Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demand full control of four Ukrainian oblasts claimed by Russia as a condition for a potential peace deal, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
The report said that President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, sought to convince Putin to drop the demand and agree to a ceasefire that froze the current battle lines, but the Russian leader declined and maintained his demand for complete control of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
The Financial Times reported last week that Putin was willing to freeze the current battle lines for a peace deal, but the Kremlin quickly signaled that this wasn’t the case.
Ukraine has also appeared to reject the conditions of a US proposal for a potential peace deal. The Bloomberg report said that negotiations are now at an impasse as an agreement seems less and less likely.
When Russian and Ukrainian officials held peace talks in the early days of Russia’s invasion in 2022, Russia’s main demand was for Ukrainian neutrality. Those efforts were discouraged by the US, and later that year, Russia declared its annexation of the four Ukrainian oblasts and added the recognition of that territory as Russia to its demands to end the war.
Since Russia has the momentum on the battlefield, it’s unlikely that it would accept a peace deal with terms dictated by the US. If the negotiations fall apart, it remains unclear if the Trump administration would continue fueling the war by arming Ukraine. As time goes on, the terms of a settlement will likely get less favorable for Ukraine.
On Monday, Russia declared a three-day ceasefire starting on May 8, but Ukraine rejected the idea and proposed a 30-day truce. Russia has dismissed the Ukrainian counteroffer and is casting doubt on whether the three-day ceasefire will hold.
It looks evermore likely that this is headed for a frozen conflict ala Korea, with the proviso that Russia takes more land and turns what is left of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. They will be a continual bleeding financial wound upon the west. Also, this poses serious risks for continual flareups, that might suck the US into direct combat.
If it turns out like Korea, Western Ukraine will be the big winner. Just like South Korea is the big winner.
……to be continued (and determined).
"Putin continues to demand" "Putin was willing to freeze" – no word about the referendum, no word about Russian constitution, no word about human rights of east-Ukrainian Russian speaking people. That is Antiwar journalism? Do they really believe Putin can breach Constitution as easy as they do it in U.S. and Ukraine? Or, maybe, they think, it is possible to organize other referendum where people of those four regions would vote for the integration into Ukraine? Hypothetically, of course, it is possible, but first they have to defeat Russia militarily. Does Antiwar believes it is possible?
By that logic Zelensky can't breach the Ukraine constitution either and cede territory to Russia. So now that we have established that both presidents are constrained by their respective constitutions, how can the war ever end?
Yanukovich was removed from the power in breach of Ukrainian constitution. No Ukrainian referendum happened afterward. Only local referendums in separatist regions. So, according to Ukrainian constitution, Kiev authorities are illegal. And on top of this, according to Ukrainian constitution, in case the presidential elections are cancelled, the head of parliament replaces the president until the next elections. It was never done. Zelensky is not a legal president.
Be that as it may, I still don't understand why Zelensky would cede territory that Russia hasn't conquered.
When zelensky won't cede territory that Russia has conquered? So that Ukraine doesn't lose everything.
Zelensky has no legal right to decide about those territories. Neither had such right Poroshenko. People of those territories, according to the international law, have such right because after the coup 2014 Kiev authorities stopped to represent them.
Because by the time Russia fully takes those territories Ukraine will be in a much worse conditions…..
Firstly, you are misinterpreting the Ukrainian constitution for propaganda purposes, because Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution only provides for an all-Ukrainian referendum on secession.
https://hcj.gov.ua/sites/default/files/field/file/the_constitution_of_ukraine.pdf
https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/not-sacrificing-democracy-why-ukraine-cannot-hold-elections-under-the-martial-law/
https://verfassungsblog.de/ukraines-constitution-in-wartime/
https://verfassungsblog.de/our-fighting-democracy/ A Letter from Ukraine
Secondly, Russia is breaking its constitution in accordance with Article 15.
https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/fa3/xwhwumdwunawy9iprvhcxdqds1lzxqdx/CONSTITUTION-Eng.pdf Article 15 of the Russian Constitution: "4. Universally recognized principles and norms of international law as well as international agreements of the Russian Federation should be an integral part of its legal system. If an international agreement of the Russian Federation establishes rules, which differ from those stipulated by law, then the rules of the international agreement shall be applied."
