WP: Kyiv and Washington have different views on the future of Ukraine

December 24 2022 36

The long-awaited "clock alignment" between Ukraine and the United States, which was supposed to be held by the heads of state Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden, did not take place. The parties remained completely in their opinion, moreover, deeply differing. The views of the presidents on the future of Ukraine differ greatly, and the meeting in Washington did not change anything in this regard. This is stated in an article by columnist David Ignatius, which was published by The Washington Post (WP).

Zelensky's visit to the United States became military, turning from economic and political to begging. However, the desired was not obtained, which only deepened the gap between the two allies, making the scenarios for the end of the conflict as remote from each other as possible.

- the journalist writes.

According to him, during his speech, Zelensky spoke about “absolute victory” in the conflict, using the term 11 times, while Biden did not use it even once, as if rejecting the very idea of “total victory.” Instead, he promised to continue helping Kyiv.

The American leader stressed that providing powerful weapons to Kyiv, which Zelensky demanded, could "split NATO." He added that one of the main goals of the West remains the prevention of conflict with Russia.

Most likely, such personal summits will become a tradition, and already next, in the coming year, Zelensky will have no time for requests, he will have to repay the accumulated tension between the allies

the reviewer concluded.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

0

24 December 2022 09: 31

And what different views Kyiv and Moscow have!
Vlad Sirs

-1

24 December 2022 09: 41

Normal tactics, ask for more - you will get what you need. In Kyiv, they understand that there is no way out of the war without a compromise, Crimea cannot be returned to Donetsk and Luhansk. You can bargain around the jumper to the Crimea and Zaporizhzhya NPP. So Moscow also has no other way except for compromises. In the spring there will be a real chance to start a roadmap, and in the autumn the beginning of peace negotiations and a ceasefire is almost inevitable.
Bakht

-2

24 December 2022 11: 35

The topic of peace talks is over. There is no return to it and there can not be any more. The war goes on until complete surrender.
Russia does not capitulate. The last argument is nuclear.
The West cannot capitulate either. They have the same nuclear argument.
In principle, Russia does not demand the capitulation of the West. Russia demands security guarantees for itself and the surrender of Ukraine. Negotiations can only be conducted in this format.
1. Vlad Sirs
  
  0
  
  24 December 2022 16: 46
  
  So Ukraine requires security guarantees and creates them by strengthening the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and what will the Kremlin do with this?
  1. In passing
    
    0
    
    24 December 2022 19: 06
    
    Your security guarantees will be included in the Russian package.
    1. Vlad Sirs
      
      0
      
      24 December 2022 21: 11
      
      )) nu-nu, so we’ll count the chickens in the fall, oh don’t say gop!
  2. Bakht
    
    0
    
    24 December 2022 19: 34
    
    Until 2014, Russia threatened Ukraine? Maybe she raised the issue of Crimea? Ukraine's accession to NATO is a threat to Russia's security.
    The same applies to the entry into NATO of Eastern European countries, the Baltics. But then Russia was weak. Now the situation has changed.
    Did Russia annex Donbass after 2014? Every process has a limit. Ukraine has stepped over this limit.
VAHOKA

-1

24 December 2022 15: 08

I, a sane Ukrainian, have only 1 view of the future of Ukraine, I already knew it on February 24 - Ukraine, regardless of the outcome of the war, is END, and all the territories remaining under its control will be doomed to poverty, rising prices, unemployment, deinstructionization, absence until the very end work and any life prospects
1. Bakht
  
  +1
  
  24 December 2022 16: 36
  
  A question for a sensible Ukrainian. And any double or triple meaning. Your words "and all the territories remaining under its control." Do you think it is possible that the state of Ukraine can survive?
  1. Vlad Sirs
    
    -1
    
    24 December 2022 16: 57
    
    The word MAY is no longer appropriate at the moment. Ukraine defended its statehood in ten-month battles with the RF Armed Forces. Today, we can only talk about whether the RF Armed Forces will be able to keep the land corridor to the Crimea (I think they can) and whether it will be possible to reach the borders of the DPR (there are doubts). And also when the parties finally begin the process of a peaceful settlement with inevitable concessions to each other.
    1. In passing
      
