Two Presidents Focusing Upon Negotiation Rather Than Awaiting Further Costs Associated With Capitulation: Erdogan Of Turkiye And Macron Of France. They Need To Visit Together Moscow Then Kyiv.
Reached An Inflection Point For Ukraine?
Door Has Re-Opened For Face-To-Face Discussions With President Putin.
Two Heads Of State Who Focus Upon Negotiation Rather Than Awaiting Further Costs Associated With Capitulation: President Erdogan Of Turkiye And President Macron Of France. Time For Both Of Them To Visit Together Moscow Then Kyiv.
Ukraine And Russian Federation Have Negotiated Exchanges Of Prisoners In UAE And Turkiye; And Have Negotiated Export Of Agricultural Commodities In Turkiye. Can’t Zelensky And Putin Meet To See If They Can Negotiate A Cease Fire, End To Hostilities?
Where To Host Zelensky And Putin? Ankara.
Might President Erdogan And President Macron Convince President Putin To Strike A “Grand Bargain” To Include Withdrawal From Georgia, Moldova, And Ukraine In Return For Removal Of All Sanctions, NATO And EU Considerations, And Sacrificing The US$340 Billion?
Is The Distance Between What Ukraine Wants And May Be Likely Outcomes Measured By US$260+ Billion In Taxpayer Borrowing? Yes, It Is. Unpleasant As This May Be.
These are the realities:
Ukraine and Russian Federation war efforts are funded and subsidized by same parties; thus, no incentive for Ukraine and Russian Federation to desist until funding and subsidies abate. By 24 February 2024, third parties will have committed approximately US$160 billion to Ukraine and commodity export revenues of approximately US$200 billion to the Russian Federation. Additionally, there is approximately US$340 billion in assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation which have been frozen. Constraining funding will force parties to realign their objectives.
Armed forces of Ukraine and armed forces of the Russian Federation each targeting infrastructure- in Ukraine, in Russian Federation, in territories of Ukraine controlled/annexed by Russian Federation.
What is preferred targeting- structures which may be rebuilt or people who may not? Choices are power generation facilities, water treatment facilities, and gas delivery systems or apartment buildings, civilians, members of armed forces, government officials, and citizens of third countries.
Ukraine and Russian Federation position on negotiation: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable. Neither party wants to compromise.
Neither Ukraine nor Russian Federation believes it has suffered enough to warrant negotiation. Too few citizens and members of armed forces have been killed and wounded; and not enough infrastructure value has been damaged and destroyed and unable to be repaired, rebuilt, or replaced.
Ukraine holds responsible United States, European Union, and NATO for doing nothing in advance of or subsequent to Russian Federation invasion of Georgia in 2008 and in advance of or subsequent to Russian Federation invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022. The position is had Ukraine entered the EU and NATO in 2014, Russian Federation would not have invaded in 2022.
Last week at The White House in Washington DC should have provided optimism that face-to-face conflict management would replace commentary delivered at a distance. It did. For A moment.
There was a moment of optimism. Then, however, the now normalized process of officials within The White House and at the United States Department of State clarifying, revising, untangling, and “walking back” statements by Joseph Biden, President of the United States, when there was not only no need to do so, but by doing so harmed further a process for ending, or at least suspending, what will be 24 February 2023 be global expenditures of approximately US$200 billion directly and indirectly relating to Ukraine- with more than US$120 billion coming from United States taxpayers in the form of borrowing and adding to the annual deficit and to the national debt.
President Biden and Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic of France, who was on a state visit to the United States, along with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of the Republic of Turkiye, who has remained an interlocutor with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, continue to appreciate that only face-to-face discussions and then negotiations will begin the process of unwinding everything that involves Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
But first, Presidents Zelensky and Putin need to agree to meet with one another. To date, each has declared what they have, what they want from one another, what they will not offer one another.
Current Positions
The next political inflection point will be when President Putin agrees to meet with President Zelensky. He is likely to accept an invitation from Presidents Erdogan and Macron to meet in Ankara, Turkiye, with President Zelensky. Untenable for President Zelensky to impose conditions which President Putin must accept prior to face-to-face negotiations.
What President Zelensky wants is for President Putin to agree in advance to all demands of the government of Ukraine and then sign a document. That’s not how negotiations work. That is how a surrender works. That is how a capitulation works. A head of state is a diplomat- the chief diplomat of a country. Diplomats negotiate.
President Zelensky shared that negotiations would include the Russian Federation in advance accepting the “Restoration of territorial integrity, respect for the UN [United Nations] Charter, compensation for all damages caused by the war, punishment of every war criminal and guarantees that this will not happen again. These are completely understandable conditions.”
President Zelensky: Government leaders should “force Russia into genuine peace negotiations,” and that Kyiv had “repeatedly proposed” talks and described Ukraine’s demands including restoring its territory and receiving security guarantees as “completely understandable conditions.”
Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to President Zelensky: “Ukraine has never refused to negotiate,” but first, Russia needs to withdraw its troops from the country. “Is Putin ready? Obviously not.”
Mykhailo Podalyak, advisor to President Zelensky: “Ukraine has never refused to negotiate. Our negotiating position is known and open. Is Putin ready? Obviously not. Therefore, we are constructive in our assessment: We will talk with the next leader of (Russia).”
Davyd Arakhamia, the head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine Parliament) and a member of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence: “Our President Volodymyr Zelensky clearly named the conditions under which it is possible to talk about something with Russia. They include the restoration of territorial integrity, compensation for all the damages inflicted, punishment for all war criminals, effective guarantees that this will not happen again.”
G7 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States; European Union (EU) is a non-enumerated member) Statement on Ukraine (11 October 2022): “No country wants peace more than Ukraine, whose people have suffered death, displacement and countless atrocities as the result of Russian aggression. In solidarity with Ukraine, the G7 Leaders welcome President Zelenskyy’s readiness for a just peace. This should include the following elements: respecting the UN Charter’s protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty; safeguarding Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future; ensuring Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, including exploring avenues to do so with funds from Russia; pursuing accountability for Russian crimes committed during the war.”
United States Department Of State
Washington, DC
25 November 2022
Question: But [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark] Milley also said he sees there could be potentially a political solution environment between Russia and Ukraine right now to discuss diplomacy. Does the U.S. State Department agree with that assessment? Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson: Well, you’ve seen even President Zelenskyy speak about the need for this conflict to resolve through diplomacy and through negotiations and discussions. But we have not seen any kind of concerted effort from the Russian Federation to do so.
Question: To Turkey? Turkey is pushing Russia and Ukraine to – for peace talks, like trying to mediate them. Are you on the table to, like – is United States also a part of the negotiations? Mr. Patel: Well, you have seen even President Zelenskyy speak to the fact that an end to this conflict will likely need to come through discussion and diplomacy and negotiations. But we have yet to see any kind of concerted effort from the Russian Federation to do that.
Andrei Rudenko, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation: “We’ve always made clear our readiness for such talks. From our side there are no preliminary conditions whatsoever, except the main condition- or Ukraine to show goodwill.”
Inflection Point: “a moment when significant change occurs or may occur. A point on a curve that separates an arc concave upward from one concave downward and vice versa.”
Important for the government of Ukraine to appreciate that it is battling and sacrificing with the lives of its citizens, but the means to do so are provided substantially by third parties- who are also battling and sacrificing and enduring hardships in different ways due to the global impact of the war in Ukraine. Belittling from Kyiv as to what people outside of Ukraine are enduring compared to the citizens of Ukraine is insulting. Unhelpful too is a perception that the government of Ukraine, or individuals within the government of Ukraine, want to continue conflict for domestic political value- primarily to coerce NATO to engage directly within the territory of Ukraine and engage directly with the armed forces of the Russian Federation. NATO members will not be delivering their citizens to potentially perish on a battlefield in Ukraine fighting against the armed forces of the Russian Federation. While there does exist greater flexibility as to the level of punishment citizens of Ukraine are accepting toward the goal of removing the armed forces of the Russian Federation from all territory of Ukraine, there is less flexibility among those citizens of third countries. If President Zelensky is perceived as wanting to maintain conflict rather than ending conflict, which is not far off given current political trajectories, third party support will wane- and do so quickly.
Let’s first review…
On 15/16 November 2022 at the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia, Joseph Biden, President of the United States, was unwilling to meet with Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, was unwilling to meet with Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, to discuss Ukraine.
President Biden (prior to G20 Summit): “Look, I have no intention of meeting with him. But for example, if he came to me at the G-20 and said ‘I want to talk about the release of Griner,’ I’d meet with him. I mean, it would depend,”
Antony Blinken (prior to G20 Summit): “And first you’re looking ahead to the G20 in a few weeks – does President Biden have any plans to meet with Vladimir Putin there? No, he doesn’t.”
What a difference two weeks can make…
President Biden (1 December 2022): “… I have no immediate plans to contact Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin is -- let me choose my words very carefully -- I'm prepared to speak with Mr. Putin if in fact there is an interest in him deciding he's looking for a way to end the war. He hasn't done that yet. If that's the case, in consultation with my French and my NATO friends, I'll be happy to sit down with Putin to see what he wants -- has in mind. He hasn't done that yet…. And so, the question is: What is his decis- -- how does he get himself out of the circumstance he’s in? I'm prepared, if he's willing to talk, to find out what he's willing to do, but I'll only do it in consultation with my NATO Allies. I'm not going to do it on my own.”
