A lot of US commentary on Russo-Ukrainian war assumes it is US responsibility to define terms for a settlement. This is reflected in discussions about the concessions Ukraine meeds to make and now whether the overthrow of Putin should be a war aim. 1/
The negotiations are between Ukraine and Russia, not US and Russia. The Russian objective was regime change in Ukraine. In these circumstances, and Russia’s brutal conduct of war, a Ukrainian demand for regime change in Moscow would not be unreasonable.2/
But it is also unrealistic. Any peace settlement will deal with other matters. But it is also the case that Putin’s personal position is at stake here because he has made a massive blunder. 3/
Biden’s comments that Putin should not stay in power reflects a widespread view but it is not something he can influence except in two respects. The first is the question of war crimes. Biden has already described Putin as a war criminal, which implies removal from power.4/
This all comes together when we get to easing sanctions as part of a peace settlement. Here Western aims and concerns will become relevant. Do sanctions stay as long as Putin remains in power? Or is the priority just to get Russian withdrawal 5/
This is for the future. Putin’s fate will depend on developments in Moscow that we can neither anticipate nor control. But the idea that after this war we can try and find some new way of working with Putin in power seems far-fetched. End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
