Yet every offer that leaves Ukraine without protection against Russia is just a demand for surrender.
Ukraine can be protected with substantial own forces (armed with the help of the west), through Nato membership or through Western troops guaranteeing Ukraine's borders (like Western Germany during the Cold war).
Important for the West to be very cautious with proposals coming from Moscow and not jump on it as a way out of the conflict with Russia.
And important to keep in mind that Putin is not interested in gaining a bit more territory (Donbas plus) -- this war is about the submission of Ukraine and the end of its independent statehood.
In 1952, Stalin offered German re-unification in return for neutrality. West German chancellor Adenauer saw this as a bluff -- he thought that "neutrality" was just another word for the submission of Western Germany by Moscow.
The German case is much more relevant than Finland, which was a peripheral country in the Cold War (and enjoyed full integration into the West, which is what Putin wants to deny to Ukraine). Ukraine today is as central as Germany was during the Cold War.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ukraine's existence as a sovereign and independent state -- the outcome of 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart.
Russia's further identity and character: a nation state that accepts to be limited by international borders (the outcome of 1991) -- or an empire that is using military power in order to gain territory and control about others?
Zelensky: "in the future Ukraine must have a collective security agreement with all its neighbors and with the participation of the world’s leading countries - the United States, France, Germany and Turkey"
Which obviously must be more than the Budapest Memorandum 1994 which was just a piece of paper. It can only work if these countries are actively involved in guaranteeing Ukraine's borders. At a minimum they must help Ukraine quickly build a strong military force.
Something they failed to do after 2015 because they were afraid of a Russian reaction -- yet this reaction was exactly what happened in 2022. It was Ukraine's military weakness that has encouraged Putin to wage war.
Mit der pauschalen Ablehnung des Energieembargos stellt sich Deutschland wieder einmal ins Abseits. Die Ukraine und unsere ostmitteleuropäischen Partner machen Druck, Washington, London und Paris sind offenbar ebenfalls dafür.
Ganz rapide verliert Berlin wieder die Glaubwürdigkeit, die es durch die Scholz-Rede und die Wende bei Waffenlieferungen, SWIFT-Sanktionen und NS2 gewonnen hat.
Schlimmer noch: es schöpft noch immer nicht alle Mittel "short of war" aus, um Russlands Angriffs- und Eroberungskrieg entgegenzutreten -- denn darum geht es.
Many people are thinking about potential compromises leading to peace in Ukraine. Yet to understand what's at stake for Putin one must keep in mind that this war didn't start in 2022, it started in 2014. For Putin, destroying Ukraine's independence has become an obsession.
If it were just about Ukraine's status, a compromise would be at least thinkable. If Russia would feel threatened by Ukraine, there could be ways to deal with it.
Many people have picked up the arguments coming from the Kremlin, or think of Putin's war in terms of "realist" political logic. Yet this is misleading.
Kanzler Scholz nimmt "Energielieferungen" aus den Sanktionen heraus. Muss es aber um alles oder nichts gehen -- warum nicht Lieferungen wenigstens reduzieren, womöglich schrittweise, eskalierend? Wir leben doch im Zeitalter intelligenter Sanktionen -- bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/aktuelle…
Vor allen: Russland täglich horrende Summen zu überweisen, die die Kriegsmaschinerie am Laufen halten, kann nicht im deutschen Interesse sein.