The primary problem is that for negotiations to even begin is that Ukraine itself has a law that forbids anybody to negotiate with Putin before Ukraine has regained all it’s lands, even Zelensky himself would technically speaking commit treason by agreeing to talk on peace terms before this law is repealed. That is unless Scholz speaks of the “Zelensky peace plan” that is basically Russia gives up all the pre 2014 territories and then Kiev will negotiate with Moscow. Which is equally nonsensical and impossible situation.
I don’t know if what if any Scholz is trying to do here. All talk most likely for domestic audience, because the opposition won big in regional elections in Germany lately on “no more money to Ukraine” platform.
Ukraine’s government can change that law if they want to, of course. And if things keep going as they have been, they will have to choose between doing that and losing even more territory.
Attempts at maximum escalation have not produced good results for the Ukrainian people. I would like fewer of them to die given the realistic options available.
Re: Scholz I think the higher-ups in Western Europe are aware that their “support for Ukraine” is more about trying to hurt Russia than help the Ukrainian people. I would expect more to jump ship as the possibility of anything other than a full rout starts to vanish. These countries aren’t going to actually sacrifice anything they value in order to actually help common Ukrainian people. At the moment their “aid” is mostly weapons and ammunition whose main purpose is to prop up military contractors.
Endless escalation is impossible. Russia has nukes.
Even assuming Ukraine starts winning the conventional war against all odds, If the situation ever looks too dire Ukraine does not have the required MAD deterrence to prevent Russia from nuking them.
Russia has far more military capacity than Ukraine. Every escalation runs the risk of Russia adopting NATO’s scorched earth tactics. Russia clearly sees value in the slow grind approach, which they explain as a de facto demilitarization of Ukraine, but if they ever stop seeing value in that…
Don’t forget what NATO member countries do to their military targets and what the outcomes are. Every population center in North Korea bombed out. Agent orange, napalm, mass bombing campaigns in Laos and Vietnam. Reckless and depraved mass killings in Algeria. Two invasions of Iraq and interceding sanctions that killed millions of children, with a heavy focus on the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Hoping for escalation can only mean hoping fot mass death for Ukrainians. This is not a movie or an idle fantasy where we get to play pretend about knocking a knife out if the bad guys hands. This is the real world with actual troop deployments and bombing campaigns and industrial bases and drones that pick people off while they sleep and a country that still functions but can be made to not with about a week of bombings.
Essentially yes because both holding elections or negotiating would spell doom to many Kiev politicians and very likely not just their political careers.
Quite the irony; somehow not doing anything and getting people killed needlessly and destroying your own nation is an okay path forward, but trying to find a compromise that stops that would cost you your career… I mean, it’s not surprising, but also really sad.
Sooo they can bend the law and postpone holding elections
No, Ukraine was attacked, so parliament and president declared martial law. Ukraine is constitutionally prohibited from holding elections until it is over.
I believe it must be seen as a meagre attempt to appeal to the rising numbers of supporters of the AfD and BSW. Both political parties have won significant ground in the latest state elections and both can be considered Putin-friendly, to say the least.
In the past, Schulz has followed closely the position and decisions of the USA and I cannot see this changing in the foreseeable future.
I am the most inexpert of laypeople on this subject, but I’ve wondered whether the incursion into Russian territory has been to give Ukraine a better position to negotiate on a mutual return of territory in talks, if they come about.
We have to speculate about it, but it is a reckless maneuver that has led to the nee, rapid losses on the main front. I would expect that it is reckless ideologues trying to push it.
Ukraine has seen some high-profile resignations just before and during this, so it is possible that the early resignations was people opposed to invading a sliver of Kursk and the later ones might be people that wanted to invade.
The primary problem is that for negotiations to even begin is that Ukraine itself has a law that forbids anybody to negotiate with Putin before Ukraine has regained all it’s lands, even Zelensky himself would technically speaking commit treason by agreeing to talk on peace terms before this law is repealed. That is unless Scholz speaks of the “Zelensky peace plan” that is basically Russia gives up all the pre 2014 territories and then Kiev will negotiate with Moscow. Which is equally nonsensical and impossible situation.
