Russia Would Agree to Talks to End Ukraine War on These Conditions
By: Andrew Stanton (Newsweek)
Lavrov is repeating the Russian position voiced during the negotiations of the Minsk Agreements in 2014. A resolution to the conflict has been on the table the whole time. The war in Ukraine is a direct result of failed diplomacy.
Notice that Lavrov is talking about negotiations with the United States and not about negotiations with Ukraine. The United States controls NATO and NATO is Russia's main concern. NATO was Russia's main concern during negotiations of the Minsk Agreements in 2014. NATO is the reason for Russia invading Ukraine.
The Obama administration was not involved in negotiating the Minsk Agreements. And the Obama administration deliberately attempted to undermine the Minsk Agreements because of a perceived threat that the agreements would weaken NATO and weaken the influence of the United States in Europe. Obama instead focused attention on Crimea as a threat to Europe. The Obama administration saw the Euromaidan protests and legislative coup in Kyiv as a way to expand NATO and extend the influence of the United States into eastern Europe. The Obama administration took steps to escalate a civil war in Ukraine rather than engage in diplomacy to resolve the conflict in 2014.
So, here we are, eight years later, with Biden leading the United States into another quagmire. The steps taken by Biden doesn't offer the possibility of a less belligerent and less dangerous Russia. Russia is going to continue opposing expansion of NATO. Isolating Russia won't create opportunities for cooperation, mutual understanding, or peaceful relations. Biden has built his own iron wall around Russia. And Biden cannot allow a peaceful resolution that includes a partitioning of Ukraine because that would be a tacit defeat for the United States and NATO. Forcing Russia out of Ukraine with a military defeat and expanding NATO into Ukraine increases the risk of nuclear war. Russia has been voicing those warnings all along. Biden's refusal to engage in diplomacy with Russia is making the world less safe.
Ukraine, itself, is becoming less and less important as the conflict goes on. Ukraine is becoming a means to an end for both the United States and Russia. The real issue now is whether or not the United States can extend its influence into eastern Europe. That's going to be a very expensive and time consuming objective now that any cooperation and peaceful relations with Russia has been thrown onto the diplomatic trash heap.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled the Kremlin could be ready to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war so long as the West meets certain conditions.
Lavrov's remarks come more than eight months after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the "special military operation" in Ukraine on February 24. Although Moscow initially hoped for a quick victory, the invasion has revealed weaknesses in their military that blunted the Kremlin's gains. Furthermore, Ukraine received support from the West, bolstering defense efforts and allowing its military to launch a strong counteroffensives to reclaim occupied territory.
As fighting rages on, negotiations between the two Eastern European nations have stalled. Ukraine, which has seen surprising success, has suggested its military would keep fighting until Russia is completely ousted from its territory. Meanwhile, Russia has signaled little interest in ending the war, despite facing mounting losses.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled the Kremlin could be ready to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war so long as the West meets certain conditions. In this combination photo, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (Left), Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (M) and Russian President Vladimir Putin all pictured in 2022Getty
Lavrov, however, discussed the possibility of negotiations between Russia and the West during an interview on Russian state television, Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti reported Saturday. He said Russia is "always ready to listen to our Western colleagues if they make another request to organize a conversation."
He named two conditions the West would need to agree to for negotiations to be successful.
Lavrov said the West would need to "fully take into account the interests of the Russian Federation and its security." Russia, for years, has raised concerns about the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which the Kremlin views as a threat to its security interests.
Putin would likely demand Ukraine's neutrality during negotiations. Throughout the conflict, more Eastern European nations including Finland—which shares a border with Russia—have made efforts to join NATO, strengthening the organization and delivering a blow to Russia's sphere of influence. The U.S. has signaled reluctance to allow Ukraine's membership under current conditions.
Secondly, the West would have to "offer us some serious approaches that will help defuse tensions," Lavrov said. He did not offer specifics as to how exactly the West could do so, though Russia has previously accused adversaries' of deepening tensions through their support of Ukraine and sanctions that have weakened Moscow's economy.
