Recently there was a leak about secret peace plan to end War in Ukraine. Different News agencies report different points and terms, so it is hard to judge how reasonable it is. Some claims are clearly absurd, but others are closer to meaningful.
I will analyse the one from ABC article
1. Nothing wrong
2. What kind of non-aggression agreement and what it will contain. Russian promises to not attack in future are not enough. There should be something that physically prevents Russia from attacking.
3. Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova and Azerbaijan all will want to join NATO. I do not see how it is feasible to not expand NATO. With no protection Russia can simply invade them and install puppet governments there. If not NATO, a separate security arrangement has to be agreed in advance. Again, a promise from Russia is not enough.
4. Nothing wrong here. It seems like a pr-opportunity for Russia that we can allow.
5. Security guarantees have to be agreed in advance, not at some time later. They have to include a guaranteed international retaliation against potential future aggression against Ukraine by Russia or any other power.
6. Considering that AFU were smaller than 600 000 before war begun, they can come to this number. Some of those currently fighting will be demobilised and become reserve. Of course, this number should exclude paramilitary National Guard battalions and reservists.
7. If it is about optics and Russia wants Ukraine not in NATO on paper even if Ukraine still gets Article 5 like security, then it is OK, but it's not OK if Russia wants to keep Ukraine without any security at all and open to subsequent Russian invasion.
Wording should be like: "In case of Russian, Belarussian or any other foreign invasion into territory of Ukraine, the guarantor states are obliged to declare war on the aggressor, assist Ukraine in defending itself and repeal the invader from its territory (borders of the defendable territory will be decided by this agreement)."
8. Without NATO troops, who will provide security and monitor demilitarised zone?
9. Are European jets in Poland supposed to protect Ukraine or for any other reason?
10. What safeguards there are against false flag operations? It is rather inconceivable that Ukraine will attack Russia, but it can be used by Russia to create a casus bello to invade Ukraine again. Russia already claimed Ukraine attacked it in this war so it's not too much of a stretch Kremlin will claim so again in a future invasion.
11. All good
12. All good
13. OK I guess
14. OK
15. The whole peace agreement or just point 14. If whole agreement, then it can be exploited by Russia to interpret the agreement to detriment of Ukraine. The US, EU, Ukraine and Russia should interpret terms of agreement in quadruple format.
16. Nothing wrong with that, but it will not be enough as security guarantee.
17. OK
18. Ukraine already has no nuclear weapons, why it's on the list? UK and France, an offer Ukraine a nuclear umbrella.
19. Good
20.1 European law on minorities is not the same as Belarussian system where Russian predominates, and Belarussian effectively banned. It will not make Russian second official language. Nonetheless Ukraine can provide Russophones the same rights as France offer Bretons and their language, but certainly not the same rights Belarus offers to Russophones. Same for Hungarians to keep Orban happy. In actuality Ukraine already ratified the charter.
20.2 Orthodox Church of Ukraine is the predominant and official church of Ukraine. There are no restrictions on orthodox worship, but Russian orthodox Church have compromised itself as Russian spy agency and cannot function in Ukraine unimpeded and without surveillance from SBU.
20.3 It has to be clarified that UPA or Stepan Bandera were not Nazi. Azov Regiment is also not Nazi organisation. Ban should not apply to them or organisations like them.
21. There has to be a demilitarised zone between two armies, guarded by either NATO or UN troops. UN troops should also control parts of Donetsk Oblast that currently controlled by Ukraine. Ukraine should be given enough time (1 year) to establish another defensive position behind these lines before relinquishing control of fortress belt.
22. Same as point 10
23. Dnipro, not Dniepr
24. Good
25. There are laws on that, but I think they will fall withing 100 days since the end of war. 100 days will count from definitive end of all hostilities.
26. Putin wants to avoid Hague; I guess we have to concede it.
27. Who else will be on consul? We need to make sure consul will not be misused by Russians to misinterpret the agreement in Russia's favor.
28. OK. However, Ukraine needs to make sure that ceasefire is observed and not violated by Russia for at least a month before removing martial law and calling the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment