Well it sort of is about what you think (and thereby post) on a forum, which invites a response from other posters. That’s sort of how it works.
I listened to what he said and he was pretty strident about the trust issue. It’s a fundamental basis for any negotiation, if it’s going to be worthwhile, that you believe other party will broadly keep to whatever is agreed, otherwise what is the point? This trust issue has to be hugely amplified through Ukrainian eyes given what they gave up in exchange for assurances from Russia in the early ‘90s, and what had happened in 2014. They were completely justified and proportionate in holding huge levels of suspicion towards Russia before the invasion in February 2022, much more so afterwards.
Never got a problem with anyone calling Johnson a ****, but the suggestion that he had the power or influence alone to define the outcome, especially when the US were/are in the picture, seems fanciful at best. Not saying he didn’t intervene in the way suggested, but whether he caused the talks to collapse seems extremely unlikely as it would have to be predicated on the basis there was a genuine willingness on behalf of the Ukrainians to do a deal, which they were subsequently persuaded by Johnson to resile from. Given what had happened to their country, the way they had defended Kyiv, and what was at stake, existentially for them as a nation, this seems extremely unlikely to me.
Causation is the issue here.
That’s ultimately a question for the Ukrainians, but it seems likely that If they felt there was sufficient level of trust in the Russians then a deal may already have been done. So both factors (trust/ likelihood of military success) interchange and I guess compete with each other. As things stand, Ukraine clearly doesn’t feel sufficiently subjugated to do a deal with a hostile nation it doesn’t trust.
Russia are fighting a war they can't win.
And tbf to Johnson (much as it pains me) that support has continued to a significant, if a somewhat insufficient extent.I seem to remember something about this.
It was more along the lines of Johnson reassuring Zelenskyy that he didn't have to accept Putin's terms. That it was his/Ukraines choice to make. And that he would be supported if he decided to fight Putin.
That seems more credible that Johnson somehow single-handedly stopped/derailed any peace talks.
You’ve said this before, but I’m not sure it could be characterised as a ’win‘ given the wider impact on Russia’s status, economy and international standing, plus the loss of Russian lives (although I accept Putin doesn’t care about that).Russia doesn't have to takeover the whole of Ukraine to win. Keeping the East and Crimea is a win for them.
Unsurprisingly you know better than the man who was in the room. If trusting the Russians was the overriding issue why bother sitting down in the first place?
That's not to say trust wasn't an issue. As the man said there was no way they could proceed without security guarantees.That would have involved 'the West' playing a constructive role in the idea of a neutral Ukrainian state .... rather than saying fuck that let's fight.....with our weapons and your blood.
Within the post you called 'bollocks' was a link to what the Ukrainian delegation was demanding.
The Russians may well have said 'nyet' further down the line but we will never now because we said it first.
It's not really a win, they had most of that already. They've gained very little ground, at huge cost in the grand scheme of things.It's an asymmetrical war. They can afford to do that. They can chuck more rapists and murderers and brainwashed military fanatics from small villages, into the meat grinder.
Ukraine can't.
Russia can also produce weapons at a cheaper cost.
Russia doesn't have to takeover the whole of Ukraine to win. Keeping the East and Crimea is a win for them.
I disagree completely with that last sentence. Given what that evil **** has already expended on his "special military operation"; the soldiers, the tanks and equipment, not to mention the relentless propaganda, over the course of two fruitless years, anything less than the whole of Ukraine will be seen as failure. Not just by Putin himself, but by those who have bought into his warped idealogy.It's an asymmetrical war. They can afford to do that. They can chuck more rapists and murderers and brainwashed military fanatics from small villages, into the meat grinder.
Ukraine can't.
Russia can also produce weapons at a cheaper cost.
Russia doesn't have to takeover the whole of Ukraine to win. Keeping the East and Crimea is a win for them.
You’ve said this before, but I’m not sure it could be characterised as a ’win‘ given the wider impact on Russia’s status, economy and international standing, plus the loss of Russian lives (although I accept Putin doesn’t care about that).