"If we are approached with realistic proposals based on the principles of equality and mutual respect of interests, aimed at finding compromises and a balance of interests of all countries in this region, we will not be the case, as it has always been in the past," Lavrov said.
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said on Saturday that any negotiations to end the Ukraine war would first need to be held with the U.S., which he said has a "deciding vote," according to TASS.
"Kiev has a president, a legitimate Ukrainian president, Mr. Zelensky, and it is theoretically possible to reach any agreements with him, but, bearing in mind the March experience, these agreements mean nothing because they can be immediately cancelled at the dictation from outside," he said.
What Ukraine, U.S. Leaders Said About Negotiations
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also laid out his requirements to sit down with Russian leaders to put an end to the war ravaging his country.
Zelensky said in September that his conditions require punishment for Russia. He said this would include more sanctions and its removal from the United Nations' Security Council, the protection of Ukrainian lives, the recognition of Ukraine's borders and new security guarantees for Ukraine.
The Biden administration has said Ukraine's interests should be at the center of any negotiations to end the war. In a letter earlier in October, Biden and other world leaders reaffirmed their commitment to "providing the support Ukraine needs to uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity."
"With a view to a viable post-war peace settlement, we remain ready to reach arrangements together with interested countries and institutions and Ukraine on sustained security and other commitments to help Ukraine defend itself, secure its free and democratic future, and deter future Russian aggression," the letter—also signed by leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and European Union—reads.
Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Department of State for comment.
Tags
Who is online
383 visitors
Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E
Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E
Which into what every single pro-Putin post of yours devolves.
I doubt Zelensky is looking for terms at this point. Only Putin would want a way out.
From what has been reported, it appears Putin is looking to stabilize the situation. Zelensky continues to try to draw NATO into the war.
Biden will be requesting another large tranche of military and monetary aid to Ukraine after the elections next week. European NATO countries have also been providing military and monetary aid to Ukraine. The war has been a money maker for the Kyiv government. Zelensky has an incentive to continue the war.
The outcome of the war, however long it goes on, is quite predictable for the United States. The United States either obtains a more belligerent and dangerous Russian adversary or the United States gets the tacit defeat of a partitioned Ukraine. Possibly both. There isn't a good outcome for the United States. Biden has created a no-win scenario for the United States.
The thing to watch will be European back biting over the winter. If Europe pushes responsibility (and blame) for continuing the war onto the United States then we should expect the tacit defeat of a partitioned Ukraine. And it would be in Europe's interest to shift responsibility (and blame) for continuing the war onto Biden before the next Presidential election. Europe (and Russia) would try to use a new President to negotiate a partitioned Ukraine. It would be Biden's defeat caused by incompetent leadership rather than a defeat for NATO and the United States.
Poor Russia! Poor surrounded and threatened Russia. Shame on big bad NATO for thwarting Putin's insane goal of Soviet Union Version 2
Mark the calendar! I'm agreeing with Greg.
The first time I have ever voted him up.
Nobody forced Putin to invade Ukraine.
That's correct, no one forced Putin or Russia to invade Ukraine. But then, no one forced Biden to attempt expanding NATO into Ukraine.
NATO is a choice, too.
Explain that to @4.1.2
Way to take what you want from a statement; and ignore the damn rest- which is relevant to the answer.
Should that explanation include Biden's refusal to engage in diplomacy? Biden only issued warnings for six months and made threats. Biden drew a milquetoast red line and dared Putin to step across. And here we are.
If you wish to argue that position that is your call, but the important thing IMO is to get people who appear to be clueless to at least understand that Putin is the authoritarian leader of Russia and that pretty much means that he chose to invade Ukraine and was not 'forced' to do so.
But that understanding needs to include that the United States does not have a leader. Biden's threats of sanctions was actually an offer. As long as Putin was willing to pay the price, Putin could have Ukraine. Biden made it quite clear that the United States and NATO would not send troops into Ukraine; Putin would not have to fight the United States and NATO in Ukraine.
Biden made an offer, Putin accepted that offer. Sanctions in exchange for Ukraine.
One can explain that Russia's authoritarian leader is Vladimir Putin without speaking of any other nation or leader. One can illustrate that Putin calls the shots in Russia and that Russia went to war by his willful command and not because he was 'forced'.
