“It’s up to Russia now”, President Trump told reporters at the White House this evening, as he insisted it “makes sense” for Moscow to agree to a 30-day ceasefire with Ukraine, while refusing to be drawn on the chances of achieving any breakthrough with Vladimir Putin.
How is the drone attack on Moscow - where people were killed, injured and a civilian apartment block was hit - any different from terrorism? And terrorising a nuclear-armed nation at that?
If that's a card that the Ukrainian leadership holds, I would suggest it is not one we should be associating ourselves with.
Playing devil's advocate: from the Russian perspective, why would they agree to a temporary pause such that the Ukrainians can be re-armed? Surely peace talks need to be about a lasting peace?
The proposal is for a temporary 30-day ceasefire which can be extended by mutual agreement and, once fighting is paused, negotiations will begin immediately on the terms of a permanent peace.
Quite agree that peace talks need to be about a lasting peace, but wondering what you are suggesting would be a better alternative to this format?
I challenge you to read that whole article - note references to these fighters going 'to the front' (i.e. prior to 2021!) - and then consider why one of the Russian demands all along has been the 'denazification of Ukraine'.
So to answer your question, I think a route to peace would be for the teams to be negotiating now, and for Trump (who does seem to hold at least some of the cards!) to emphasise the - surely uncontroversial? Unless we're going to defend the far right? - denazification element as part of any settlement, plus the points below I quote from my letter to you from Feb 2023:
"Providing more military hardware to prolong this war is an affront to humanity when instead the West could be looking for de-escalation. Are the parameters of peace – autonomy for Russian-speaking regions & NATO to stop pushing East – that much of a concession?"
My devil's advocate point above stands. Why would the Russians accept a ceasefire if all that is going to happen is that the militas described in that Time article are going to get 30 days to rest and re-arm?
Please don't see this as me being despondent about the future. But (again, going back to my letter), it seems I was right to point out that Ukraine would now be in a stronger position if it had accepted the peace deal on the table in April 2022 and not assassinated its own peace negotiator.
The slaughter on both sides needs to stop, and it a key point of agreement between all involved parties could surely be that Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine will be protected from those that promote Nazi idealogy - and those promoting it? It would be an easy win, something that would hardly be controversial and could become a key cornerstone of any peace deal.
How is the drone attack on Moscow - where people were killed, injured and a civilian apartment block was hit - any different from terrorism? And terrorising a nuclear-armed nation at that?
If that's a card that the Ukrainian leadership holds, I would suggest it is not one we should be associating ourselves with.
Playing devil's advocate: from the Russian perspective, why would they agree to a temporary pause such that the Ukrainians can be re-armed? Surely peace talks need to be about a lasting peace?
The proposal is for a temporary 30-day ceasefire which can be extended by mutual agreement and, once fighting is paused, negotiations will begin immediately on the terms of a permanent peace.
Quite agree that peace talks need to be about a lasting peace, but wondering what you are suggesting would be a better alternative to this format?
Good question, apologies for the long answer.
I may not know much, but I went back to my letter to Reaction that you published in February 2023:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240806065836/https://reaction.life/letters-enough-with-the-zelensky-hero-worship-ukraine/
One of the references in that letter is this Time article (dated 7 January 2021) about Nazi activities within Ukraine: https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/
I challenge you to read that whole article - note references to these fighters going 'to the front' (i.e. prior to 2021!) - and then consider why one of the Russian demands all along has been the 'denazification of Ukraine'.
So to answer your question, I think a route to peace would be for the teams to be negotiating now, and for Trump (who does seem to hold at least some of the cards!) to emphasise the - surely uncontroversial? Unless we're going to defend the far right? - denazification element as part of any settlement, plus the points below I quote from my letter to you from Feb 2023:
"Providing more military hardware to prolong this war is an affront to humanity when instead the West could be looking for de-escalation. Are the parameters of peace – autonomy for Russian-speaking regions & NATO to stop pushing East – that much of a concession?"
My devil's advocate point above stands. Why would the Russians accept a ceasefire if all that is going to happen is that the militas described in that Time article are going to get 30 days to rest and re-arm?
Please don't see this as me being despondent about the future. But (again, going back to my letter), it seems I was right to point out that Ukraine would now be in a stronger position if it had accepted the peace deal on the table in April 2022 and not assassinated its own peace negotiator.
The slaughter on both sides needs to stop, and it a key point of agreement between all involved parties could surely be that Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine will be protected from those that promote Nazi idealogy - and those promoting it? It would be an easy win, something that would hardly be controversial and could become a key cornerstone of any peace deal.