Missing from President Biden’s answer? Reference to “consultation” with the government of Ukraine.
Question from journalist to Karine Jean-Pierre, White House Press Secretary (2 December 2022): [F]ollow-up from the President's -- the President's remarks yesterday about speaking to President Putin. Does that willingness reflect any kind of a shift in his thinking about Ukraine and diplomacy about Ukraine with or without Ukraine? So, no, that does not change -- that thinking. He has been very clear. He's written it in op-eds. You've heard him saying in speech, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Look, the President has said he has no plans to speak with Mr. Putin since Mr. Putin has shown no signs that he's willing to end the brutal war against the people of Ukraine. In fact, he has done the opposite, as you all have seen for yourselves and reported, as Russia has attempted to destroy Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and deprive the Ukrainian people of heat, power, and other critical services as winter approaches, causing suffering for millions of people. But President Biden has been clear: We will continue to provide support to Ukraine for as long as it takes as they defend their country against Russian aggression.
Background
On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded from the territory of the Russian Federation and from the territory of the Republic of Belarus and further invaded from the territory of the Russian Federation into the territory of Ukraine.
Since that date, official and unofficial reporting along with on-the-record, on background, and off-the-record comments, sometimes contradicted as the data migrates from one official to another, have posited ranges of a combined 100,000 to 200,000 dead, wounded, and missing amongst civilians in Ukraine and Russian Federation, and members of the armed forces of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. There are also two nationals of the Republic of Poland who died, according to initial analyses from NATO shared by President Biden, due to a missile launched from Ukraine by the armed forces of Ukraine.
Neither Ukraine nor Russian Federation believes it has suffered enough to warrant negotiation. Too few citizens and members of armed forces have been killed and wounded; and not enough infrastructure value has been damaged and destroyed and unable to be repaired, rebuilt, or replaced.
The mantra, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” while good phrasing has never reflected accurately United States decision-making, nor that of other countries. The implication is the government of the United States, individually, and collectively as one of the thirty country members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), along with, though less cohesively, the twenty-seven country members of European Union (EU), and non-NATO, and non-EU countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, and United Kingdom for example) would not seek to craft or impose a cease-fire, peace treaty, or withdraw support for Ukraine absent dialogue with the government of Ukraine. If deemed in self-interest, governments will implement decisions to which the government of Ukraine objects. Examples thus far include providing the government of Ukraine what “what it needs” rather than “what it wants.”
Another initially cleverly-crafted, but currently considered not only untenable, but irresponsible, is “whatever it takes for as long as it takes” a variation of which Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO shared last week with “we will not back down.” These phrases have created and reinforced the controversy as to the use of and definition of another phrase, “blank check” as it relates to taxpayer borrowing for use relating to Ukraine. There are limitations- and sometimes politicians fail to appreciate they have moved past what their constituents, the taxpayers are comfortable supporting. The consequences unfold during the next election cycle.
The “blank check” position by governments was easier to market for both domestic and global audiences when what commenced on 24 February 2022 had not yet continued through 4 December 2022- now past nine months- 284 days. The next milestone for those advocating continued taxpayer borrowing to support Ukraine will arrive on 24 February 2023- the one-year mark.
Adding to the anxiety of politicians and taxpayers are statements from the government of Ukraine suggesting the end to the war could be within months, while civilian officials and military officers of NATO member countries suggest the war could endure for years- as the original conflict has since 2014 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded the Crimea Peninsula and the Donbas Region (Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast). Noticeably, Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), earlier this year was confident that all would again be normal by the summer of 2023- in time for a European music festival to be held in Kyiv rather than in Liverpool.
The other issue which becomes challenging to address is the economic and commercial impact of the war in Ukraine upon not only NATO member countries and EU member countries, but other countries, particularly those with economies easily imbalanced by changes to import costs, export revenues, energy price increases, supply chain disruptions, inflation, and currency value fluctuations. For politicians in those affected countries, maintaining one’s principles is far easier when constituents are not suffering.
Suffering is costly- and not only for those who are directly suffering. The cost of suffering in Ukraine has been shared and become a burden for other countries. There are limitations to the level of suffering that populations (constituents, voters) outside of a conflict zone(s) are prepared to endure in support of the suffering of others. The terms endless, bottomless, limitless, whatever-it-takes, as-long-as-it-takes, are not never-ending. They are finite. They are limited by the availability of funding- and the digestibility of governments to justify decades of borrowing.