( Of course, anyone who does not already know this is probably a lost cause. )
How is that important? One can understand that Zelensky is the authoritarian leader calling the shots in Ukraine, too.
Who is the leader of the United States? Who is calling the shots in the United States?
“How is that important?”
In what reasoned narrative can it be ignored?
Every leader and government on the world stage, from the most influential to the smallest consumer of goods has a role in the dialogue.
To dismiss Putin is to ignore reality and makes any argument stating such immediately and logically dismissible.
Yes, one can (and should) understand that. Odd that some question whether Putin invaded Ukraine based on his will rather than being forced to do so.
Who is dismissing Putin? Who is ignoring that Putin is the leader of Russia?
Is Putin the leader of Ukraine? Is Putin the leader of NATO? Is Putin the leader of the United States? Putin threatened to invade Ukraine and enforced the threat by actually invading Ukraine. But Putin is not responsible for how the leaders of Ukraine, NATO, and the United States have responded to the Putin's threats and invasion.
Putin can only be blamed for invading Ukraine. Putin cannot be blamed for the response to that invasion.
“Putin can only be blamed for invading Ukraine. Putin cannot be blamed for the response to that invasion.”
Good gawd, man. It is one thing to be an apologist, it is another to be totally disassociated with reality.
Sure, just like we sat idly buy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oh wait, we didn't. We forced Russia to back down.
Think we wouldn't invade Canada or Mexico if they became a puppet state of Russia or China? No way in hell we would tolerate either country having a presence on our border. Hell, we are freaking out over Chinese man made small islands in the Pacific.
The stuck on stupidity of our foreign policy burns. Career politicians and statesmen know how stupid our population is; they can get away with this bullshit.
We had a pro west leader in Gorbachev and fucked him the hell over. Since then every Russian leader has been more hard line and anti west than the last. Think what follows Putin will suddenly welcome the west with open arms? More than likely will have one finger on the nuclear button and the other holding the line to Iran asking how to train terrorists/militias.
Anyone wanting to support Ukraine pack up and head on over. I am sure you will all enjoy meeting the US fascists from the Proud Boys and others you hate so much fighting over there for the Ukrainians. You will get to meet a whole new range of Ukrainian Fascists as well. Just remember to renounce your US citizenship and burn all identification at the Ukraine border. Putin is already unhinged enough. Don't want him to think America is suddenly deciding to enter Ukraine fully.
He might actually carry through with his threat to go nuclear.
Who forced Putin to invade Ukraine?
In case you haven't been following along. The US/NATO did.
See posts 5.1 and 4.3
Putin wasn't coy about what he would do if Ukraine joined the EU/NATO. Yet everyone acts fucking shocked when he does it.
The first one is back from 2008. Want me to go back further- I am sure I can find something where Putin threatens war with Ukraine if they attempt to join NATO.
I will ask you again; would the US tolerate a Chinese or Russian presence either in Canada or Mexico? What do you think we would do if one of those countries flipped? Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? We would invade either country instantly and expunge the foreign presence.
No country would willingly tolerate their enemy on their border. Why does everything think Russia is different?
So India and the Chinese are friends, how about Vietnam and China?
The Russian leader immediately after Gorbachev was Yeltsin, who could not in any way be described as "anti west". Following Yeltsin was Putin, who was replaced temporarily as President by his puppet, Medvedev, although Putin remained in charge until he resumed the presidency. So, who are all of these Russian leaders you're talking about? Answer: There weren't any.
The rest of your comments on the topic of Ukraine have as much credibility as the comment I quoted: None.
At this moment the leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam is in Beijing developing new and stronger ties with China.
That's window dressing between Communist appartchiks. Although China is Vietnam's largest trading partner, based in particular on geographic proximity, there is a history of deep enmity and distrust between the two countries.
No one forced Putin to invade Ukraine. The real question is whether or not Biden invited Putin to invade Ukraine. Biden's war plan was to announce to the world that there would not be any US troops fighting in Ukraine. And that meant NATO forces would not be fighting in Ukraine, too.
