

They went all in on the West, and I think just now they’re beginning to realize that they got duped.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A few hours before the G7 meeting in Rome, and a few days before the "peace summit" organized by Zelenski in Switzerland, Putin announced the conditions for new peace negotiations:

  • Withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from Zaporozhia, Donetsk, Lugansk and Kherson, and recognizing those areas as Russian (as well as Crimea)

  • Commitment not to join NATO (but no mention of EU membership)

  • Commitment for neutrality

  • Demilitarization and denazification

Zelenski outright denied this call for peace, but Ukrainians are coming out and saying they should consider this. Most notably, the Ukrainian PM Denis Smyhal, saying they should organize another peace summit and invite Russia.

This has got the West scrambling, and has basically torpedoed the "peace summit" in Switzerland, as European states will most likely pressure Zelenski to start talking on Russia's basis for peace.

[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This has got the West scrambling, and has basically torpedoed the “peace summit” in Switzerland, as European states will most likely pressure Zelenski to start talking on Russia’s basis for peace.

I imagine the Swiss piss summit plans remain unchanged, tbh. Is the west scrambling? Perhaps (though at this point- hell if I know, the smarter ones, those less blinded either by arrogance or greed/MIC profits)- but by-and-large, the approach still seems largely the same, at least if we're talking about the Anglosphere, France, Germany, the Nordics, and the Baltic chihuahuas.

It's not like the summit is any less grounded in reality due to Putin's offer (because the piss summit was completely delusional, just a circus/political rally for the neocons). Not much has changed in that regard. No doubt the (sane, non-Nazi) Europeans and Ukranians in particular are even more disillusioned now, sure, but their opinions never really factored into the equation to begin with, being fully disenfranchised, slandered, and oftentimes even worse.

Unless the discontent reaches such a point where outright revolt things will likely remain as-is IMO, right up until things truly can't remain as such, which granted, is probably within sight- whether it be due to Ukraine's massive losses and political instability, the looming economic crises (and also, instability) in the west, or escalation finally reaching such a critical point that either sanity finally prevails- or else.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Western aims

It's clear that the primary goal of the summit was to get together a bunch of states that would agree to condemn Russia and pressure it to accept peace on Ukrainian terms. Yes, misguided, desperate and ignoring reality, but that's the only reason not to invite Russia to a summit for peace in a war, where Russia is the other party.

The recent escalations by the West can be explained as a prelude to this pressure campaign. France and Britain saying they will send soldiers. US and Europeans giving "permission" to Ukraine to strike Russian territory. F-16s. More funding and weapons. They were all meant to intimidate Russia. Russia's attempts at de-escalating a potential global conflict are seen as weakness by the West, and they were probably hoping that the threat of a WW3 would make Russia afraid and willing to accept less than it normally would.

Publicly, the US and Europeans are decrying Russia's proposal, but that's to be expected at this stage. We shouldn't forget that 90 countries are attending the summit, and that obviously includes non-Western states too, including India, which is a main buyer of Russian oil and part of BRICS.

The effect of Putin's proposal

So considering all that, how does Putin's proposal throw a wrench in Western plans?

  1. We should consider that Putin announced this a few days after the European parliamentary elections, were the ruling parties of Europe were largely trounced by the far-right, which has been critical of anti-Russian sanctions and the participation in the war. Macron and Scholz lost ground partly because of their stance against Russia. Particularly Scholz, who has been recently elected, but has presided over the destruction of the German economy due to the Nordstream sabotage and sanctions. And we can see that the European regimes are considering this failure of policy, by their actions: France is now silent about sending troops. Germany has vetoed the latest rounds of sanctions against Russia by the EU (last Wednesday). Belgium has said there will be delays in sending the promised F-16s. So Putin's proposal actually reverses the pressure game. The Europeans now have to consider peace, or else risk losing their national elections to the far right.

  2. Zelenski is constantly announcing that the only acceptable peace is a return to the 1991 borders. Putin's proposal outlines how far from reality Zelenski really is. It emphasizes that Zelenski's demands are unreasonable, and that Russia, contrary to the Western narrative, IS willing to talk for peace.

  3. Which brings us to this: Russia's proposal is not only reasonable, it also gives a chance for the West to save a bit of face and for Ukraine to remain independent and viable. "Withdrawal of Ukrainian armed forces" does not automatically mean territorial concessions. It can also mean the formation of demilitarized zones that are still administered by Ukraine. The proposal, while it outright denies Ukraine induction into NATO, it does not reject EU membership for Ukraine. It allows Ukraine to keep access to the Black Sea (Odessa), and access to its richest region (Dnipro) It also demonstrates that Russia is consistent, in that the new proposal is still largely based on the Istanbul communique.

  4. Non-western countries attending the summit, are not in such a big hurry to confront Russia. Putin's proposal gives them something to consider before they sign on to anything drastic. Putin's proposal targets them as much as the Ukrainian people.

  5. Ukrainians coming out and saying they should consider this peace is already a big point in favour of Russia. It creates the conditions for the eventual fall of Zelenski and his Nazi handlers.

  6. Putin's proposal surely hijacks the summit, as, for the above reasons, it will be a major talking point among the attendees.

[–] landlords_morghulis@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

2,6) Considering minsk and instanbul, while almost unmentioned in western media for the last 2 years, it was certainly known to everyone at the top, that good faith peace talks were an option since the very beginning. Also, the defense ghouls haven't seem to gotten bored of selling weapons and still seem to be pushing the belief that escalation will somehow result in a Ukrainian victory. What do you think changed that they aren't going to ignore this one as well?

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The media are irrelevant here, since a significant number of people in the West no longer trust them. And Putin's proposal was not targeting them either way. Russia doesn't care anymore what the West thinks.

However, the recent European parliament elections have shaken things up quite a bit. It has become apparent to the ruling parties that the jingoist anti-Russian rhetoric damaged them instead of helping them. And we can see that by the silence of Macron since then, and the refusal of Scholz to proceed with further sanctions. Furthermore the economic damage to Europe is no longer something to ignore.

Also, Putin was probably targeting non-Western countries with this proposal, so that they would not support the Ukrainian plan for applying pressure. And those ones ARE considering Minsk, Istanbul etc.

Putin's major target was Ukrainians themselves, and it seems to have worked. Ukrainians have started saying they want peace. That's the most critical part here. No matter how much the West might want to continue this war, if Ukrainians are unwilling to fight, then it will end.

Finally, the defense ghouls, as you aptly put it, might want to keep selling weapons, but the realities on the ground make them irrelevant as well. There is no more Ukrainian manpower, and without manpower who is going to operate these weapons? The West? Secondly, the Palestinian Uprising is now competing with Ukraine for weapons and the Western industrial complex can only barely satisfy one of them. Who do you think they'll drop?

[–] landlords_morghulis@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I also agree that the news media are irrelevant here, which I was trying to to express was decoupled from policy makers.

I think there is a real pressure that the sanctions haven't done much more than increase the cost of buying the same oil at a significant markup. It's also made it possible for non-sanctioning countries to directly profit from good relations with Russia. The failures of these sanctions are an apparent catastrophe and costs of funding a proxy war are mounting. But this is all part of the larger, century-long project of breaking up Russia and stripping it for parts. All the investment into NATO, from inception to present, has been about cracking this coconut. I'm not convinced the more conservative wing of the EU is any less complicit in the project. Some MPs may be getting cold feet at the moment, but they'd need to cut the strings of their puppet-state before the US would give them that kind of agency.

While this current proposal is probably the best Ukraine can hope for, the Istanbul proposal was a bigger gift to the Kiev regime. I still see the same guarantor expectation in both, so I'm not sure I'd say the target is different. Is it in the best interests of Ukrainians? Definitely. But so were the others. /shrug

Ukrainian people wanted peace to begin with, but are hostage to a fascist dictatorship and have had that expression hunted down and stomped out by the Kiev media gestapo.

Yeah, the manpower problem alone is deterministic of the failure the Kiev regime is facing. I think that's why Stoltenberg pushing for a NATO nuclear escalation is an admission of this being unwinnable.

On the question of which will be dropped? Neither the US, nor the EU seem to have any spoils on the table in occupied Palestine. Whereas carving up Russia means keeping capitalism on life support for a little bit longer. Also, the longer Isn'treal keeps this up, the more it damages US narrative control and erodes the legitimacy of their little middle-east outpost. For the west, there's a lot more to gain by pulling the plug on Isn'treal, imo.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, but it's the first time that Ukrainian politicians in the government (and they are not in low positions either) are coming out and saying publicly they should take Russia's peace proposal seriously. That's a big shift, and in conjunction with Russia saying they don't recognize Zelenski anymore and will not discuss anything with him, that makes it likely that the Zelenski government will eat itself (Note: Russians say that according to the Ukrainian constitution, the legitimate leader is the Ukrainian Head of Parliament).

Yes, the EU is basically a vassal of the US, but they do have the strength to resist. The problem is that they don't want to. So Putin's proposal puts pressure on them to want to.

As for Israel vs Ukraine. Yes, the practical thing would be to choose Ukraine over Israel. But US politics are not grounded in practicality. The Israel lobby has far more sway in the US than any other group, which stretches deeply into both parties. The US has lost every shred of diplomatic credibility in the last year after continuing to fanatically support and enable Israel's genocide (as admitted by the resignation letters of state department officials). They've even been trying to pass a law that the US will not be legally able to stop funding Israel. Yet they don't seem to even trt to stop. This conflict of who to support is playing out right now, and Israel is winning it.

