"Would have been better if US had not given concessions before talks started, German defence minister says
German defence minister Boris Pistorius has been speaking to the media, too.
He says that if Putin is serious about peace talks – and he says there are doubts about it – he should show it by pausing attacks on Ukraine
He also says that Europe must be involved in any negotiations, particularly if Trump expects European allies to play a peacekeeping role in any future arrangement, as suggested by defence secretary Hegseth.
Speaking frankly, he then adds it would have been better if the US had not given concessions to Russia before the negotiations even started, pointing to the question of Ukrainian membership of Nato or any territorial losses.
He says that a quick peace deal would not necessarily resolve all worries about Russia’s increasingly assertive policy in the region, as he warns that Europeans would not be just able to “sit back and relax.”
He cautions against overly celebratory response to the peace talks announcement as he says that Putin keeps provoking Europe and remains a threat.
He says that while accepting stark geopolitical realities Hegseth spoke about, he specifically warned him against withdrawing US involvement from Europe."
Trump the great negotiator gives everything away before the negotiations even start.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
I detest the thought of Putin achieving his aims but realistically that territory is in Russian hands and the Ukrainians, by losing thousands more lives on the battlefield, won’t get it back.
What is the point of throwing more lives away for what sadly now appears to be a lost cause…
Keeping territories currently under occupation and freezing the contact lines, is not enough for Russia. Trump has given the Kremlin lifelines, some massive capital in negotiations and castrated Ukraine, but this alone does not lead to peace. It just makes it easier for Russia to prosecute the war.
I don’t know where this odd theory that Russia is interested in peace comes from. Russia has again and again said that it is not interested. It is interested in a technical pause, but not an end to the war.
This has been shown crystal clear to be untrue. The degradation of Russia’s war machine is stunning considering what little conventional aid it has recieved. The idea that Russia can keep up high intensity warfare for decades is beyond ludicrous and based on no facts what so ever. I am surprised you of all people have that impression.
Of course true. And if aid is cut off, Ukraine must capitulate in some form or way. But absolutely abhorrently unecessary !
Ask yourself if you lived in 1942, how your capitulation terms to Nazi Germany should be. Because that is the valid comparison here. A conditional Ukrainian capitulation where they cede large swathes of the country, binds itself into Russia’s spere through pacts of non-alliance, is the end of sovreignty.
But of course this will happen eventually when aid is cut off. Everyone capitulated to nazi Germany too. It’s what happens when you are invaded and lose. You capitulate, conditonally or unconditonally. The victor annexes land conquered and probably imposes a lot of other conditions upon you. But it’s not a “peace deal” as such.
And how well did that sort of appeasement work in 1938?
The only way that any peace deal will work is for Russia to be told with no ambiquity to fuck off out of Ukraine and return all land that they have stolen since 2014.
Every serious observer both inside and outside Russia knew that they had with current low level aid to Ukraine, no chance in hell to reach their war goals. It was all set for a Finish Peace after both Russia and Ukraine were exhausted, as Ukraine’s chance to regain all territory through offensives were shown to be dubious at best given how little aid we have been willing to give them, so holding out until Russian exhaustion became the current strategy. Now, Trump is tipping the scales in favour of Russia, by strangling Ukraine, which means that any peace deal will be significantly worse for Ukraine.
Maybe a better way of looking at it is a sliding scale. On one end, right is right. On the other end, might is right.
If Russia is allowed to forcefully invade Ukraine and annex its territory, it is a huge step on the scale toward might is right, and the world is a much worse place for it.
If this sort of stuff keeps going unchecked, subsequent steps in that direction will be easier, not just for Russia, but other rogue actors who want to take what is not theirs.
I feel the same way as you, but there is a huge difference between telling and enforcing.
Russia will do whatever it likes, as long as nobody else is enforcing things otherwise. So at that point the question becomes what is the price for stopping Russia, and is the West willing to pay that price?
To my limited way of looking at it, it seems the west is not willing to pay the price and Ukraine is screwed. It will be much less than what it was, and there’s no guarantee at all that Russia won’t come back for more, once they have regrouped and re-armed.
How do you propose achieving that then without thousands more lives being lost? I know a Ukrainian family who have come here to the UK including a father and son because they don’t want to die fighting.
I saw an old programme a while back where Michael Palin visited Crimea well before 2014 and his conclusion was that the population overwhelmingly identified as Russian and absolutely did not want to be Ukrainian. In the highly unlikely event that Ukraine got it back how would the population react?
And what happens when Ukraine isn’t enough, and Russia then decides to invade Latvia, or Estonia? Or Romania or Bulgaria? Or Poland or Czech?
You give Putin an inch and he will take a hell of a lot more than a mile. And people need to realise that without him being put back in his place we are going to end up just like in 1939, except this time around there are a number of countries with the capability of wiping out the entire planet
I was absolutely livid yesterday when I heard it reported what that idiot from Fox who is now the US Sec.of Defence had been saying. So much so that I just turned it off.
Am I right in thinking that , amongst the rest of it , he said that Europe alone would be responsible for policing the ‘peace’ and that any Russian attack on a Nato country would not invoke Article 5 , at least as far as the US is concerned ?
I agree. Collectively our various governments have not done enough to help Ukraine. Even under Biden American help was not unequivocal. Under Trump Russia will get everything it wants. Governments in western Europe have not done enough to help Ukraine either.
I do believe Russia will take and take and ultimately it will lead to even bigger war, perhaps even WW3.
Trump is hollowing out NATO and Russia will be keen to test the new reality. Western European governments need to invest a lot of money in defence to ready themselves, and hope that the deterrent will stave off Russian expansionist plans.
At best, in a post-Trump world things will move back at least somewhat in the direction of previous norms, between America and Europe.
My concern is that things are in danger of breaking beyond repair under Trump, and the relationship between America and Europe will be tested on any number of levels - trade, tariffs, intelligence and quite possibly (though hopefully not) a significant Russian move on a NATO country.
Given the size and budget of individual European countries, I would have thought a European army - nuclear armed, hi tech, ready to go, is justified. Asap.