2 ms·

Just the opposite, it'd be the weakest material provision, with the biggest benefit because Putin can say he's getting something, when he's getting nothing. 'O

Just the opposite, it'd be the weakest material provision, with the biggest benefit because Putin can say he's getting something, when he's getting nothing. 'Overseeing to make sure no Nazis' doesn't give Russians any special internal access to politics they wouldn't have already. 50% of Crimea is pro Russian, probably the same with Donbas. They will have 'informants' everywhere anyhow. Russia's 'causes belli' are completely irrelevant, because they don't have the power to do anything about it. Moreover - there would be no oversight anyhow. The whole point of the article would be to allow Putin to make a claim of victory. Given those terms, Putin can claim that he has 'Denazified' Ukraine, which was one of this 3 major stated objectives i.e. pushing back NATO, denazifiaction, shift in regime outlook. The language of the actual term would be softened so as to be meaningless. Nobody in the West would even talk about it. It'd be a little note in the treaty, line 7: 'Ukraine to ensure no political radicalism in monitored territories'. And that's it. It's a surrender treaty. The objective right now is to find bullshit terms that Putin will accept so that he can leave while saving face. Even though literally the entire world, and 75% of Russians would know it's bullshit. Once Russia leaves, Ukraine will be flooded with NATO weapons etc. they are never setting foot in there again.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
"Ukraine to ensure no political radicalism in monitored territories"? OK, what's a "monitored territory"? Donbas? All of Ukraine? (Russia says it wants to de-nazify all of Ukraine, not just Donbas.) What do you do when Russia says that every non-separatist politician in Donbas is a political radical? You say Ukraine will be flooded with NATO weapons. Probably true... this year. The flood will dry up, though. What happens 20 years from now, when Russia's weapons have improved, and Ukraine's are 20-year-old NATO weapons? And then Russia says "Hey, you haven't kept line 7! Get rid of all these politicians!" and then invades when Ukraine refuses? Don't give them that line. They will exploit it sooner or later.
- jollybean 4y ago
  "What do you do when Russia says that every non-separatist politician in Donbas is a political radical?" Literally nothing. You're missing the point here. A NATO involved response would not end a Korean-style detente where troop positions etc. are a careful balance of power. This would be a collapse Russian forces in which Putin needs an excuse to run away and make it look like a victory. This is a game of 'hard power' in which 'public statements' are irrelevant, other than for propaganda purposes. Russia will invent 1000 reasons to cry after the fact, it's irrelevant once Ukraine is filled with NATO weapons and a bunch of forces and is 'NATO in everything but name'. Just like Russians do daily on state TV (it's comedically nuts) They can say anything they want, nobody will listen or care. Once Putin is gone, Ukraine will have to 'fear' about the same as Finland, which is not at all, so long as there are mechanisms in place and the state generally has order/power within it's borders. Now - if Ukraine has to do their own negotiating alone - then yes, it's a different story. Ukraine may have to subject themselves to a lot of BS and you may end up with a 'careful detente', and yes, in that case, Putin could literally use it as time to re-group and re-attack at the next opportunity he gets. That's unfortunately a possibly outcome in the current situation. But not if the West steps in, and ends it.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

"Ukraine to ensure no political radicalism in monitored territories"? OK, what's a "monitored territory"? Donbas? All of Ukraine? (Russia says it wants to de-nazify all of Ukraine, not just Donbas.) What do you do when Russia says that every non-separatist politician in Donbas is a political radical? You say Ukraine will be flooded with NATO weapons. Probably true... this year. The flood will dry up, though. What happens 20 years from now, when Russia's weapons have improved, and Ukraine's are 20-year-old NATO weapons? And then Russia says "Hey, you haven't kept line 7! Get rid of all these politicians!" and then invades when Ukraine refuses? Don't give them that line. They will exploit it sooner or later.

jollybean 4y ago
"What do you do when Russia says that every non-separatist politician in Donbas is a political radical?" Literally nothing. You're missing the point here. A NATO involved response would not end a Korean-style detente where troop positions etc. are a careful balance of power. This would be a collapse Russian forces in which Putin needs an excuse to run away and make it look like a victory. This is a game of 'hard power' in which 'public statements' are irrelevant, other than for propaganda purposes. Russia will invent 1000 reasons to cry after the fact, it's irrelevant once Ukraine is filled with NATO weapons and a bunch of forces and is 'NATO in everything but name'. Just like Russians do daily on state TV (it's comedically nuts) They can say anything they want, nobody will listen or care. Once Putin is gone, Ukraine will have to 'fear' about the same as Finland, which is not at all, so long as there are mechanisms in place and the state generally has order/power within it's borders. Now - if Ukraine has to do their own negotiating alone - then yes, it's a different story. Ukraine may have to subject themselves to a lot of BS and you may end up with a 'careful detente', and yes, in that case, Putin could literally use it as time to re-group and re-attack at the next opportunity he gets. That's unfortunately a possibly outcome in the current situation. But not if the West steps in, and ends it.