      +1
      
      24 December 2022 18: 59
      
      Lord, what statehood? Ukraine is a kept woman of the states and a little bit of Europe. Your social program is fully paid by the states, outside the country a quarter of the population is refugees, the hryvnia is worth nothing! One or two more shelling, and production will stop completely. You lost half a million in the war. And all for the sake of the English base in Ochakovo, the American base in Kharkov and the radio-electronic center in Vinnitsa! Undoubtedly, everything will end with negotiations and signings, but I'm not sure that Ukraine will be there at all.
      1. Vlad Sirs
        
        0
        
        24 December 2022 21: 14
        
        It’s very in vain that I’m not sure, you are still soaring in pink clouds of Wishlist, not wanting to accept reality.
    2. Bakht
      
      0
      
      24 December 2022 19: 36
      
      Ukraine has already lost its statehood. The question is whether it will survive as a state or not. If neutral, then there is a chance.
      In military terms, the question now is whether Russian troops will stop on the Dnieper or not?
      1. Vlad Sirs
        
        -1
        
        24 December 2022 21: 43
        
        Well, life doesn’t teach you anything, it seems that they already washed themselves with blood in Ukraine, but they didn’t get rid of illusions, accept REALITY, it’s time to end this senseless war.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        24 December 2022 21: 47
        
        The war will end with the surrender of Ukraine. This is the minimum program. This is reality.
    3. Bakht
      
      0
      
      24 December 2022 19: 38
      
      Did you listen to Putin's speech? The issue of peace negotiations is no longer relevant. And there can be no more concessions.
      1. Vlad Sirs
        
        0
        
        24 December 2022 21: 51
        
        Well, yes, there are no prospects, but the issue of a peaceful settlement is not relevant. I think Moscow will be satisfied with the existing corridor to the Crimea and access to the borders of the DPR in order to end the war. The problem is that Kyiv is not ready and believes that it is able to recapture the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions at least and only after that begin peace negotiations.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        24 December 2022 22: 20
        
        I wanted to hear the opinion of a sane Ukrainian. What you write is not so interesting.
        I will repeat again. Quote first
        
        Ukraine, regardless of the outcome of the war, is the END, and all the territories remaining under its control will be doomed to poverty until the very end
        
        If Ukraine is the end, then what territories that remain under its control are we talking about?
        Question. Will Ukraine survive as a state or not?
        From my point of view, Ukraine lost its subjectivity in 2014. Or at the end of 2013, when Maidan began.
        
        We proceed from the self-evident truth that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted by men, deriving their legitimate authority from the consent of the governed.
        In the event that any form of government becomes detrimental to these very ends, the people have the right to change or abolish it and establish a new government.based on such principles and forms of organization of power, which, in his opinion, will best provide people with security and happiness.
        
        No one in the world questions this document. If a part of the people is denied the right to freedom of conscience, religion and history, then this government becomes illegitimate.
        And in speeches at the UN it is said that "sovereignty is not a privilege of the state, but its duty."
        The preservation of Ukraine as a sovereign state can only be ensured by Russia. For 8 years in Kyiv, this has not been understood. We see the result now.
        
        What is happening now has already happened. Even 10 months of the war was not enough for Kyiv to understand obvious things. Now there is a question about the future borders and guarantees of Russia's security. I am more interested not in today's hostilities, but in the possibility of preserving Ukraine. And you tell me about some kind of peace talks. There can be no negotiations with Kyiv. Decisions will be made at the talks between Moscow and Washington. Nobody will ask Ukraine.
        
        In passing
        
        0
        
        25 December 2022 02: 56
        
        I'm afraid that nothing will work with Ukraine, except as part of the Russian Federation.
  2. VAHOKA
    
    0
    
    25 December 2022 18: 40
    
    First of all, the central region. What else did I mean?
    1. Bakht
      
      0
      
      25 December 2022 20: 11
      
      The central region is not viable. Without the industry of Donbass, ports on the Black Sea, without plowlands of the Black Sea, the center of Ukraine plus the western regions (if they do not pass to Poland) has no chance of statehood.
      
      I know that there are states and smaller central regions of Ukraine. And they also do not have access to the sea. But they are part of the economic agglomeration of the European Union. And in order to survive, they had to adhere to a policy of neutrality.
      
      Theoretically, central Ukraine could become a state. But for this she needs to change relations with her neighbors. Doubtful at this stage. I often refer to G. Sagalaev and his book "Wolf Leap". This quote (I gave it before, but it’s not a sin to repeat it), it seems to me, fully describes the situation in Ukraine
      
      The biggest mistake is to neglect the Russians. Consider the Russians weak. Offend the Russians. Never offend Russians. Russians are never as weak as you think. God forbid you expel the Russians or take something away from the Russians. The Russians always come back. The Russians will return and take back what is theirs. But when the Russians return, they do not know how to calculate the force and apply it proportionally. They destroy everything in their path. Don't hate Russians. Otherwise, when the Russians return to earth with the graves of their ancestors, those living on this earth will envy their dead ancestors.
      
      Ukrainians offended Russians. And that is why everything is being destroyed in Ukraine now. The Chechens found smart politicians. In Ukraine, these are not yet visible.
      1. Bakht
        
        +1
        
        25 December 2022 20: 53
        
        Here is another quote. Refers to Chechnya. But if you draw a parallel with Ukraine (and with any other post-Soviet country), then you can find a match.
        
        Further, in my opinion, the main paradox with tragic consequences in the centuries-old national policy of Russia - the USSR - Russia, in particular in the North Caucasus, was some kind of absurdly wasteful attitude towards its own Russian population. Russians Russia (and then the USSR) either settled where it was not necessary to settle, then then left them to the mercy of fate. Obviously, the settlement of certain territories by Russians was a wrong step, potentially dangerous. It didn't need to be done. However, on the other hand, if you have already settled, then in no case can you just forget and leave! If the first is a miscalculation and stupidity, then the second is a crime and betrayal.
        
        Yes, Russia is a multinational state. But this is the only Russian state. There is no other state in the whole world that would be obliged to protect the interests of the Russians. After the collapse of the USSR, only Russia could and was obliged to take care of the Russian population in the breakaway republics, as well as in its own semi-separated rebel territories, in Chechnya. When the Dudayevites began to gradually oppress their Russian-speaking neighbors, it was a trial balloon. How will Russia react? Eat?
        
        Ate. And large-scale ethnic cleansing began. And the confrontation began. Russia immediately lost its authority, even the authority of force - what authority can a country have if it is not able to protect its own? I am sure that if Russia from the very beginning had reacted harshly and definitely to the oppression of Russians in Chechnya, all this Dudaev-fascist bacchanalia would have ended quickly. And there would be no subsequent wars with all the victims and destruction, and there would be no indemnity paid today.
        
        Now Russia is protecting Russians in Ukraine. That is, it performs the MAIN FUNCTION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE. Just like G. Sadulaev, I am convinced that if Russia had protected the Russians in Ukraine in 2014 (and maybe earlier) (even with the introduction of troops), then this war would not have happened now.
        
        Vlad Sirs
        
        0
        
        27 December 2022 08: 56
        
        First of all, you should finally decide on the term Russian. What is meant by this, a supranational term that defines belonging to the values of the Republic of Moldova, or is it a purely ethnic term, in which case why on earth is it only a Russian state, dozens of other nationalities also have the right to their own state. The United States is unique in this regard; this issue was also successfully resolved in the USSR.
        Again, what is meant by RM and its values, and is it possible to unite all citizens of the Russian Federation with any universal ideology. Time has already answered about the Republic of Moldova, this is especially evident in Ukraine, which was an integral part of the Republic of Moldova. The issue of state ideology is the weak point of the Russian Federation, and they will hit this place.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        27 December 2022 15: 26
        
        You first need to read the book.
        
