Ukraine agrees to accept immediate, 30-day ceasefire -US-Ukraine statement
reuters.com
reuters.com
A ceasefire of just 30 days seems like a good starting point, does not require any major concessions from either side and puts the ball in Russia’s court.
Given the US backing of this proposal, if Russia declines, it sends a pretty clear message about the “reasonableness” of their position (which obviously hasn’t ever been anything close to “reasonable”) and I think makes it that much harder for the Donald to side with them (though who can really predict what he’ll do).
If they agree, then hopefully this gives Ukraine just a bit of respite and starts a change of trajectory of this war. It also seems to be a small enough step to help Ukraine and the US realign - as far as that is possible - without looking like a major walk-back of the US position or looking like Ukraine has been strong-armed into something they didn’t really want to agree to (aka minerals deal without guarantees - though that may come next).
Still so many challenges ahead but I really hope this ceasefire happens.
Looks like Russia is at an advantage in the war right now, so why would it be reasonable for Russia to agree to the ceasefire if this is the case.
Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine, the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support, how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term, the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc.
They made this goal impossible when they attacked Ukraine in 2014. A government that's pro Russia is no longer electable. Zelenskyy could resign and however would replace him would be more anti Russia as well as whoever gets elected next time.
Anyone sucking up to Russia would get impeached and could not win re-election in any case. If Russia succeed in making Ukraine a dictatorship with a pet dictator its likely he would be overthrown very quickly. Even if they were able to conquer Ukraine they'd have to occupy it militarily indefinitely at great cost
> annex the Russia speaking regions,
This seems to pretend that those regions are any more happy to be joining Russia then the rest of Ukraine. Also it ignores that many people are changing to speaking Ukrainian even among people who immigrated from russia and people whose Ukrainian was not great until recently.
> demilitarize Ukraine.
Ukraine would never agree to this after what Russia has pulled.
> Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine,
The US can keep supporting Ukraine as long as it wants to. The only reason it wouldn't is if a crazy guy was in charge and he decides to backstab our allies and undermine/destroy our government and national interests.
> the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support,
Winning is hard but at least with US support Russian victory is practically impossible
> how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term
The main reason US wants to damage Russia is to prevent it from conquering Ukraine or from attacking other countries after that.
>the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc
Compare with risk of giving into nuclear bullying which encourages more bullying and makes nuclear weapon use much more likely in the medium term. The safer move is to call their bluff
Now if the frack-addicts, could refill the whine about how their addiction sufferings are worse then those of the conquered, we have the full experience. Five out of five stars, would war there again.
Russia seems likely to decline, but it apparently is enough to establish enough cover for Rubio to say we'll restart aid. We'll see if Trump torpedoes that in the next 24h or so.
which he almost certainly will.
really, the Russians just needed enough intelligence and asset coverage to launch a massive final blow against that Kursk salient that was almost surrounded.
there are a lot of good Ukrainian troops there, and a ceasefire gives UKR the ability to pullout without losses.
it's mostly grandstanding. and mostly matters not since Trump is doing everything he can to tank the US (and allied) economies.
They got the US to resume military aid, they're demonstrating to Trump they're "ready for peace" which is what he wants -- and now Russia will almost certainly reject the unconditional ceasefire.
And it'll be much harder for Trump to continue claiming that Ukraine is the obstacle to peace here.
My guestimate of the Russian position:
- Ukraine cannot ever be part of NATO.
- Seized territory remains Russian
- Sanctions should be lifted.
Next, it will not allow a "peace force" at the buffer zone. Because Russia will be back after it repairs its economy.
What does it give Russia? Not much except for a chance to let Ukraine strengthen its position.
Putin doesn't care an iota whether he looks "reasonable" or not.
The answer is probably "not really" but Russia cannot signal that this early on. It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences and then dodge peace during actual negotiations.
Why can't Russia signal it's not interested in long-term peace? It's been signaling it's not interested for the entire war. And nothing has changed.
> It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences
Why? There's zero benefit to Russia. And major consequences to agreeing, because the pause will give Ukraine a significant military advantage in regrouping, that won't benefit Russia nearly as much. It's not zero consequences -- a temporary cease-fire would be a significant military setback for Russia.
The US is taking a strong lead in brokering a deal. It got Ukraine and the EU to make large concessions (mineral deal, extra EU defense spending) to signal to the US that they are serious about peace and serious about heavily contributing to it to make it possible.
If Russia's public answer to this is: NO, I will not even lift a finger, then they open themselves up to US scrutiny because they admitted they are 100% unwilling.
As you rightfully put, they are already unwilling, but saying it is another thing. It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
What does US scrutiny look like? I have no idea. It could mean more sanctions, more weapon deliveries. Or it could mean nothing at all. I can't read this administration, it's so random.
