I listened to an interview recently, I believe on BBC, where the interviewee said the biggest issue with peace talks is that the international community isn't able to trust Putin to keep his word on whatever is agreed upon. I hadn't considered that, but it makes a lot of sense and I'm not sure how that could change
But Putin was they only party to the previous Minsk agreements who kept his word. Merkel and then Hollande admitted that they never had any intention of honoring the agreements.
The same argument can be used in favor of Russia. NATO has invaded plenty of countries under false pretenses in the past. Both Russia and NATO do not have a reputation for keeping their promises.
You draw new borders and stop shooting, that's a start. You then keep the agreement by having enough military for a new invasion to be undesirable. Simple game theory. Trust and promises only work for societies that mutually respect each other.
Step up military aid to Ukraine significantly. That is the only way to peace. Giving in to russian demands would only lead to a short cease fire, before they launch their next attack.
That so many Germans have bought into russian propaganda is a major hurdle.
The primary problem is that for negotiations to even begin is that Ukraine itself has a law that forbids anybody to negotiate with Putin before Ukraine has regained all it's lands, even Zelensky himself would technically speaking commit treason by agreeing to talk on peace terms before this law is repealed. That is unless Scholz speaks of the "Zelensky peace plan" that is basically Russia gives up all the pre 2014 territories and then Kiev will negotiate with Moscow. Which is equally nonsensical and impossible situation.
I don't know if what if any Scholz is trying to do here. All talk most likely for domestic audience, because the opposition won big in regional elections in Germany lately on "no more money to Ukraine" platform.
Ukraine's government can change that law if they want to, of course. And if things keep going as they have been, they will have to choose between doing that and losing even more territory.
Attempts at maximum escalation have not produced good results for the Ukrainian people. I would like fewer of them to die given the realistic options available.
Re: Scholz I think the higher-ups in Western Europe are aware that their "support for Ukraine" is more about trying to hurt Russia than help the Ukrainian people. I would expect more to jump ship as the possibility of anything other than a full rout starts to vanish. These countries aren't going to actually sacrifice anything they value in order to actually help common Ukrainian people. At the moment their "aid" is mostly weapons and ammunition whose main purpose is to prop up military contractors.
I believe it must be seen as a meagre attempt to appeal to the rising numbers of supporters of the AfD and BSW. Both political parties have won significant ground in the latest state elections and both can be considered Putin-friendly, to say the least.
In the past, Schulz has followed closely the position and decisions of the USA and I cannot see this changing in the foreseeable future.
Essentially yes because both holding elections or negotiating would spell doom to many Kiev politicians and very likely not just their political careers.
Sooo they can bend the law and postpone holding elections
No, Ukraine was attacked, so parliament and president declared martial law. Ukraine is constitutionally prohibited from holding elections until it is over.
I am the most inexpert of laypeople on this subject, but I've wondered whether the incursion into Russian territory has been to give Ukraine a better position to negotiate on a mutual return of territory in talks, if they come about.
We have to speculate about it, but it is a reckless maneuver that has led to the nee, rapid losses on the main front. I would expect that it is reckless ideologues trying to push it.
Ukraine has seen some high-profile resignations just before and during this, so it is possible that the early resignations was people opposed to invading a sliver of Kursk and the later ones might be people that wanted to invade.
It's incredibly funny that the level from which we'd be 'stepping up' is holding a 70 nation conference for peace that the country winning the war was not invited to
Considering their idea of peace is the total capitulation of their opponent and systematic erasure of its population, I dont see what tangible benefit inviting them would be.