Ukrainian constitution "Article 9. International treaties in force ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine shall be a part of the national legislation of Ukraine.
Conclusion of international treaties that contravene the Constitution of Ukraine shall be
possible only after introducing relevant amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine."
Do you really believe it’s Antiwar.com’s job to spin its news coverage to satisfy your particular bias?
I see Antiwar spins its news coverage to satisfy neocon and neo-Nazi particular bias. That's why I think it is a bad journalism.
I suppose if you classify the Russian regime as "neo-Nazi," you may have a point about Antiwar.com's "spin," which tends toward Russian imperial triumphalism.
Who is neo-Nazi? "Russian regime"? Or maybe it is yourself who is neo-Nazi? As I see, you have nothing against the genocide organized by your government in Donbass.
“As I see, you have nothing against the genocide organized by your government in Donbas.”
On the contrary — I supported the Donbas secessionists from the beginning, and support the right of all persons to choose which (if any) government treats them as livestock.
I just don’t pretend that the Russian regime is different, or acting differently, than any other regime, that’s all.
"I just don't pretend that the Russian regime is different, or acting differently" – it is an other way to justify neo-Nazism. If other "regimes" are the same, then neo-Nazism is normal, and the genocide is normal. This propaganda trick is promoted by the collective west since the end of WW II. It works not so bad. Otherwise American and EU people wouldn't agree so easy with neo-Nazism and Zionism.
I oppose neo-Nazism of all varieties, including the Zionist variety.
I just don’t pretend the Russian regime is anything other than what it is (a kleptocracy holding on to the remnants of a declining empire).
When was the last time that you spent a year in Russia or a month…
Never. I’ve also never spent a year or a month in Vietnam, Iceland, Andorra, Chile, New Zealand, Ireland, or Malaysia.
On the other hand, I can read the history of, and observe and listen to the claims of, the regimes ruling all of those places.
So your statements are pure speculations. Who wrote those "claims"?
Hitler maintained that the German state had a right to go to war over the alleged persecution of German nationals in other countries. As a result of World War II the United Nations, the Bandung Movement and the Pan African movement reached a consensus that nation states are defined by internationally recognized boundaries, not ethnicity. Putin advocates the same type of ethno-centrism that Hitler did to justify Russia's support of the Donbas separatists and the separatists in Georgia and Mooldova.
People throw around the label Neo-Nazi as a euphenism for a regime they don't like. But Putin's view of Russia as a state of all ethnic Russians has a lot of similarities to Hitler's view of the nation state.
Do you call the USA gov. as "regime"?
Yes, I do. I call all Westphalian Model nation-state governments "regimes."
I don't support the Donbas secessionists. They are like the Ulster Unionists. Planted by an imperial power. Moreover, the ethnic Russians accounted for less than 40% of the population of Donetsk and Luhansk in the last census. And not all the ethnic Russians support secession.
Although the Czars planted Russian settlers in Eastern Ukraine it was Stalin who encouraged massive Russification. From 1926 to 1959 the Russian population of Donbas grew from 639,000 to over 2.5 million, accelerating after Ukraine was depopulated after World War II and the genocidal Holodomor famine. Likewise in Crimea Stalin ethnically cleansed the indigenous Tatars, deporting them to Siberia. In Donbas there needs to be an internationally supervised referendum after the refugees have an opportunity to return. In Crimea the question of self determination is more complicated and has to take into account the right of the indigenous Tatars to return to their land with reparations as well as the rights of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who have lived there
their entire lives.
Well, I was answering for myself, not for you. Which is why I gave my opinion, not yours.
Why do you support the Donbas secessionists?
Legitimate liberation movements, even when based mainly on one ethnic group, try to unify their countries. That is how we distinguished legitimate national liberation fronts, like the MPLA in Angola, from the phony tribalist based movement UNITA that was supported by the white South Africans. Eventually UNITA collapsed because it had nothing to offer the majority of Angolans.
