A MUST READ on this issue?
The piece that Der Spiegel dropped
on March 3. It non-snarkily portrayed Zelensky as a would-be Churchill
whose popularity had pretty much cratered on broken promises before the
Russian invasion. It also notes that then-PM of Britain Boris Johnson did NOT sabotage a peace deal. It references his comment and analyzes it:
"Nobody can tell me that anyone can simply talk President Zelenskyy out of something like that, not even Boris Johnson. His closest advisors can’t even do so,” says Reznikov, the former defense minister.
"The conditions laid out by the Russians were completely unrealistic,” says Mykhailo Podolyak, one of the Ukrainian negotiators.
That's within the context of also saying Bucha, where Russia upped the ante on war crimes (of which Ukraine is not innocent, whether at Bucha or more broadly) was also a deal-breaker at the time.
As for realness or unrealness? Ukraine's insistence, per Wiki, at least before Trump became president, that Putin and other top Russians be prosecuted for war crimes and that it surrender all lands, including I presume the Donetsk and Luhansk that were supposed to be guaranteed autonomy under Minsk, is more unrealistic than Russia's stance today and, AFAIK, in mid-2022. If you want back the post-2022 lands, Zelensky, I can buy that, even if it's not totally realistic? Crimea? Even if I discount Putin for lying levels at 50 cents on the dollar, blame the US and the Maidan. Per Counterpunch, the likes of John Mearsheimer had Putin worried the Crimea would be like an aircraft carrier:
Mearsheimer presents the basic outline of Putin’s response to the coup. If Ukraine joined NATO, the Crimean port of Sevastopol would serve beautifully as a US/NATO military launching pad. The act of incorporating Crimea into Russia was “not difficult given that Russia already had thousands of troops at its naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Those forces were augmented by additional troops from Russia, many of them not in uniform. Crimea was an easy target because roughly 60 percent of the people living there were ethnic Russians, and most preferred to become part of Russia.
You're not getting it back. On the third hand, Yeltsin did pledge to respect Ukrainian territory; presumably, at least in 2000, Putin accepted that. On the fourth hand, in light of Counterpunch, the Maidan made that null and void.
That said, on the other side, the level of demilitarization of Ukraine that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted, along with just what constituted "denazification," were unreal on the Russian side. The latter was perhaps face-saving, but there was no way Ukraine was going to shrink its army by two-thirds or whatever. See this long piece for all the issues being faced at Istanbul in spring 2022.
None of this is to say that Johnson's framing of Zelensky had no effect. His referencing Zelensky as a new Churchill would have increased his willingness to dig in. But, he already had the support of his full government, and a vast majority of the populace, at the time.
One other thing must, MUST be
raised here, which I already knew, but is further backgrounded by Der
Spiegel. Per the Ukrainian constitution, Zelensky can “undeclare”
martial law and ask the Rada to approve that; he can then hold an
election after all.
We have parallels in the US. We held midterm
elections in 1814, even though the British had burned the White House in
late August and the threat of further invasion stood overhead. The
first Tuesday following the first Monday in November was not a uniform
election date then and many states held elections on other dates. Per Wiki,
the dates were April 26, 1814, to August 10, 1815. Eight states were
between Aug. 29 and Oct. 11, 1814, in the shadow of the Aug. 24 burning.
Of more direct relevance yet? On Sept. 25, 1862, Lincoln declared nationwide martial law
and nationwide suspension of habeas corpus. We still held midterm
elections. Later, tho not nationwide, Lincoln both declared martial law
and suspended habeas in Kentucky, starting July 4, 1864.
The presidential and lesser elections that fall were still contested in
Kentucky like elsewhere. To add to that? More than once, and most
recently since the dustup in DC, Zelensky has promised to resign — with
new elections following — in exchange for Ukraine getting into NATO. So,
you're wrong, Ms. Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ fellow traveler at The Dissident.
Zelensky just said you're wrong.
Zelensky, as Der Spiegel makes
clear, doesn't want an election because he's almost certain he'd lose.