I don’t know if what if any Scholz is trying to do here. All talk most likely for domestic audience, because the opposition won big in regional elections in Germany lately on “no more money to Ukraine” platform.
Ukraine’s government can change that law if they want to, of course. And if things keep going as they have been, they will have to choose between doing that and losing even more territory.
Attempts at maximum escalation have not produced good results for the Ukrainian people. I would like fewer of them to die given the realistic options available.
Re: Scholz I think the higher-ups in Western Europe are aware that their “support for Ukraine” is more about trying to hurt Russia than help the Ukrainian people. I would expect more to jump ship as the possibility of anything other than a full rout starts to vanish. These countries aren’t going to actually sacrifice anything they value in order to actually help common Ukrainian people. At the moment their “aid” is mostly weapons and ammunition whose main purpose is to prop up military contractors.
Or NATO just allows them to destroy airfields Russia is launching rockets from.
So our choice is to give the purse to the thief that wants more land in the future, or slap the knife out of his hand
Endless escalation is impossible. Russia has nukes.
Even assuming Ukraine starts winning the conventional war against all odds, If the situation ever looks too dire Ukraine does not have the required MAD deterrence to prevent Russia from nuking them.
At this point their nukes are likely in the same sorry state as their dictator: old, frail, failing
This fairy tale of Russia being flat broke and out of weapons wasted its credibility years ago. If it was true Ukraine would have won by now.
Uh hu and where did I make that claim? Straw man much? :]
Edit: looks like a well equiped force tho lmao https://sopuli.xyz/post/16837255
Russia has far more military capacity than Ukraine. Every escalation runs the risk of Russia adopting NATO’s scorched earth tactics. Russia clearly sees value in the slow grind approach, which they explain as a de facto demilitarization of Ukraine, but if they ever stop seeing value in that…
Don’t forget what NATO member countries do to their military targets and what the outcomes are. Every population center in North Korea bombed out. Agent orange, napalm, mass bombing campaigns in Laos and Vietnam. Reckless and depraved mass killings in Algeria. Two invasions of Iraq and interceding sanctions that killed millions of children, with a heavy focus on the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Hoping for escalation can only mean hoping fot mass death for Ukrainians. This is not a movie or an idle fantasy where we get to play pretend about knocking a knife out if the bad guys hands. This is the real world with actual troop deployments and bombing campaigns and industrial bases and drones that pick people off while they sleep and a country that still functions but can be made to not with about a week of bombings.
Sooo they can bend the law and postpone holding elections, but they cannot bend it to hold peace talks? It’s just an excuse.
Essentially yes because both holding elections or negotiating would spell doom to many Kiev politicians and very likely not just their political careers.
Quite the irony; somehow not doing anything and getting people killed needlessly and destroying your own nation is an okay path forward, but trying to find a compromise that stops that would cost you your career… I mean, it’s not surprising, but also really sad.
No, Ukraine was attacked, so parliament and president declared martial law. Ukraine is constitutionally prohibited from holding elections until it is over.
I believe it must be seen as a meagre attempt to appeal to the rising numbers of supporters of the AfD and BSW. Both political parties have won significant ground in the latest state elections and both can be considered Putin-friendly, to say the least.
In the past, Schulz has followed closely the position and decisions of the USA and I cannot see this changing in the foreseeable future.
I am the most inexpert of laypeople on this subject, but I’ve wondered whether the incursion into Russian territory has been to give Ukraine a better position to negotiate on a mutual return of territory in talks, if they come about.
We have to speculate about it, but it is a reckless maneuver that has led to the nee, rapid losses on the main front. I would expect that it is reckless ideologues trying to push it.
Ukraine has seen some high-profile resignations just before and during this, so it is possible that the early resignations was people opposed to invading a sliver of Kursk and the later ones might be people that wanted to invade.
But this is just guessing.