The Donbas secessionists, who don't even represent all the ethnic Russians in Donbas, don't include the majority of Donbas' people who identify with Ukraine, not Russia.
I am pretty sure you don't support all secessionist movements. The Donbas "secessionist" movement is not an independence movement . It's goal is to make Donbas part of Russia, like the Texas "independence" movement was a movement to make Texas part of the USA. What are your criteria for determining which secessionist movements are legitimate and which are phony? And why do you support the Donbas secessionists? Their goal is not really secession but subordination of the Donbas to Russia.
Let me put it a different way: It’s not so much that I support the Donbas secessionists (or any other secessionists) as that I oppose any attempt by any regime to prevent any group from exiting that regime’s control, and the violence that’s inherent in any attempt to prevent said exit.
It became pretty clear pretty quickly that the Russian regime was aiding and using the secessionists as forces in a proxy war versus the Ukrainian regime … but I don’t give a shit about regimes or their turf claims. I only care about people. What I supported overall was the Ukrainian regime deciding that it didn’t need to kill thousands of people just to keep control over millions of people.
" I oppose any attempt by any regime to prevent any group from exiting that regime's control."
I don't think you really believe that, Thomas. What about the Condederacy, or the Texas War of Independence that was a reaction to Mexico outlawing slavery? And what about the American War of Independence that was motivated by some colonists wanting to establish a slave system opposed by the British Enlightenment and others who wanted to commit genocide against the indigenous inhabitants in opposition to the British policy of uniting the Indians in the Ohio Valley into a nation state under British suzerainty that the British hoped to use to contain the westward expansion of the colonies and keep them dependent on Britain?
For my part, I try understand and support those people and movements that maximize human potential. As the Founders put it, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." While the DOI recognizes the right to secede it cautions that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
If you think I don’t believe that, then that thing you’re doing that you think is thinking isn’t.
Do you support the right of the Confederacy to secede from the Union?
Which part of “I support the right of anyone to secede from anywhere” did you not understand?
I am glad the Union won the war. Are you?
Should England have won our original war, too?
Yes.
Following the French Indian War the British prohibited the Westward expansion of the colonies and supported the efforts of Tecumseh to unite the Indian tribes into a confederation in the Ohio Valley and the South west. The British also agreed to evacuate the white settlers from the former French territory west of the Allegheny mountains.
In 1772 the British Court of the King's Bench ruling in the Somerset case outlawed slavery in the United Kingdom and held that slavery violated natural law. The colonists knew that Britain would eventually ban the slave trade and abolish slavery throughout the empire.
Slavery and Manifest Destiny were even more important than taxation as the casus belli of the American Revolution and the Texas War of Independence.
During the American Revolution approximately 20,000 slaves took up arms agaisnt the rebels following Lord Dunmore's Proclamation of 1775 promising freedom to slaves and family members of slaves who fought for the British. After the Revolution the British evacuated loyalist slaves and their families to Canada and the West Indies. Many communities founded by the ex-slaves exist to this day in Canada and the West Indies.
England officially abolished the slave trade in 1807 with the passage of the Slave Trade Act. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 then further outlawed slavery itself within the British Empire, taking effect on August 1, 1834. This act freed over 800,000 enslaved people in British colonies
As I indicated above, the movement to abolish slavery in Britain was well underway in the 18th century. The Founders were not dumb. The colonists realized that when Britain outlawed slavery in the UK the American slave system and the slave trade was doomed unless the colonists gained their independence. Likewise the British policy of "divide and conquer' led the British to support to creation of a strong Indian confederation under British suzerainty to block the uncontrolled Westward expansion of the colonies and keep them dependent on Britain.
IMO, slavery had nothing or very little to do with seeking independence.
Slavery was a major point of contention at the constitutional convention that jeopardized the union because with some delegates (eg, Madison, Jefferson, Mason) believing that slavery needed to be abolished over the objections of the other slaveholders who insisted on constitutional guarantees for the protection and expansion of the slaves system as a condition for joining the union The constitution contained the fugitive slave clause, the three fifths compromise and the guarantee that the slave trade would continue for at least 20 years and providing that the slave trade clause could not be amended.