President Biden’s comments at The White House last week also recognized and further frame domestic political realities. The Republican Party will have control of the United States House of Representatives from 3 January 2023 while the Democratic Party retains control of the United States Senate- likely gaining one seat (to be known on 6 November 2022 with the outcome of the election in the State of Georgia). While highly probable legislation submitted by the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) to authorize approximately US$40 billion in further United States taxpayer borrowing for commercial, economic, financial, humanitarian, and military assistance for Ukraine- directly and indirectly, will be approved, there is an increasing in size bipartisan political chorus for additional accountability for what has been delivered and what will be delivered is cement-like in the United States Congress and increasingly within the United States electorate.
Refusing to meet with President Putin while continuing to demand support from taxpayers throughout the world will result in President Zelensky perceived as showing resolve rather than showing a desire to end the war. He risks developing a horrifying persona- that he is so consumed with wanting NATO to engage in direct conflict with the Russian Federation that he is willing to continue and expand the suffering of the citizens of Ukraine and, consequently, citizens of many other countries. Rather than remaining a courageous man, he risks becoming a dangerous man- to the stability of those who support him. The hubris question.
Remarkable that current and former officials of the United States government, and commentators remain confident that President Putin is not prepared to engage in negotiations with President Zelensky. How do they know that?
President Zelensky doesn’t need to believe in what he is saying and doing, but he needs to project that he believes in what he is saying and doing. His is an actor- this will be his most important role.
The Money
The Biden-Harris Administration supports new legislation which would guarantee humanitarian, financial, government operations, and military equipment funding for Ukraine be available through at minimum 24 February 2023, the one-year anniversary of the invasion and further invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation. The value for new legislation most often referenced, on-the-record and on background, is approximately US$40 billion.
Since 24 February 2022, at the current rate of spending (including US$40 billion in new authority), United States taxpayer borrowing for use relating directly and indirectly to Ukraine will total approximately US$110 billion by 24 February 2023. Important to note that not all the funds have been dispersed- military equipment orders will not become deliverable military equipment in some instances until 2023 and continuing through 2026. This value does not include lending facilities provided by international financial institutions to which United States taxpayers are meaningful contributors including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).
And with Biden-Harris Administration officials reiterating that the war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation is more than a one-year event, at existing spending trajectories that timeline would equate to approximately US$100 billion annually in United States taxpayer borrowing.
In addition to the borrowing by United States taxpayers, the EU and its Europe-based affiliated financial institutions and NATO, of which the United States is an integral member, will collectively ask their taxpayers to borrow for 2023 approximately US$50 billion relating directly and indirectly to Ukraine which is added to approximately US$30 billion in borrowing thus far in 2022. Neither all EU nor NATO member funds have been distributed.
David Malpass, President of the World Bank, commented that the US$350 billion estimated by the government of Ukraine for the repair and reconstruction of infrastructure inflicted by the armed forces of the Russian Federation since 24 February 2022, including in those areas from 2014 and subsequently under control of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, continues to increase. For every day that the war endures, taxpayers in the United States and in NATO member countries and EU-member countries and other countries (Australia, Japan, United Kingdom, for example) will be forcibly ascribed by their respective political leadership to borrow further for use, directly and indirectly, relating to Ukraine.
President Zelensky Sees EU, NATO, And US Responsible For Paying
In 2008 and 2014, the United States was neither extracting nor producing nor exporting the quantities of oil and natural gas as in 2022 which could be available to third countries.
In 2008 and 2014, there had not yet emerged politically and economically acceptable replacements for energy product sources from the Russian Federation which governments could or would embrace.
In 2008 and 2014, the global collective commercial, economic, and political pain from enforcing global sanctions upon the Russian Federation for its invasion and occupying of Abkhazia Oblast and South Ossetia Oblast within the Republic of Georgia would have been far too much for leadership of governments to ask of their taxpayers without being voted out of office.
Because the United States and other countries did not take decisions in 2008 to dissuade the Russian Federation from invading and annexing the Abkhazia Oblast and South Ossetia Oblast in Georgia, and did not then implement subsequent sanctions which would serve as a deterrent rather than an annoyance to the Russian Federation, the United States and other countries are responsible for the damages inflicted by the Russian Federation upon Ukraine.
Because the United States and other countries did not take decisions prior to 2014 to dissuade the Russian Federation from invading and annexing the Crimean Peninsula and invading and annexing the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast) of Ukraine, and did not then implement subsequent sanctions which would serve as a deterrent rather than an annoyance to the Russian Federation, the United States and other countries are responsible for the damages inflicted by the Russian Federation upon Ukraine.
From the perspective of the government of Ukraine, because the United States and other countries did not implement sanctions against the Russian Federation prior to the 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation- as the government of Ukraine requested repeatedly, the United States and other countries are therefore responsible for all that has happened in Ukraine.
The ultimate clawback for responsibility.