And, I read through him enough to think that, for this and other
reasons, he wants the end of the war to be very far away, per his March 3 statement.
(One other reason is that he fears for his life if a peace treaty has
any real land concessions. On that, I can't blame him; the Ukrainian
neo-Nazis and fellow travelers are deadly serious.)
More here from Spiegel:
He has a powerful challenger in Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former head of the armed forces, who everyone believes is going to go into politics.
Second, once this war ends, Zelenskyy will have to take responsibility for an odious deal with Russia, which is likely to force Ukraine into difficult concessions. "Sixty percent of people want a deal. But when he signs, even these 60 percent will gather in front of the president’s office and protest against it,” says a close associate of the president.
"Zelenskyy will become a scapegoat. Everyone will pin their dashed hopes on him,” says Golovaha, the sociologist.
Can't argue with any of that.
If that's not good enough? Ivan Katchanovski:
That's the bottom line.
Beyond elections? Zelensky's idea to make the EU into a covert NATO for Europe is laughable. EU members that aren't in NATO have even less desire to spend more on defense budgets than do NATO members, in my opinion. Yes, EU head Ursula von der Leyen is proposing a spending hike; call me when it happens, as in, not just approved by EU member states, but when it happens. Beyond that, with Germany already staring at recession, a stare that helped trigger its snap election, the US now staring at a recession that will spread abroad and more, there's just no appetite for this.
As for the "Churchillian" angle? Spiegel nails that. Zelensky has an image investment:
"I think Zelenskyy is not yet psychologically prepared for the end of a war in which he is not the victor,” says Fesenko, the political scientist. The president, he says, has literally become one with this war, Zelenskyy demonstrates this by his beard, his paramilitary outfit and his evening addresses. "If he were to suddenly stop giving speeches and start wearing a suit and tie again, it would come as a shock to the Ukrainians.”
Exactly. He either can't, won't, or some mix of the above, on not letting go. And, this isn't new:
"Zelenskyy is consciously playing the role of Churchill, and he plays it well,” says historian Yaroslav Hrytsak. "But he won’t play it to the last consequence because he still can’t utter one sentence that Churchill said: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.’”
There again, it's hard to tell whether it's "can't" or "won't" that was in the driver's seat. But, the result is the same in any case.
Anyway, go read the full thing. Zelensky wasn't alone in thinking that Ukraine could make the war end with a Russian capitulation. We're talking his advisors here, not Boris Johnson or US Nat-Sec Nutsacks™.
As for the war itself? No, Russia hasn't had millions of casualties, contra Trump's blather. It's had a lot fewer, relative to population, than Ukraine. And, though Zelensky had great military PR with his excursions into Russian lands last summer, with Trump cutting off the US military pipeline, that bird is very much coming home to roost now.
None of this is to excuse Trump's version of American empire, which would not come with actionable security guarantees. None of this is to excuse Bagger Vance's sandbagging.
But? Even were Kamala Harris president, and trying to push Zelensky half as hard toward a peace with concessions, and without a shakedown, Zelensky would still resist just as much.
That said, after both US and European media posted 48 hours of blather from Trump surrogates, while Zelensky and his team smartly kept radio silence, he has now said he still wants to see progress — but with a vacuous statement that doesn't indicate anything has changed on his end. Per Binoy Kampmark, he in all likelihood won't change.
On the last hand? Vladimir Putin as president of Russia is as much an obstacle as Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraine, as noted up near the top. He, too, wants a maximalist solution, because of how much he's invested after the initial failure to blitzkrieg Kyiv. You should have read Colin Powell. This all said, I don't think he believes his own bullshit or his internal press clippings as Zelensky believes HIS own bullshit or Western press clippings.
To summarize? Zelensky is in trouble, but even if Kamala Harris were president, would still be obstinate. Putin is still greedy, despite the fact that, contra the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™, Trump is not his puppet. And, Trump is always greedy. A recipe for continued disaster bubbles on the stove.
