British Insist No Negotiations To End Ukraine Conflict Be Allowed
June 16, 2022 (EIRNS)—British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy June 15, to reassure him that “Ukraine could count on the U.K.’s full and steadfast support until its eventual victory,” the read-out from 10 Downing Street reported. BoJo insisted that the upcoming G7 (June 26-28, Germany) and NATO (June 29-30, Spain) summits would “demonstrate the West’s unity and resolve to support Ukraine for the long-term.” No specifics of new aid were included in the read-out, other than both agreeing “on the importance of increased military training.”
The British monarchy’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) published commentaries two days in a row, insisting that no wavering on Ukraine “victory” be allowed.
The June 15 commentary, “Permanent Neutrality for Ukraine Is a Chimera,” authored by one Mart Kuldkepp (a champion of the Nazi “2014 Revolution of Dignity”), is the most important. RUSI has taken note that some in the U.S. elite are pushing for negotiations as a way to get out of the Ukraine war, and they are not amused.
Kuldkepp rails against the argument published by RAND Corporation Senior Political Analyst Samuel Charap, that the proposed agreement outlined in the “Istanbul communiqué” drafted by Ukrainian and Russian negotiators in late March, is “the most plausible pathway that has been identified to a sustainable peace for Ukraine.”
Reviving the Istanbul agreement is particularly dicey for the Anglo-American war hawks, because its basic framework was first proposed by Ukraine, and then accepted by the Russians as the basis for negotiations. Ukraine had opened a door to its withdrawing as NATO’s proxy in its war with Russia. Those negotiations abruptly fell apart shortly thereafter, with the staging of the Bucha “Russian war crime” operation. (Yesterday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said again that the Russians “have information” that the order for Ukraine to break off talks with Russians was “given by their American handlers.”)
Charap’s piece, published June 1 by Foreign Affairs under the title “Ukraine’s Best Chance for Peace: How Neutrality Can Bring Security—and Satisfy Both Russia and the West,” summarizes the proposal: “Kyiv would renounce its ambitions to join NATO and embrace permanent neutrality in return for receiving security guarantees from both its Western partners and from Russia.” Important details and difficulties aside, the key concept, Charap argues, is to “transform geopolitical rivalry over [Ukraine’s] alignment into mutual commitment to its long-term security.” If that succeeds in Ukraine, it could provide a model for other non-aligned states, such as Moldova and Georgia, “and even for a new European security architecture, in which Russia and the West remain geopolitical adversaries but accept certain red lines.”