Notes

Ukraine war: Countdown has begun to end of Putin, say Kyiv officials
For the globe, continued arms shipments to Ukraine presages a dangerous escalation that pushes the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. To sound the alarm, join our Peace in Ukraine Coalition and participate as a representative of an organization or as an individual activist in our bi-monthly organizing calls. Help us build and amplify the anti-war movement to demand money for climate, housing and healthcare, not endless war. 2) Organize a weekly "Ceasefire Now" street vigil at your local farmer's market or anywhere people gather. Our coalition's page for resources provides fliers that expose the costs of war, posters for tabling and one click computer messages from DSA and CODEPINK. If you are in high school or college, engage students in tabling and circulating with clipboards on campus.

They would rather fight – or more accurately, let Ukraine fight, in the hope of defeating Russia. Its counteroffensive is making progress, but slowly and painfully. In addition, he urged all parties to swiftly agree and implement a nuclear safety and security protection zone at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And we need to make a further distinction, between a temporary truce and a more durable ceasefire. Over the past week, more than 200,000 Russians have fled their country to avoid conscription.
On 28 February President George HW Bush announced a unilateral ceasefire. Kuwait had been liberated and Iraqi forces were in retreat – attacks on them from the air were causing carnage. Yet Bush wondered at the time whether it would have been better to arrange something equivalent to the formal Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri on 2 September 1945.

Can the Security Council stop a war?
It is true that Russia too has not implemented its obligations arising from Minsk, but it cannot be pretended that Ukraine is actually working for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The same considerations apply to international interventions to support a friendly government facing an insurgency. It is usually the policy that the local military should take over from these outside forces, but it is hard to know exactly when it is ready to do so. In the first instance the negotiation is therefore often between the indigenous government and its external backers about providing the assistance it needs to survive.


Meanwhile, sanctions on Russia would remain; its economic and military strength would continue to erode; and Putin could only watch as his frozen assets abroad are drawn down to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction. In this scenario, the United States would give the Ukrainian military whatever it needs to advance as far as possible in its counteroffensive. At an appropriate point next year, Ukraine would declare a pause in offensive military operations and shift its primary focus to defending and rebuilding liberated areas while integrating with Western institutions. Then, at its July, 2024 summit in Washington, NATO would invite Ukraine to join the Western alliance, guaranteeing the security of all territory controlled by the Ukrainian government at that point under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. But Russia under Putin has
never ended its wars at the negotiating table; at best it has frozen them, keeping its options open.

Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios
NATO expansion should be abandoned and new European security arrangements agreed, to avert repetitions of this crisis. This is piled on top of the existing economic crisis, including in Britain. With food and fuel bills soaring already, this war comes at an unaffordable price for working people. A piece in the Guardian pointed out that while British troops may not be fighting, the country is on the “economic front line” of the war.


This will get worse as sanctions bite further, and worse still as arms spending is increased further. So if Russia manages to stymie plans A and B, where would that leave us by, say this time next year? Should Ukraine and its allies simply carry on, hoping for a breakthrough in 2025 or beyond? Given what’s at stake — not just the survival of Ukraine but of the whole international order — that would be risky. It would make success dependent on events we cannot predict or control, including on the outcome of elections in Western countries, including the United States.

Russia's economy is still working but sanctions are starting to have an effect
In this they were helped by Pakistan’s recently appointed foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was sent to New York to negotiate with the Security Council but failed to do so. It suited his own ambitions for Pakistan to split, as he could then take over the rump state (excluding what became Bangladesh). And we need to make a further distinction, between a temporary truce and a more durable ceasefire. Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to.

Although there are still some 60 UN Member States that have never sat on the Security Council, all members of the UN, however, agree under Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out decisions adopted by the Council. It implicitly means continued backing for Kyiv, as a future in the EU for Ukraine would be impossible with a full-blown victory for Russia. The first and most obvious way for Ukraine to win would be for its armed forces to take back all the territory Russia has unlawfully seized since its first invasion in 2014 —
including Crimea. This could see states like Poland and the Baltics decide to aid Ukraine on their own, which "might leave NATO's eastern front vulnerable and cause a crisis within the EU and European NATO". Moscow claimed to be focusing on the Donbas, although in months of fighting it did not make sufficient progress to be able to control all of this territory.
Richard Nixon had furious arguments with his field commanders, who wanted to use all available air power to slow down the communist advance. His priority was to bomb the North to persuade it to return to the Paris peace negotiations. https://euronewstop.co.uk/how-long-will-ukraine-last.html wanted a lasting agreement to get a deal that would provide some security to the South after US forces had left. In the end, he put sufficient pressure on Hanoi to get a peace settlement (although it did not last). Under Article 5 of the military alliance's charter, an attack on one member is an attack on all. But Mr Putin might take the risk if he felt it was the only way of saving his leadership.


At the outset of the meeting, the UN Secretary-General outlined a range of urgent actions. Efforts must prioritize civilian protection, including ending targeted attacks against them and the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas. “We must prevent further escalation, encourage every meaningful effort to end the bloodshed and, at long last, give peace a chance,” he said. The UN chief told the Security Council on Friday that “we need peace” in Ukraine, calling for urgent action on multiple fronts.

Mr Zelenskyy has called for public officials to disclose their incomes to increase transparency and eliminate corruption as Ukraine tries to meet the stringent requirements for its bid to join the European Union. Russian forces may try to push again along the entire front, at least to secure all of the Donbas region. In fact, no state has a right to join NATO – the existing member countries determine who should be admitted. On all other matters an affirmative vote of nine members “including the concurring votes of the permanent members” is necessary. Some of this is the direct consequence of the invasion, which has blockaded Ukrainian exports, and more is the consequences of sanctions imposed on Russia.
That is why its 2008 decision to admit Ukraine (and Georgia) at some point is so important and threatening to Russia. The extension of NATO is the extension of US power and military hegemony. It should have been wound up at the same time as the Warsaw Pact thirty years ago and replaced by new Europe-wide security arrangements.

However, that is not the same as saying that Ukraine’s present borders, which include millions of Russians and Russian-speakers, and which were constructed arbitrarily in Soviet time, are the most sensible. Russians in the east of the country have a right to self-determination too, which should be peacefully negotiated. There are similar problems in several parts of the ex-USSR, which needs recognising. No-one pretends that Putin’s Russia is anything other than authoritarian, but Ukraine is little better. Since the 2014 coup by nationalists, which overthrew Ukraine’s elected President, it has taken a number of undemocratic steps – the Communist party, which had mass support, has been barred from competing in elections.

One reason that countries such as Germany have been reluctant to send heavier weapons to the Ukrainians is that Berlin does not want to give Putin any pretext for escalation. In this they were helped by Pakistan’s recently appointed foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was sent to New York to negotiate with the Security Council but failed to do so. But it has not defined what it means, in this context, for the war to be “over.” Must there be a formal peace treaty? The Ukrainians have fought a clever media war, and they are remarkably consistent in the messages that they deliver to their own people and their Western allies, as well as their enemies in Moscow. But polls show that does not equal pacifism, with the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians supporting a prolonged defensive war. And it’s little reported outside Russia given the restrictions, but the digital underground has evolved in multiple directions.
It seems like a number of American officials understand that, having summed up their position as "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." Unless they agree to their own expulsion or suspension, permanent Council members can only be removed through an amendment of the UN Charter, as set out in Chapter XVIII. The move was greeted by a round of applause, and the resolution calls for Assembly members to meet ‘within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council, to hold a debate on the situation as to which the veto was cast’. However, unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, meaning that countries are not obligated to implement them. In other words, a negative vote by any of the permanent five (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom or the United States) can prevent the adoption by the Council of any draft resolution relating to substantive matters. When deciding on “procedural matters”, nine members need to vote in favour for a decision to be adopted.

Homepage: https://euronewstop.co.uk/how-long-will-ukraine-last.html