        The Chechen state exists within the framework of the Russian Federation, but it exists quite comfortably. The right balance of interests has been achieved. Right for the Chechen state.
        The question remains: what did Russia get?
        I have no answer to this question.
        I wrote a political history of Chechnya.
        The question of Russian interests belongs to the subject of Russia's political history.
        
        What is unique about the USA? There is no right to their own state for other nationalities. And even autonomy. Have you heard anything about Indian self-determination? Well, maybe on a reservation. At one time I worked in Alaska. There we read whole lectures on how to treat the local natives. This is pure discrimination wrapped in sweet words. In short, it sounded like this: "in no case offend the locals, because they are not people like us." To my objection that they are the same people, and I can joke with them as well as with the Americans, I was simply forbidden to communicate with them.
        You just can't imagine the extent of xenophobia in the States. Although she is wrapped in a beautiful wrapper.
        At one time, one of the English lords was asked "why is there no anti-Semitism in England?" He replied "We do not consider them better than us!"
        
        Russia is a multinational state. And many nations live as part of the Russian state. As part of the Russian world. By the way, speaking, not so badly live. In any case, no worse and no better than Russians. They have their own schools, their own universities and even their own governments.
        
        Ukraine is not a matter of ideology. This is a purely political problem, which was created by the West to weaken Russia. Unfortunately, this project for 100 years of its existence has borne fruit. Ukraine (Ukrainians) can no longer relate to the Russian world. Even if they speak Russian in Ukraine. This is a completely alien and hostile world to Russia.
        
        Therefore, I have always defended and continue to defend the thesis that "Russians and Ukrainians are by no means one people." Putin is wrong on this issue. These are two peoples hostile to each other.
        
        Vlad Sirs
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 07: 21
        
        The fact that Russian and Ukrainian relatives is unequivocal. But in life, relatives do not mean not enemies. The situation with Ukraine is natural based on what has been done in Moscow for the last 30 years since the destruction of the Union. Not Kyiv was the capital of the USSR.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        28 December 2022 08: 48
        
        Your interpretation is incorrect. The reality is this:
        
        The situation with Ukraine is natural, based on what has been done in Kyiv for the past 30 years. Moscow was not the capital of Ukraine.
        
        Vlad Sirs
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 11: 00
        
        Kyiv in 91 did exactly as much as Moscow allowed. According to Kravchuk, the maximum they counted on was a confederation, an independent state just fell on the Ukrainian nationalists’ heads while the Kremlin’s showdowns for power were going on in Moscow and they did not miss their chance.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        28 December 2022 13: 51
        
        You are trying to shift the blame for what is happening on Moscow. This is the wrong position. I would say false.
        
        For you, Ukraine is lost forever. The former state of Ukraine is dead. Mistakes in geopolitics are not forgiven.
        
        guest
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 16: 08
        
        Quote: Bakht
        Just like G. Sadulaev, I am convinced that if Russia had protected the Russians in Ukraine in 2014 (and maybe earlier) (even with the introduction of troops), then this war would not have happened now.
        
        I completely agree, but unfortunately history does not know the subjunctive mood.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 16: 31
        
        Quote: guest
        if Russia in 2014 (and maybe earlier) protected the Russians in Ukraine (even with the introduction of troops)
        
        Well, calculate the situation at least 2 moves ahead.
        Russia introduces troops, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are unable to organize resistance, some part of Ukraine de jure remains only in the western regions.
        
        The US / West, just like in 2022, is forced to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation.
        in 2014, the Russian Federation has net horse imports of agricultural products
        no power of Siberia
        no possibility to export LNG
        localization is really bad.
        + the end of 2014 is a collapse in oil / gas prices.
        
        those. the economy goes into a tailspin, and residents of the central regions of that Ukraine, instead of lace panties and the opportunity to go to work in Europe, receive coupons for swede.
        Protest moods "why the hell do we need this impoverished Russia" are dispersed instantly.
        The inhabitants of the Russian Federation itself are also in deep bewilderment, why the hell do they need this Ukraine at such a price.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 16: 40
        
        This has been discussed a hundred times. Yes, there would be big losses. But not blood. Which option is preferable - everyone decides for himself.
        