Ok – it was an issue after the war was won, but not a big issue to break with England.
It was an issue throughout the war. remember Dunmore's decree in 1775. The commitment of the planters to slavery just was not publicized much because slavery was considered morally reprehensible to many slaveholders as well as Quakers, Puritans, free thinkers and libertarians. But the Southerners were committed to the preservation and expansion of the slave system as reflected in the debate over the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Constitution.
Being “glad” or “sad” about an unchangeable, historically remote event in which it was impossible for one to have participated doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.
To the extent that I like how my life has unfolded, I guess I’m glad that Union victory made it reasonable for two of my ancestral families whose men fought for the Union to have later moved west from western Virginia and eastern Tennessee to southern Missouri and intermarried. All three of the areas involved were very mixed with respect to both opinion and military control over the course of the war.
Secession is a tactic. It sometimes advances “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and sometimes it is an excuse for an oppressive predatory group to deprive people of L,L & PH The Confederates were as evil as the Zionists or the Nazis Secessionist movements based on ethnicity or tribalism are almost always oppressive. Most countries are ethnically diverse You can’t draw a border and have all Ukrainians and all Russians on different sides. In that context secessionist movements are excuses for one side to dominate or exterminate the other. The ethnic conflict in Donbas is an internal Ukrainian matter If the Ukrainians oppress the Russians the recourse of the RF is diplomacy or the UN, including the ICC and the ICJ. The consequences of wars are almost always worse than their causes Putin’s war against Ukraine is a great example of that point
Yes, secession is a tactic. And yes, secessionists always have their own reasons and goals, which I may or may not approve of. But since I don’t support the Westphalian Model, I have no problem with the tactic as such and every problem with the regimes that attempt to suppress the tactic.
One of my great-great-grandfathers lost a leg from the knee down in the Civil War (and was then arrested as a possible deserter while limping home on crutches and spent a week in the stockade before they figured it out). For obvious reasons, I can’t ask him whether he thought the outcome was worth that leg and that jail time. But I have no love for the regime he served, or for the regime he fought against. The formal (although not actual) end of chattel slavery was a good outcome, but it wasn’t the US regime’s goal, although preventing that end was a big part of the secession regime’s goals.
I agree the species needs to move beyond 1648. But there is more LL&PH under the Westphalian system than the empires, klans, and feudal overlords that preceded it or most of the dictators that sought to overturn it. And secessionism is a tactic that needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis, not blindly supported or opposed. However, in my experience many secessionist/separatist movements have been very bad. Katanga and Biafra were contrived by Western monopolists to get control over the resources of the Congo and Nigeria. Donbas and the secessionist movements Putin supports in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova, like the Texas secessionist movement from Mexico, are not really independence movements, but attempts to remove territory from one state to be incorporated into a larger state. We need to evaluate the case for each secessionist movement separately.
“attempts to remove territory from one state to be incorporated into a larger state”
Sounds like the 75-year occupation of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China, which you seem to have no problem with.
The people of Tibet have the right to self determination. Only Tibetans can determine whether they want to be part of China or independent. I would support a mass based movement for an independent Puerto Rico or Hawaii or Tibet But if the Puerto Ricans, indigenous Hawaiians or Tibetans are OK with being part of the USA or China, that is their business, not mine. Bozos in the peanut gallery can root for our preferred side, but we don't have a vote.
My tentative understanding of Tibetan history is that Tibet has been part of China since 1724. Following the overthrow of the empire China was enveloped by armed uprisings, dynastic wars, civil war, banditry and resistance to Japanese occupation. The various factions in China were preoccupied with fighting each other and the Japanese. During this interregnum period the feudal landlord class in Tibet declared a feudal regime in 1912 that was not recognized by any other country except the short-lived Bogd Khanate of Outer Mongolia until the Tibetan regime was overthrown by the victorious communists in 1951. In 1959 the communists ended serfdom and the entire feudal system. The leader of the feudal regime, the Dalai Lama, went into exile and became the titular head of the Tibetan independence movement that was financially supported by the CIA until the 1970's. Since 1974 the Dalai Lama has disavowed the so-called Tibetan independence movement and since 2005 he has supported Chinese rule over Tibet.