But Ukraine and the EU haven't actually made any concessions at all. There is no mineral deal -- yesterday they merely agreed that they will try to negotiate a mineral deal. And the EU hasn't raised defense spending out of any agreement or concession with or to the US -- they're talking about raising spending because the US seems to be pulling out, because of the absence of a deal.
> It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
Why? They've made it clear that they're willing provided Ukraine makes a bunch of concessions that Ukraine won't make. This is asking for an unconditional ceasefire, which Russia has been clear for years is off the table. And it would disadvantage them militarily. They have no reason to change their position -- for them, peace talks require preconditions, and Ukraine (rightly) rejects all of them.
But Russia invaded Ukraine. They've been at war for three years. Putin is entirely prepared to continue. There's no bluff here. Putin is being entirely serious about his conditions to end the war peacefully, because if he doesn't get them he has zero problems with continuing the war to try to get what he wants by force.
Putin is going to have to think long and hard about what he can spin as a victory, because "undefended Ukraine" is not on the table.
Personally, I'd say he'd be better off abandoning the NATO one. Hungary can keep Ukraine out of NATO indefinitely. It would take some spin, but honestly, he could just claim "Ukraine will never join NATO" and that'll be true-enough for his audience.
I'm sure they'll break it and lie about it and yell that Ukraine broke it first. Should be fairly easy for the west to verify though.
Or do you somehow believe that getting exploded by a 155mm Howitzer, or skewered on a pike, or swiss cheesed by a 50cal, or drowning with 150 of your friends in a sinking ship, or dying in agony from disease in a cramped room with hundreds of others that smells of death and rot, or being eaten by sharks in the pacific, or evaporating in a ball of plasma and radiation, or roasted alive in a pill box by sticky gasoline from a flamethrower, or being trampled by a horse, or suffocating under a mixture of mud and your best friend's blood, or or or or.... is more dignified or less horrifying than a flying land mine?
See Brandon F show an example of the raw brutality of linear warfare, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hP3SeJIVFk
There is nothing "cruel or unusual" about drones. Nothing at all. This is what war has always been.
Do you think people were being hyperbolic when they explained "war is hell"? Do you think soldiers with PTSD were just sissies and overreacting?
Did you think war was Glorious? Or Just? Or Noble? Or virtuous in literally any way?
No one is gonna give up the option, given their effectiveness.
I believe most of these people are not being killed when they beg like this. Nonetheless, the rules of war should try to preserve dignity in death. It needs to be codified at least, even if it’s violated, and perhaps some future generation will litigate the sin.
The brutality of this war probably hasn’t all gotten out.
The AFU suggested that they see maybe a 40-60% kill rate -- "kill" as in hit and damage; casualty rate -- from drones.
so you're only seeing the 40% that actually do anything, and of those, the ones that can be released, both for OPSEC, as well as simple logistics like having enough bandwidth to upload or time to edit.
You can't surrender to a UAV that doesn't have the battery to follow you back to the opposition's lines.
The same logistical challenge exists if you’re captured by an injured person.
Or if one guy has 93 prisoners to manage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major
This is precisely my point.
We are not gonna get a new Geneva Convention banning drones.
War is cruel and unusual.
Geneva convention-type rules, like bans against cluster munitions, are usually less about what soliders do to each other, but more about protecting civilians. But targeted drones on the front lines pose virtually no danger to civilians at all.
Indiscriminate bombing is a major sin. We have no way of litigating the current war criminals, but ICC has warrants out on some. There’s a sadistic element to cutting off food and water.
Not intentionally. It takes time for the drone operator to target. There's no torture. And drone attacks are the complete opposite of indiscriminate bombing.
> There should be a clear rules of surrender here.
That would be wonderful if it were possible. But how on earth could you implement it in practice? These attacks take place on Russian front lines, often kilometers away from Ukranian front lines. The drone has enough battery to quickly fly out with a heavy explosive and attack. It doesn't have enough battery to slowly escort a soldier walking back across the no-man's-land. And even if it did, Russian forces would surely be ordered to shoot deserters. Putin doesn't care about losing lives, as evidenced by the entire war.
You can't individually surrender when you're on your own front lines. You have to make it to your enemy's controlled territory first. (An entire unit can surrender, of course, but that's effectively giving your unit's territory to the enemy first. An individual soldier doesn't have territory to give.)
You've read about "foraging" to supply an army with food, which was done for millennia. Nice polite word. Do you know what it meant? It meant sending out soldiers to find farmers and force them to hand over their food, and next year's seed counts as food in this context. Pity the farmer's wife or daughter who hadn't hid well enough. Pity the farmer too.
War really is despicable.