        Nelton
        
        -1
        
        28 December 2022 16: 56
        
        Quote: Bakht
        losses would be great. But not blood
        
        "not blood" was provided by migration.
        For the Russian Federation, it is much more profitable to get into its composition 3-5 million citizens who have deliberately chosen the Russian Federation.
        
        Well, how would the situation in Ukraine go if the Russian troops would find themselves in an extremely hostile environment?
        
        Ultimately, they would still have to leave Ukraine, and Ukraine would still have galloped off to integrate with Europe.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        28 December 2022 17: 29
        
        In 2014, the attitude towards Russia was not so negative. This is the first.
        Second. Russia would have received sanctions anyway. It has nothing to do with Ukraine or any other country. This is due to the systemic crisis of the world economy.
        Third. For some reason, no one wants to consider the economic component of the Maidan. Maidan was called Euromaidan. But Yanukovych did not refuse to sign European integration. He just wanted a reprieve.
        From the point of view of formal logic, he simply postponed the signing and called early elections for the fall of 2014. It is absolutely certain that he would have lost the elections and all the goals of the Maidan would have been fulfilled in the fall of 2014.
        Given that Russia at that time was not against integration with Europe, it becomes incomprehensible why this coup took place.
        But it if to consider from the point of view of formal logic. And if you listen to A. Merkel's speech in Vilnius and read the documents on Ukraine's euro integration and consider the problem from the point of view of geopolitics, then the West could not wait half a year. And such a protracted marathon was not profitable for Russia either.
        
        In order not to argue and not to write long. Russia had to pay for the crisis of capitalism and get military bases at the very border (the gun is pointed to the temple). It is good that the Kremlin understood this. It is bad that they did not solve the problem, at least up to the land corridor to the Crimea, Odessa and Nikolaev. Worse than now, it would not be.
        
        Nelton
        
        -1
        
        29 December 2022 10: 34
        
        Quote: Bakht
        In 2014, the attitude towards Russia was not so negative. This is the first.
        Second. Russia would have received sanctions anyway.
        
        In fact, in 2014 we were not slapped with serious sanctions.
        It was in 2015-2016 that a series of openings in the Russian Federation of large factories of Western partners took place, one of which (JCB equipment) came to open as much as the British prince, Michael of Kent.
        So they did everything right in 2014, that they did not climb into exacerbating the situation.
        
        Quote: Bakht
        It is absolutely certain that he would have lost the elections and all the goals of the Maidan would have been fulfilled in the fall of 2014.
        
        Well, here you are confirming that the bulk of Ukrainian citizens were for integration with the EU, and not with the Russian Federation ...
        I don’t see any reason to drag them on a lasso, and then live side by side with eternally dissatisfied “compatriots”, who sigh about the times of Euro-cowards and sincerely hate everything Russian.
        
        Worse than now, it would not be.
        
        It would be much worse.
        for 8 years, all the same, they have made very decent progress with the turn of exports to the east, the localization of imports and the development of agriculture.
        
        Bakht
        
        0
        
        29 December 2022 12: 10
        
        Sanctions were imposed immediately. For Crimea. Then for Boeing. Compared to today, we can say that they were not serious. But at that time they looked quite painful.
        
        The bulk of the population usually does not read documents. Rising prices, the destruction of industry - all this was spelled out in the documents on European integration. Therefore, for joining the EU there were oligarchs (sell cheap and dump abroad) and industrialists were against (pump money from enterprises and production). And the bulk of the population wanted "lace underpants". Eato now they are looking for quilted jackets.
        
        Worse or better is pretty subjective. I don't think it could be worse. In any case, Russia's losses in monetary terms over these 8 years amount to trillions. I'm not even talking about blood. And these losses continue to grow. So my opinion is that it could not be worse.
        
        guest
        
        0
        
        13 July 2023 00: 45
        
        Quote from Nelton.
        Well, how would the situation in Ukraine go if the Russian troops would find themselves in an extremely hostile environment?
        
        Then there was no such hostility as it is now, at least in the southeast.