En grei oppsummering av hvorfor det ikke bør tvinges gjennom en fred over hodet på Ukraina, hverken av Macron eller andre.
kortversjon: Det har vært prøvd før, og det virket ikke.
Consequences and what to do?
Hans Midttun’s assesment: Europe must learn from its past mistakes and
make sure no side is humiliated when Russia and Ukraine negotiate for peace, France’s President Macron
said on 9 May. His hint for an off-ramp was echoed by President Joe Biden, who
said he was worried that Russian President Vladimir Putin “doesn’t have a way out right now, and I’m trying to figure out what we do about that.”
French President Emanuel Macron’s suggestion that Ukraine should
compromise on its sovereignty to allow President Putin to save face, is a continuation of previous statements. More importantly, it is a continuation of the 8-year German and French diplomatic effort to push the Minsk Agreement at the cost of Ukrainian independence and sovereignty.
Europe must learn from its past mistakes and make sure that it never again supports a peace plan with no prospect for peace and a peaceful resolution of the war. The international community cannot be seen to be fronting a “Minsk Agreement version 3.0” as we recognise that 8 years of diplomacy failed to stop a full-scale invasion that was 8 years in preparation.
After 8 years in Ukraine, I want to be abundantly clear on a huge misconception: While the international community under German and French leadership might force the Ukrainian Government to accept a compromise, and accept the loss of territory, the Ukrainian population will never accept peace at these terms. A compromise – or off-ramp – at these terms can never bring peace to Europe.
Defeat and withdrawal are the only acceptable way out of the conflict. 15 years of concessions to Russian aggressions have resulted – and will result – in more war.
The
ISW believes that President Putin most likely will annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine. This will allow him to “state, directly or obliquely, that
Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories. Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue”.
The deliberations of both President Biden and President Macron are most likely connected to the Russian “fait accompli strategy” and its increasing threats of WW3 and the use of nuclear arms.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was partly justified by the false narrative of an imminent threat from the USA and NATO. After nearly 3 months of fighting and a “strategic defeat of the Russian Federation on the battlefield deepened by a strategic defeat at the international level”, the “wall” dividing Russia from the West is back. Having been undressed in Ukraine and lost its conventional military deterrence, nuclear deterrence will have an even more important role in the future.
The present NATO strategy is based on the ethical dilemma of risking mutual destruction over Ukraine. If NATO decides to give in to the threats, however, the risk of further Russian aggressions even into NATO’s area of responsibility will increase. The dilemma does not change because it is a NATO Article 5 scenario. Either you believe the threat is real and give in, or you call the bluff and challenge the military situation on the ground.
The only certainty amid our common security concerns is that Russia will take on step forward every time NATO take a step back. Russia will not abandon a strategy of war and intimidation if that helps it achieve its strategic aim and objectives.
If Russia is allowed to keep Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and the Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine has already lost its sovereignty and independence. If that happens,
while Russia might have lost most battles, it has still won the war. That comes also at the cost of European stability, prosperity, and security.
Seeking a diplomatic solution to a conflict Russia insists on solving by military means, is after more than 8 years of failure, exactly what Einstein meant when he (allegedly) said that “
Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results”.