Neither you nor I nor the Dalai Lama nor the US State Department nor the CCP can speak for the Tibetan people. If the Tibetan people choose to launch a mass based movement for independence, I would recognize it and likely support it. But it seems that the Tibetan people, like the Puerto Ricans and Hawaiians, are OK with the present state of affairs.
Umm, Antiwar is one of the only ones carrying articles, including the recent Consortium News link, Joe Lauria's April 20 essay detailing the history of and present neo/Nazi issue in Ukraine.
And this site "satisfies" neocons by detailing and indicting all the stupid s**t they do ? That's weird 'satisfaction'.
There are many different articles in Antiwar. With some of them I agree, with some don't agree. My comment was about this particular one written by Dave DeCamp.
My observations have been that David’s work is factual and if it is mildly editorial at times, his commentary tends to bias towards observed reality.
If I have ever seen an essayist with an apparent and recurring theme, it was the late-great Justin Raimondo’s tendency to opine along the lines of “the Democrats are idiots, the Republicans are idiots, the perfectly-center libertarians are the only ones with a clue.”
And even then, he was certainly 2/3rds correct in that repeated assertion.
US citizens will rue the day they provoked Russia into war.
It's the end of the world as we know it,,, And I feel fine.
Thanks. My old ears can't hear that fast. Yet I still feel fine.
Russia has paid a cost in lives and treasure to end the killing of Ukrainian Russian citizens though genocide. It also paid a cost to keep NATO from taking over the Russian Naval base in Crimea.
Restoring tradition Russian lands inhabited by Russian Ukrainians is not unthinkable. The areas mandated are part of the old Russian Empire that ruled them for hundreds of years.
Ukraine should settle for their losses now before Odessa becomes part of the deal. Odessa is also part of the traditional Russian Empire.
Ukrainian republic was created by Bolsheviks who first got to the power in Petrograd through a military coup, and then got the power over what was left of Russian Empire as result of Civil War. First referendum about the destiny of Ukraine (which was created illegally by Bolshevik criminal gang) was organized in March 1991 by Gorbachev. Over 70% of people, both in Ukraine and in Russia, voted for remaining in one single state. This referendum was ignored by political elites of the republics and several months later Russia and Ukraine became separate independent states. So, if, according to international law, it is okay to divide a country like that dismissing the will of the people, definitely it should be okay to unite it back the similar way. From this viewpoint, Kremlin has right to ignore the will of western Ukrainians the same as "international community" ignored all those years the will of eastern Ukrainians.
The Treaty of Versailles did not create Ukraine as an independent state. While the treaty established borders of other European nations, it did not explicitly recognize Ukraine’s independence. The Treaty of Versailles secured Ukrainian land, but also divided it, with parts going to Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, and the remaining central and eastern regions to the Soviet Union.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Treaty of Versailles:
This treaty, signed in 1919 after World War I, aimed to redraw the map of Europe and establish peace. It focused on securing borders for other European countries and did not explicitly recognize Ukraine’s independence.
Territorial Divisions:
The treaty resulted in the division of Ukrainian lands, with Galicia and western Volhynia going to Poland, Bukovina to Romania, and parts of the former Austro-Hungarian territory to Czechoslovakia.
Soviet Influence:
The remaining central and eastern Ukrainian regions were left to the Soviet Union.
No Explicit Recognition:
The Allies did not recognize Ukrainian independence in the Versailles Treaty.
Earlier Ukrainian Attempts:
During this period, there were attempts to establish an independent Ukrainian state, but they did not gain international support
Of course Treaty of Versailles couldn't create Ukrainian independent state because they couldn't guess that three years later Bolsheviks would decide to divide Russia in separate republics. At the time they only thought about creating more or less fair border between Catholic Poland and Orthodox Russia (so called Curzon Line), which by the way almost exactly coincided with Molotov-Ribbentrop line which was created 20 years later.
