Major story and document dump at the NY Times, summary thread on Twitter/X. So far as I can tell the basic stumbling block was that Ukraine wanted to guarantee its independence from Russia within most of its borders, and Putin would not accept that. One interesting theme is that Ukraine's negotiators were never sure if the Russians were serious, or if the negotiators were really empowered to make a deal. Ukrainian diplomats interviewed by the Times disagreed on this point.
Key details:
Russia, stunned by the fierce resistance Ukraine was putting up, seemed open to such a deal, but eventually balked at its critical component: an arrangement binding other countries to come to Ukraine’s defense if it were ever attacked again. . . . Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf.
Russia wanted to set strict limits on what kinds and number of armaments Ukraine could possess; Zelensky agreed to this in principle but the two sides were far apart on the numbers. This was the clause brandished by the Polish foreign minister in a NATO meeting, saying, "Which of you would sign this?"
You have to love this:
A seven-point list targeted Ukraine’s national identity, including a ban on naming places after Ukrainian independence fighters.
Putin thinks Ukraine is a rebellious province, not a nation, and until that changes there will be no real peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment