On Tuesday, the Kremlin responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying Russia should attend the next “peace summit” on the Ukraine war.
The previous summit, held in Switzerland last month, was billed as a “peace summit,” but Russia was not invited to attend.
“The first peace summit was not a peace summit at all. So one must understand first what he (Zelensky) has in mind,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, according to TASS.
Zelensky used the Switzerland summit and previous similar meetings to push his “peace formula,” which calls for a complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine before peace talks could even start, a non-starter for negotiations with Moscow.
The Ukrainian leader’s suggestion that Russian representatives could attend the next summit marks a shift in his position, as he previously refused to engage with Moscow.
Zelensky’s comments came after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban visited Kyiv and suggested that the Ukrainian leader consider a ceasefire with Russia to foster negotiations. The Ukrainian leader publicly rejected the idea, but his suggestion that Russia attend the next summit signals that he could be softening his position.
The only time serious peace talks between Russia and Ukraine were held was in the early days of the war. In March and April of 2022, the two sides held negotiations, and a potential deal was on the table. However, the US and other NATO countries discouraged the negotiations and promised to fund the war.
Zelenski knows that our next President could be D. J. Trump. He must prepare for it.
Oye vey!
As Trump looks to be next POTUS, reality will hit Zelensky in the head and he will scurry to make an accommodation. I hope he makes a deal before too many more people die.
The next summit is in November… So many things could happen by then…!
It’s more likely that Zelenskyy will flee to exile if the Russian forces ever start making significant gains again. I doubt he’ll head the regime in exile that will take over after however long it takes the Ukrainian populace to eject the Russians Afghanistan-style.
I originally expected the Russians to overwhelm the Ukrainian military by April 2022. I expected the Ukrainian army to go underground to wage a protracted guerrilla war aided by Ukrainian partisans. US/NATO aid has helped the Ukrainian military. But military aid can't motivate people to fight. Any army suffering the catastrophic casualties the Ukrainians have endured would have disintegrated long ago unless the soldiers were highly motivated. The Ukrainians have incontestably won the battle for hearts and minds. The Russians are trapped in a negative feedback loop fighting an asymmetric war of national resistance where every Russian military victory only strengthens the resistance. The Russians lost the war over two years ago. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for imperial powers to recognize they have been defeated in an asymmetric war of national resistance. For Russia the choice is between a forever war or withdrawal.
What is "asymmetric" about this conflict? It is a conventional battle, fought along the lines of engagement. Ukraine can't conduct deep strikes, beyond some pinpricks for propaganda purposes. But Russia can, and is inflicting severe damage to the Ukrainian infrastructure; and on the ground, Russia continues to make incremental gains, day after day; and the Ukrainians can do nothing to stop them. Meanwhile, as far as "hearts and minds" go, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men have left the country to avoid conscription, and probably as many more are hiding in-country doing the same. Hardly universal "national resistance".
No discredit to the Ukrainians who choose to fight; they are fighting hard and courageously, but so are many Russian units; while in contrast, several of the newly mobilized Ukrainian brigades have already either collapsed or run away, and others have refused orders to go to the front. Meanwhile, Ukrainian corruption ensures that much aid gets wasted, and even work that has been contracted, such as the building of defenses, is often not being done.
I think a breaking point is coming, and once it does, and negotiations begin, the Ukrainian people will, in the vast majority, be glad it's over and not be looking for a "forever war". And, I see absolutely zero chance that Russia will withdraw.
How effective were the previous Ukrainian guerillas against the Soviet government? Did they "eject the Russians, Afghanistan-style?" I must have missed that.
"Final Suppression of the Insurgency
********************************************
"In July 1955, after a 10-hour battle in the village of Sushky, the last OUN militia in the Zhytomyr region, consisting of two underground fighters, was destroyed. The last active group of the OUN, consisting of three people, was physically liquidated by the KGB in April 1960 in the Ternopil region."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Soviet_resistance_by_the_Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Final_suppression_of_the_insurgency
Note too that the West supported those guerillas.
"One of a number of secret CIA operations against the USSR, conducted in cooperation with the secret services of Great Britain, Italy, and Germany, was called 'Aerodynamics.' Its essence was that the CIA provided funding and training for UPA soldiers, provided training bases and instructors, and later dumped (landed) insurgents on Soviet territory."
To no avail:
"The operation as a whole failed. Most of the paratroopers were killed or captured, some were recruited by the Soviet secret services, and they soon began airing, providing Western intelligence with disinformation. For example, after a group of paratroopers led by a member of the OUN-B and Bandera's godfather, Myron Matvieiko, seized a group of paratroopers in June 1951, they 'met' nine more OUN groups in the following weeks and months, capturing 18 people. destroyed, and 26 taken prisoner. At the same time, five of the prisoners showed readiness to cooperate with the MGB. And after a while, radio operators led by Matvieiko began to supply the West with radiograms with misinformation. They later practiced for another 10 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Soviet_resistance_by_the_Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Contacts_with_the_special_services_of_the_West
Not all guerilla movements are successful. The Afghan guerillas who successfully ejected the Russians (much like their countrymen who ejected the Americans) had several advantages that guerillas in the Ukraine did not have in the 1940s and 50s, and won't have now. The nature of the landscape and terrain, and the economy. The clear distinction between alien invader (Russian, American) and indigenous person (Afghani) is not nearly so clear when it comes to Russians and Ukrainians. The Russians had, and will have, a much easier time of keeping their ears to the ground, and defusing guerillas, with carrot and stick tactics, than either superpower enjoyed in Afghanistan. Then there are supply and logistic dissimilarities between either superpower campaigning in Afghanistan and Russia campaigning in the Ukraine.
There is just no basis for comparison here.
At the end of World War 2, the Soviet Union was one of the world's top two conventional military powers. Russia may — <em>may</em> — make the top five these days.
At the end of World War 2, Ukraine was a Soviet possession that had just been wrecked by the Wehrmacht, then re-wrecked by the Red Army.
And yet, with minimal US covert aid, the resistance there held out in terms of active operations for a decade (and continued to exist until the fall of the Soviet Union).
"Ukraine was a Soviet possession." Like Texas is an American possession. You have, shall we say, an idiosyncratic understanding of history.
It is a fact that the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) wasn't suppressed militarily until the mid-1950s but the heart of the UPA resistance was in western Ukraine (Galicia) which wasn't under Soviet control until 1939. Before that it was Polish, then Austro-Hungarian, then before that Polish-Lithuanian. That's why the chief city of Galicia has been known as Lwow, Lemberg, Lvov, and now Lviv. So how "Ukrainian" was the Ukrainian "resistance"?
The UPA was hardly representative of Ukrainian sentiment. These "heroes" killed anyone who didn't share their point of view, and usually in brutal and savage ways.
Any insurgency beginning after the putative fall of the current Kiev entity would also be in a country that has been "wrecked" by war. Two years and counting, of active war, and 10 years of low level, sectional strife, already. Plus whatever further violence is necessary to bring about that fall. Also, this time Russia would be fighting for straight up nationalist goals, which might be a lot more popular than doing one's "internationalist duty" in a "brother" Soviet republic.
No, looking at all aspects, I would say that a guerilla war in the territory of the former Ukraine, if the Russians completely destroy the current regime, and annex all or most of its territory (neither of which, of course, is certain, nor even necessarily what the Russians want), would be doomed to failure, much like the Western backed guerillas of the 40s and 50s utterly and completely failed. The Ukraine ain't Afghanistan. Not in terms of terrain (no mountains) nor economy (industrialized versus pastoral and subsistence agriculture) And Ukrainian society is not like Afghani society. Folks in Afghanistan are used to hardship and fighting. And there are lots of young men. Folks in the Ukraine, including the young men (of which there are few to begin with), are relatively soft. Many have fled the country. Many others are dodging or resisting the draft. Shoot, the regime is on thin ice LOWERING the draft age to 25! Can you imaging that in Afghanistan!? Can you imagine young men, from whatever you consider the age of majority, all the way up to 25 years old, being immune from the fight in Afghanistan!!? And the die-hard Ukie nationalists have already done just that….they died in the last two years of fighting!
Russia won't attend until an interim or a new president is elected…!
It's not a "softening" of his position, it's just PR to try to show his continued relevance to the conflict – which he doesn't have any more.
Russia is generally pretty transparent in its statements. It means what it says when that it states that it needs to know what Zelensky and the Kiev entity have in mind before responding more substatively.
In Switzerland, the Kiev-based polity hosted an alleged "summit," a charade really, a feel-good pep rally for its cheerleaders. And it flopped, even on its own terms (watered down statement, plenty of attending countries said "no" even to that, and the majority of the world, judged by number of countries, and population of countries, flatly refused to even attend).
So, what is Z barking about now? Does he want just another opportunity to preen on the world stage like a little show dog, while simultaneously begging for ever more aid? As he insults the Russians and accuses them of commting five hundred "war crimes" a day, on a good day? Cuz, if that's the case, then there is no reason for Russia to attend.
Also, does the Kiev entity even have the authority to bargain in its own right, or does it need to run everything by its Big Brothers in NATO? B/c, if it's the latter, then, again, what's the point? Russia tried negotiating with Z and Co, and came close to a deal, only to have Zelensky's paymasters in DC and London veto the draft deal and scuttle the entire talks. If that power dynamic still holds, then Russia needs to talk directly to NATO (with the Kiev regime perhaps attending in a subordinate role). Right now, as others have mentioned, isn't it "illegal" for Ukrainian officials to even talk to the Russians? Is that so-called "law" going to be repealed before the "talks" begins?
What it all really boils down to is: Does the Kiev entity actually intend to engage in good faith talks with Russia, or is this just another PR stunt?