Biden's threats were actually an offer of sanctions in exchange for Ukraine. As long as Putin was willing to pay the price, Putin could have Ukraine. That's what Biden put onto the table in leu of diplomacy. Putin only accepted Biden's offer.
@4.3 objected to that.
Here is a better map of former Soviet Countries the US/NATO flipped.
We wouldn't tolerate an enemy presence on our borders; why the hell would we expect Russia to?
Remind us all what we get from Ukraine again? This is a European problem; but we are the ones footing the vast majority of the bill.
So, Ukraine is the enemy....and a threat to Russia? Same question as regards NATO?
What valid reason did Putin have to invade Ukraine?
I can't spell it out any clearer. The US/NATO are Russia's enemy. They have proven so repeatedly.
For being a defensive organization NATO is very aggressive. Serbia and Libya ring any bells? Neither country was a threat to any NATO country; but in they went anyways.
Did you look at the maps in 5.1? Think Putin isn't terrified of NATO on his border? Flipping former Soviet satellite states; or bombing them into oblivion is a US/NATO favorite pass time.
Considering how many problems Russia's military is having in Ukraine- the thought of US/NATO forces using Ukraine to invade isn't a very real threat?
Here is a better map for you...
Serbia, you mean the ones that committed genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. Nice to know that you support that POS country.
“…or bombing them into oblivion…”
Oblivion?
Or potentially signing a treaty that insures they have well established democracies in their corner. Countries that will honor those treaties and walk along side in economic, diplomatic, and if need be, military alliance to aid in their right to self-determination and self-rule.
Right trumps might, especially when that might is all but belligerent, murderous bluster.
Are 100 miles close enough for you, it's called Cuba and they have been our enemy for decades.
Until 2014 when the silver tongued one normalized relations.
.
So NATO and the US flipped these countries. None of them requested to join NATO. How did NATO/US do it, did we capture the leaderships of these countries and force them into NATO?
The answer is that they were out from under the Russian yoke and did not want to go back. That shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
And in those 54 years, we could not remove them from the Russian sphere of influence. So we tried normalization to see if that would work.
And then Thunder Mouth came along and changed it again.
I have said before that I think Putin desperately wants Ukraine as a buffer against the West and sees it as the new Fulda Gap on the Cold War border of East and West Germany where, military historian Arye (Lynette) Neusbacher once said NATO feared the Soviets would pour into West Germany and Europe "... with more tanks than God!"
Do you realize that if Putin was able to take control over Ukraine he would have extended his domain and would be even closer (in terms of borders) to NATO nations (the 'enemy').
He is moving his border closer to his 'enemies'.
Further, if Putin loses this war, he has just turned Ukraine into an enemy.
No. Putin knows full well that NATO will never initiate an attack on Russia.
I think it's pretty safe to say Putin made a enemy out of Ukraine from the first day his troops rolled across the Ukrainian border in February!
Indeed. And thus if Putin loses, he has only accomplished making an enemy at his border.
Russia is using a different map. Here's the geopolitical map that the United States needs to see.
Ukraine is not a part of the NATO allience.
That is correct, Ukraine is not part of the NATO alliance. Russia's stated position is that Ukraine will not become part of the NATO alliance. And apparently Russia is willing to destroy Ukraine to prevent NATO expanding into Ukraine.
Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were the founders of the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact was a post-World War II creation. The Marshall plan to rebuild Europe didn't include the Soviet Republics. Russia had to rebuild the Soviet Union because Ukraine and Belarus had been occupied and destroyed. Ukraine would be the first founding Soviet Republic to join NATO. That is what is causing heartburn in Russia.
If Russia wipes Ukraine off the map, how will that affect the United States? If Ukraine does not become part of the NATO alliance, how will that affect the United States?
Frankly, it is bizarre that Russia thinks it's in a position to make demands. Even more bizarre is that anyone who isn't currently working for a Russian troll farm thinks Russia is in a position to make demands.
Bingo
Lavrov's peace proposal. "Give Russia everything it demands and it will consider whether or not to retreat from Ukraine and end hostilities."/s
Let's not forget that war is good business.