Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[The Minsky Moment]

Another narrative that denies non-Western actors of agency and making them playthings of Western preferences. It's not hard to understand why Ukraine would be reluctant to accept Russian assurances of security guarantees, given that Russia violated its treaty with Ukraine in 2014 and then again in 2022.  I don't think you to invoke the persuasive power of Boris Johnson's high wattage mind to understand why Ukraine might not be convinced by "third time's the charm."  One also doesn't need to search for Western influence to understand why the revelation of war crimes at Bucha might have transformed domestic politics in a way to limit Zelensky's negotiating flexibility.

And of course the whole narrative assumes that the Russian flunky negotiators were on the level and could deliver a Putin signature, as opposed to being engaged in a time-buying exercise for Russia to regroup and implement Plan C.

[Zoupa]

russia wanted recognition of their "annexations" as part of the peace treaty. It was always a non-starter.

[Josquius]

The conspiracy nut version that the west forced Ukraine to fight on is of course stupid.

But it's certainly valid to say if the west hadn't promised to keep supporting ukraine it would have been in a very different situation.

Still annoying that you keep getting people pushing this idea that just surrendering is somehow a solution.

[Tamas]

The conspiracy nut version that the west forced Ukraine to fight on is of course stupid.

But it's certainly valid to say if the west hadn't promised to keep supporting ukraine it would have been in a very different situation.

Still annoying that you keep getting people pushing this idea that just surrendering is somehow a solution.

Yes the problem here is that this article highlights that western support was needed for Ukraine to fight on (duh) but does so in a negative way - that western support thus prevented peace.

[The Brain]

Responsible government can never make peace their top priority.

[Sheilbh]

Another narrative that denies non-Western actors of agency and making them playthings of Western preferences. It's not hard to understand why Ukraine would be reluctant to accept Russian assurances of security guarantees, given that Russia violated its treaty with Ukraine in 2014 and then again in 2022.  I don't think you to invoke the persuasive power of Boris Johnson's high wattage mind to understand why Ukraine might not be convinced by "third time's the charm."  One also doesn't need to search for Western influence to understand why the revelation of war crimes at Bucha might have transformed domestic politics in a way to limit Zelensky's negotiating flexibility.

Yes. It is always striking how many who talk about the importance of and their support for "multipolarity" also have zero interest in the actual agency of other countries and peoples.

[The Minsky Moment]

russia wanted recognition of their "annexations" as part of the peace treaty. It was always a non-starter.

The fig leaf of this new narrative, as reported in the Foreign Affairs article, is the claim that during the Istanbul talks, the Russian negotiators discussed a communique text in which the status of Crimea and the Donbas would be addressed during future discussions. But it's hard to see why any rational person aware of Russia's past conduct would take such a proposal seriously, with or without Boris Johnson's 2 cents thrown in.

[Tamas]

Yeah it's quite sad that even after all this the moment Russia pushes a "this is the West's fault, after all" narrative, so many people jump on the chance to engage in this weird arrogant self-flaggelation our post-imperialist societies (or rather our intelligentsia) like.

[Valmy]

Analysis of the 2022 negotiations: Ukraine didn't agree to a cease fire because of the Western nations' scepticism about Russia's intentions and their commitment to support Ukraine.

This analysis is based on statements made by Ukraine? Or is this just guessing?

Just skeptical Ukraine was all prepared to give up but then a vague commitment by the West convinced them to sacrifice tens of thousands of their own people.

[Tamas]

Doesn't sound very good: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/23/russian-forces-make-significant-gains-in-eastern-ukraine

[Tamas]

Maybe the GOPtards weren't lying, they saw scary enough intelligence reports that they didn't want responsibility for Ukraine's eventual collapse.

[The Minsky Moment]

This analysis is based on statements made by Ukraine? Or is this just guessing?

The gist of it is that diplomats representing both countries agreed on a framework text but with many key items TBD. In the last draft seen by the Foreign Affairs writer, the Russian side insisted that the proposed multi-lateral security guarantee would come into effect only if action was agreed unanimously by all guarantor states, including Russia.  I.e. Russia was insisting on a veto over the operation of a multi-laterial security guarantee in the event of a future Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Obviously, it would have been asinine for Ukraine to sign such a thing.

The authors make the following points about the Western role:
+ The US was not consulted over the inital draft communique, even though the text contemplated US security guarantee that might commit the US to belligerent action vs Russia.  There was some concern in the US about such a commitment, which cuts the other way from the point the Guardian seems to be trying to make.
+ Both the US and the UK were skeptical about the likelihood of Russia being on the level, a concern vindicated by the later Russian efforts to water down the proposed drafts.
+ The Russian withdrawal from Kiev allowed aid to flow in.  Without aid, it is speculated that Ukraine would be more likely to make compromises.  But of course, it would also mean that Russia would be less likely.

The FA article concludes on this issue: "Still the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of talks with Russia is baseless."

Indeed.