[–] landlords_morghulis@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wanted to say that I appreciate your insights on this.

We agree that the internal political shifts toward negotiations are good and the Zelenskyy regime is doomed. With the ban on opposition parties, the window is currently pretty small. I'm not sure there's anyone who could step into those positions if elections were held in the near future that would be meaningfully different. Zaluzhny seem to have ambitions to take over, but letting an open nazi run the country might undermine US narrative management. Anti-imperialist revolution seems far away for Ukraine (I'd like to be wrong, though). Assuming Putin can't find someone friendly to back, who, in your opinion, would be able to step a top-level position that wouldn't just be buying time to try this all over again? Does such a person exist in the current political landscape?

The UK, it seems, is amid financial collapse. I'd like to believe cooler heads will draw the line between proxy war spending and social decline, but I also believe the US will pressure everyone to stay on or be cut out of the spoils (like they did in Iraq). Do you believe there's really enough political opposition to this war after the elections?

That's a pretty good point about the Israel lobby on US policy. You're probably right on that lever being pulled the hardest. I did read something recently on the US trying to similarly "trump-proof" military funding to Ukraine as well. The relentless pull at both ends is almost like trying to break your own spine.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Wanted to say that I appreciate your insights on this.

Thanks! I appreciate the discussion as well.

Assuming Putin can’t find someone friendly to back, who, in your opinion, would be able to step a top-level position that wouldn’t just be buying time to try this all over again? Does such a person exist in the current political landscape?

I assume Putin would prefer someone pro-Russian to head Ukraine, but I can't even foresee if he will support anyone. As I said, the only thing the Russians have said publicly is that they recognize the Ukrainian Rada (Parliament) but not Zelenski or his government. There's talk that Zelenski's chief of staff, Yermak might take over from Zelenski (and Yermak has also stated that Ukraine should consider the Russian proposal), but Yermak has little popular support, and seems to have participated in the plunder of Ukraine, so it is unlikely he'll take power any time soon, if the Russians and Ukrainian people have any say about it.

Do you believe there’s really enough political opposition to this war after the elections?

I think so to a degree. Perhaps not right away, but most European states will have presidential or parliamentary elections coming up in the next 2 years. The success of the far right in the Euro-elections have caused a stir. Euro-elections usually have voters vote along party lines, since parties don't really try to cooperate or deal with each other for the outcomes, except in very few cases. So they serve as a good prediction for national elections (although in general the turn-out is less than national elections). The first analysis have started coming out, and it's clear that the votes for the far right don't just have to do with the immigrant crisis or the rise of fascism in Europe.

In Germany for example, 40% of young voters (16-25) who voted for AfD said they did because it's the only party that talks about reducing inflation, economic relief for people over the cost of living massive rise, restricting the banks, and is against supporting Ukraine and Israel.

In France, Macron's Renew party got 15% of the votes, and had a really abysmall turn-out among its core voters. What did Macron do to anger them? Well the French have the same economic concerns as the German youth, and are probably angry at Macron's mismanagement of the economy and his neoliberal policies, as expressed by the recent riots. But Macron is currently serving a second term, and his supporters had voted for him back then, despite the same issues plaguing France, and riots (of a lesser degree) occuring all over the country. So what did Macron do? He brazenly and carelessly tried to install a nuclear war tripwire in Ukraine, by committing himself to sending French troops there. And then he urged other Europeans to do the same. And he kept repeating it over and over. So the French basically told him no.

So yes, the European ruling parties will probably register this. And most of them will consider doing anything to remain in power, even if it means not towing the line that the US dictates. But that's not a guarantee for sure. Von der Leyen and other crazies have their seats guaranteed, so they will certainly not go along with this, and might produce enough pressure to keep the EU in line. But, I foresee that the riots in France will start repeating everywhere in the next decade for Europe. The people are muttering about spending so much money on Ukraine, while they get shafted with high prices on everything. The connection between sanctions on Russia and the record-breaking gas prices is apparent for everyone. The support for a state in the process of genociding an oppressed people is also not helping the ruling parties.

[–] landlords_morghulis@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The sheer number of times I was called a Russian bot for suggesting the Istanbul proposal even existed.

[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 5 months ago

This has been the largest and most intense psy-op of our lifetimes.

[–] SugandeseDelegation@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Reality is Russian propaganda when it doesn't conform to the libs' r*ddit worldview 🙃 I got called a vatnik for stating Ukrainian nazis exist

[–] WhatWouldKarlDo@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not Ukranian, but this deal sounds pretty frickin nice. I would like my country to accept these terms without a war with Russia.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 5 months ago

Especially given the context of what happened to Ukraine in the past two years.