In reality, the actual Ukrainian-Russian “negotiations” are currently not happening in Davos or the UAE, but along three main tracks:
The first – the front line on land.
The second – strikes on the Russian oil war budget.
The third – terrorist attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure ordered by Putin’s to force Ukrainians into capitulation.
The results of these tracks will determine the prospects for peace.
How a friendly lunch between Russian and Ukrainian delegation members in Abu Dhabi (media refers to comments by American intermediaries) helped, it’s hard to say…
* * *
We are being “fed” with the preparation of 100% security guarantees from the USA, – the agreement, they say, is ready. They entice us into a world of Ukraine’s prosperity with 800 billion US dollars. But what is the “Anchorage formula” with the solution to the “territorial issue” no one explains…
And therein lies the main problem: will Ukraine remain sovereign, or will we be bent over and spoken to only in such a position in the future.
These negotiations are like discussing a “cat in a bag.” And the poor cat’s fur is being mercilessly scratched from there.
What seems to the negotiators today to be the best of possible options may be so detached from the realities of perception by the people of Ukraine that later you might fall into the trap of impossibility to fulfill promises made.
I hope ours have a complete understanding of this moment.
* * *
To obtain “guarantees” of security and territorial integrity, so that then the guarantors “with four hands” will force you to give up your territorial integrity, to then receive “even more reliable guarantees of your territorial integrity”…
Doesn’t it seem to you that this is some kind of shaky structure for negotiations?
Why keep such a seemingly foolproof position for the enemies – can be explained, but why Ukraine is building negotiations on such a basis – is unclear.
If you conduct negotiations based on approaches and categorical demands of only one side, such negotiations are fake!
Does Ukraine need negotiations? Yes. But if they are fake, imitative, for dragging out the war? Then it needs to be clearly stated and not pretend that everything is going well.
It’s necessary, without exiting the general negotiation process, to state clearly and unambiguously: we are for negotiations, but definitely not for their imitation! First ceasefire, then everything else!!!
