Also nachdem die US der Ukraine die implizite Erlaubnis erteilt haben die russischen “Separatisten” mit Javelins aus dem Donbas zu schießen?
Atlantic Council - 23.11.2021:
The United States would agree with Kyiv on red lines before entering the talks, such as no implementation of the political aspects of the Minsk Agreements without Russian compliance with its never-fulfilled military obligations (permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign forces and heavy weapons, disbandment of illegal militias); no local elections in the Donbas with Russian and proxy forces still present; [Das kippt die “Steinmeier-Formel”] and special status for the Donbas after elections to be based on the Ukrainian law on decentralization (since the Minsk Agreement does not support Russian demands for a Donbas veto over Ukrainian foreign policy).
On the contentious issue of when to restore Ukrainian control of the international border, which Russia insists must come at the end of the process, the United States and Ukraine would offer as a compromise the internationalization of the occupied territories as a transitional measure. [== total retreat, then total territorial gain for Ukraine] This would include a neutral peacekeeping force to take the place of Russian-led forces and militias inside Donbas and an interim international civilian administration to replace the self-declared people’s republics. The international presence would restore normal governance, establish professional local police forces, oversee the return of refugees, and organize local elections in conditions consistent with OSCE standards.
Although Russia may be slow to engage on the initiative, it would demonstrate US and Ukrainian readiness for a genuine compromise to end the war in eastern Ukraine. It would be consistent with the Minsk framework but introduce implementation mechanisms that are absent from the original Minsk documents. [You mean the framework is similar, the implementation is not?]
If Russia agreed to end the Donbas conflict on this basis and implemented its side of the deal in good faith, the United States and its allies would be able to scale back the provision of lethal weapons to Kyiv. Such an agreement would open the way to the lifting of Donbas-related sanctions and resumption of cooperation between Russia and NATO that could help defuse Russian anxieties about Ukraine’s relationship with NATO over the longer term.
Gütig, oder? Und das wording erst, wem kommt das noch bekannt vor?
Moreover, beyond Putin’s purported security concerns, Ukraine is a highly emotional issue for him. His statements and pseudo-historical writings make clear that he resents Ukraine’s independence, questions its legitimacy as a sovereign state, disputes Ukrainians’ existence as a separate people, and is outraged by Kyiv’s refusal to accept Russian hegemony.
Meine Güte, der “verrückte Putin” ist auch schon so alt?
src: click
NATO PK vom 01.12.2021:
“We will call on the allies to join Ukraine in putting together a deterrence package,” Kuleba told reporters as he arrived for the talks in Riga.
This should include preparing economic sanctions against Russia, in case it “decides to choose the worst-case scenario”, Kuleba said, adding that NATO should also boost military and defence cooperation with Ukraine.
“We are confident that if we join efforts if we act in a coordinated fashion, we will be able to deter President Putin and to demotivate him from choosing the worst-case scenario, which is a military operation,” Kuleba said.
Ja sag mal, die Position kenn ich ja auch…
“Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control their neighbours,” Stoltenberg told reporters, pounding his podium.
The arguments are not new in essence and do not presume a readiness for NATO to enlarge. Most NATO members see risks rather than advantages in enlarging the alliance in what Moscow sees as its backyard.
“Just the question is reflecting something, which I think we should be very much aware of, that is not acceptable – and that is that Russia has a sphere of influence,” the NATO chief retorted.
“They try to re-establish some kind of acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbours do, or not do,” Stoltenberg said.
“I think that tells more about Russia than about NATO,” he added.
The argument that Russia has no right to have a sphere of influence is likely to infuriate Moscow. Senior US pundits have argued in the recent past that “Russia needs its buffers”.
“This idea that NATO’s support to a sovereign nation is the provocation, is just wrong. It’s to respect the sovereignty and the will of the Ukrainian people,” he said, adding that Ukraine is an independent state, its borders must be safe and its neighbours must not violate them.
“We do not want to go back to the world in which states were limited by spheres of influence of superpowers”, he emphasised, answering the question about Russia’s reaction to the possible accession of Ukraine.
[…]
For his part, Stoltenberg repeated his warning on Wednesday that any future Russian aggression against Ukraine would come at a ‘high price’ and have serious political and economic consequences for Moscow.
The 30 NATO allies together represent more than 50% of the global economy.
“We have a wide range of options to make sure that Russia will be confronted with serious consequences if they once again use force against an independent sovereign nation, Ukraine,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Riga.
“Everything from economic sanctions, financial sanctions, political restrictions, but also, as we saw after 2014 when they illegally annexed Crimea … that actually triggered the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War,” Stoltenberg said.
“We don’t know whether President Putin has made the decision to invade” Ukraine, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said, but added that “if Russia invades Ukraine… we will be prepared to act” with high-level economic sanctions and other measures.
It’s important that Russia understands this, Blinken stressed, adding that the US will make sure Ukraine has the means to defend itself.
“We’ve seen this playbook before in 2014 when Russia last invaded Ukraine, then as now they significantly increased combat forces near the border,” Blinken said.
“Then as now, they intensified disinformation that Ukraine is the aggressor to justified pre-planned military action,” he added.
Blinken will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Stockholm on Thursday.
src: click
Ja verflixt und zugenäht, wie kommen diese Positionen jetzt plötzlich in all die Experten die sie mir begonnen haben öffentlich ab dem 24. Februar 2022 als Interpretationsvorlagen anzureichen?
Die werden doch nicht alle die selbe Quelle gelesen haben?
