- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
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
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.
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.
Thanks! I appreciate the discussion as well.
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.
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.