Ukraine can't just say, "okay, we agree we lost the war. Let's do a re-over."
Ukraine can't say anything because there are no freedom of speech in Ukraine and no elections. Even if they organize elections, only loyal to the regime candidates would be able to participate.
The Soviet Union paid a price during WWII. Their reward? Patton and others wanted to turn our guns on them, using remnants of the German army. Seriously.
Russia should be named the country of Dangerfield. No respect given.
…And this after four hours of talking…!!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-ready-sign-trumps-minerals-deal-within-hours-breakthrough-reached
It takes one Oreshnik to expand a mine's capacity.
If Ukraine's Kyrylo Oleksiiovych Budanov gets his way, the SBU will commit acts of sabotage against Russia over the next twenty years. That's second-hand knowledge, propaganda, or rumor articulated from Judge Napolitano in his interview with Gilbert Doctorow this morning.
Note that Russia reannexed half of these Russian speaking regions that Lenin gave to his Ukrainian Republic in 1922 to strengthen his Soviet Union. Four Oblasts in the east voted to rejoin Russia in 2022.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Inaccurate_historical_map_of_Ukrainian_borders.jpg
When you're winning a war and have all the cards… you can demand all you want… Similar to US on Japan after the two drops of nuclear bombs…!
I am curious to know Moscow's end game with those four Oblasts.
As Commenters have rightly pointed out, those territories, if fully annexed (in)to the Russian Federation, would just become generational hotbeds of guerilla warfare / terrorism, and the Russians remember Afghanistan for all parties involved there. Additionally, this would just push the Russian Federation border CLOSER to NATO, which is counter-productive.
I would have to think Moscow intends to free ethnic Russian Ukrainians from Kiev's racist diktats, then strongly encourage those Oblasts to form a separate vassal State – tied politically and economically and culturally to the Russian Federation but not a formal part of it like Crimea. Something between a Kurdistan and an Armenia, if you will – an aligned buffer zone.
"Russia’s [original main peace] demand was for Ukrainian neutrality," with permanent oblast annexation demanded after the US discouraged Russia-Ukraine's early peace plan efforts.
So w/all the focus on territory now, what is the state of the neutrality demand? As I've posted, I've suspected a bait and switch – where 'no NATO' turns out to mean 'no NATO in a ceasefire, but it's not off table in a permanent settlement.'
And that's in fact the idea in the below NYT piece re recent US negotiations, where (paraphrasing) spokespersons said, NATO's off the table now – but NATO members could invite UKr. by consensus – and another President could 'revive' the 'aspiration'…
…ie, a scenario where Ukraine does not have to strike NATO from its 2019 revised constitution, and NATO itself never has to withdraw its 2008 'Ukraine will one day be' declaration.
But then you'd have NATO still hanging over Ukraine…the same 'unfinished business' that finally triggered Russia's invasion to start.
So upshot – there's this major thing – which will be harder for the west to swallow than Ukraine losing land – that we're hearing a lot less about.
"Ukrainian Peace Plan Hints at Concessions, but Major Obstacles Remain," NYT, 4/25/25 [posting key nato passage separately]
US still trying to get around Russia's core 'NATO neutrality' demand, which mainly provoked its invasion:
from "Ukrainian Peace Plan Hints at Concessions, but Major Obstacles Remain," NYT, 4/25/25:
"Ukraine’s latest proposal makes no demand…that Ukraine’s membership in NATO — vehemently opposed by Moscow — be guaranteed…a position [long] held by Mr. Zelensky. Instead, it says: 'Ukraine’s accession to NATO depends on consensus among the Alliance’s members.'
"In talks…American officials reiterated Mr. Trump’s intention to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine, but… told their Ukrainian counterparts that this position would not bind future American presidents if any have a different stance.
"'The next U.S. administration could decide to let Ukraine into NATO,' the Americans told the Ukrainians, according to a person at the meeting in Paris last week. U.S. officials said they understood that Ukraine would not accept any limitations on ever joining NATO."