- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Vladimir Putin has demanded that Kyiv cede more land, withdraw troops deeper inside its own country, and drop its Nato bid in order for him to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Putin’s fresh ceasefire demands were issued as envoys from more than 90 countries, including Ukraine, convene in Switzerland this weekend to discuss a western-led peace plan. Russia is not invited to the conference and the president’s remarks on Friday were likely to have been timed as a spoiler to that summit.
Speaking with diplomats at the Russian foreign ministry, Putin publicly updated his terms for ending the war in Ukraine for the first time since he launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, when he demanded regime change in Kyiv and the country’s “demilitarisation”.
The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, said Putin was in “no position” to make demands on Ukraine and could end the war he had started “today if he chose to do that.”
The initial plan of US was to weaken Russia and make putin withdraw on its own.
With recent delivery of long distance munition, changing policy on hitting into Russia and imposing sanctions on banks it is clear that the policy changed to let Ukraine defeat Russia even if it would result in a collapse of RF.
I appreciate that this is a little closer to an objective, but it doesn’t seem serious or coherent.
For instance, why not fully commit? Why not give Zalinsky full permission to do whatever he wants? Why not let him strike Moscow? Why not threaten Moscow with a direct American attack?
Are we willing to collapse the country or not? Are we committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure a complete victory for Ukraine or not?
People act as though anyone who discusses limits to assistance is a traitor to our ally like we haven’t already been placing huge limits on our assistance, and like they themselves aren’t all opposed to actually doing the things I think it would take to win.
Why are my limits a traitorous betrayal and Joe Biden’s limits courageous support of an ally when it’s not clear that there’s a meaningful difference in the outcome of the war?
Oh, don’t worry, there will be full permission. In a few weeks, and it will be without headlines.
Is this based on anything? I don’t know if this is meant to be taken literally, or if this is some kind of coded reference.
I feel like that would garner headlines.
It’s not.
The red line was placed by US itself as a response to Russia threatening using nuclear weapons if Ukraine gets any help.
Russia of course didn’t, but adopted that red line itself and used it on its propaganda.
As they started offensive on Kharkiv, and started bombing Ukraine from behind the border so Ukraine wouldn’t be able to respond, they essentially forced change of that red line.
US allowed to use of its weapons in that area.
Now the problem for Russia is:
This means Russia (including maga politicians) once it stops with this sabre rattling, won’t really have much way to use propaganda about future changes.
The agreement being secret will also allow to be modified without much headlines. We will only learn after the fact. For example Russia reporting they saw fragments of US weapons in different areas. Most won’t care anymore.
That is very, very interesting. I thought you were just being cryptic, but I’m really glad I asked for clarity, because this was super informative. Thank you.