🧵MFA spox Maria Zakharova states Russian conditions for ‘peace’ in Ukraine:
- West stops military support to Ukraine
- West & Ukraine accepts ‘new territorial realities’
- Ukraine ceases all military activities
- Ukraine is fully ‘demilitarised’ and ‘de-nazified’
…
- Military of Ukraine is removed from ‘Russian territory’
- Ukraine accepts status as non-aligned
- Status of Russian language is guaranteed
This is quite some list of 💩demands. Stated just after Putin, meeting with Russian war criminals based in Donbas, confirmed he will
…remain in power after 2024. The political goals are the same as on 24 February 2022. The territorial claims seem to be “limited”, as a gesture of “goodwill”, to the Ukrainian regions annexed by Russia last year. This means that Russia demands also areas still controlled…
… by Ukraine, since officially the Kremlin insists that it is Ukraine “occupying” Russian territory in the east and south. Meanwhile, Zakharova claims that it is Zelenskyy who is a troublemaker, refusing to negotiate and raising unacceptable demands (such as Russia stops…
…occupation of Ukraine).
Putin has made it abundantly clear that he is a “war president”. This is now his only idea for 2024, and the demands raised by Zakharova confirms that Putin is preparing for war in perpetuity.
The question is whether the West will accept some of these demands, forcing Kyiv to give concessions for a highly uncertain peace. Notably, Putin seeks to force Ukraine into complete submission, destroying the country if necessary. He is now betting on Western acquiescence.
Putin says: Ukraine has no industry, no ideology and no resources. ‘Ukraine has no future.’
Putin provides his daily dose of hatred and Ukrainophobia, so well documented by @UmlandAndreas and @A_SHEKH0VTS0V.
Russia’s escalation in the Black Sea, threatening to attack civilian cargos of grain, is extremely serious and a threat to global food security. Before the war, Ukrainian farmers fed around 400 million people. Here are a few things Western allies can consider:
1. Engage with countries in Latin America and Africa. Explain that the only European country threatening their well-being today is Russia. Offer tangible support. Nudge those sympathetic towards Russian narratives to alter their position.
2. Help Ukraine block the blockade: develop alternative trade routes. This will be expensive and is practically troublesome. An alternative is enforcing freedom of navigation, escorting cargos to and from Odessa to the Bosporus.
Sweden’s membership in NATO is the last step in a change process overturning a Baltic security regime which has existed not since 1991, but since 1721. Before this, the Baltic Sea was a Swedish sea, Swedish peace reigned from the Gulf of Finland to Greifswald. Losing the Baltic…
…provinces to Peter the Great changed the security logic of both Sweden and Russia. For Sweden, preserving the Baltic as an open sea was key, a ‘mare liberum’. For Russia, the policy was ‘mare clasum’, the principle that only military vessels of literal states are allowed to…
…navigate the Baltic Sea. To counter this, Sweden always relied on mare liberum principles, meaning that British, French and later US presence was welcome. Russia, obviously, never welcomed this. In the Cold War, this conflict was translated into the logic of the Soviet-NATO…
In the 90s, Yeltsin turned off the gas to Estonia, “to teach them a lesson in geopolitics”. Natural gas has been used by Moscow as a tool of influence and support for friendly neighbours, but also for intimidation. This history is the context of yesterday’s Nordstream attacks.
We will know better soon what happened yesterday, but the general lesson is this: NS1 and NS2 were never just about business for the Kremlin. Russia already had its network of pipelines across Ukraine and Belarus, which btw are still working fine, since the 70s. As Yeltsin said…
It was geopolitics. With NS1 completed, Putin could attack Ukraine in 2014, not having to fear the Ukrainians switching off the gas transit as retaliation. Now, Germany would always get its cheap gas, while giving Russia had a higher degree of freedom towards its neighbours.
Considering recent developments along the border of Ukraine, here are some findings from our paper on sanctions. Firstly, financial sanctions have had a strong effect on Russia's economy, where they were intended to impact. That is, on increasing interest rates.
As a result, credit expansion is limited, and costs for servicing government debt have increased. It matters little that Russia has low debt, if costs of servicing that debt is more and more expensive.
Secondly, we can measure the impact of threats to use sanctions. Our paper incorporates theories on deterrence, and argues that threats have impacted the markets with a similar magnitude as actual sanctions.
That means the US and the EU should now make a clear credible signal.