NEW: The New York Times published an op-ed by a member of its editorial board calling for Ukraine to engage in negotiations with and cede territory to Russia after reports emerged that Putin is using backchannels and intermediaries to signal his interest in a ceasefire.
The op-ed largely ignores near-constant Kremlin public signaling of Russia’s continued maximalist goals in Ukraine. 🧵(1/9)
The op-ed largely ignores near-constant Kremlin public signaling of Russia’s continued maximalist goals in Ukraine. 🧵(1/9)
2/ The op-ed argues that Ukraine should not “pass up” this opportunity to possibly achieve a ceasefire despite the fact that there are multiple reasons to believe that Putin’s pro-ceasefire signaling may not be sincere...
3/ ...such as Putin’s demonstrated untrustworthiness and the possibility that he may intend to use time spent on prolonged negotiations to his political and military benefit.
4/ The piece argues that Ukraine does not need to regain all its territory to emerge victorious from the war, but that a “strong, independent, prosperous, and secure” Western-oriented Ukraine is also a victory.
5/ The piece appeals to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to engage in ceasefire negotiations and not see negotiations as a defeat, implicitly blaming Zelensky – not Putin – for the absence of serious negotiations.
6/ The op-ed’s argument implicitly relies on the assumption that Putin’s reported backchannel communications more accurately reflect Putin’s thoughts and desires than his – and other Kremlin officials’ – constant public rhetoric.
7/ Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a number of statements on December 28 that also run contrary to the reported backchannel messaging on which the @nytimes op-ed and similar arguments rely.
8/ The op-ed’s focus on the need for Ukraine to cede its land, finally, obscures the horrors that the Russian occupation is inflicting on the Ukrainian people living on that land.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
