FM: John Whitbeck
Why did NATO countries issue an "ultimatum" yesterday
demanding that Russia agree by tomorrow to a 30-day pause
in hostilities rather than demanding that Russia agree to
a permanent cessation of hostilities?
Was it because they believed that Russia, with current
battlefield momentum and reason to believe that any
merely temporary pause in hostilities would be used by
NATO to improve its and Ukraine's military capabilities
for renewed hostilities, was highly unlikely to agree to
this but could be blamed and painted black for not
agreeing?
Why did NATO countries not demand that Russia agree to a
permanent cessation of hostilities?
Was it because they feared that Russia, while having
always sought a definitive peace agreement addressing the
root causes of the conflict, might agree to this and that
it would be difficult to save face for themselves by
presenting a potential "frozen conflict" along the current
military line of control as a NATO "win" and a Russian
defeat?
In any event, Russia has responded to NATO's ultimatum by
counter-proposing direct negotiations without
preconditions between Russia and Ukraine starting Thursday
in Istanbul, explicitly resuming the format and venue
which had almost achieved a cessation of hostilities three
years ago before those direct negotiations were abruptly
aborted by Boris Johnson's infamous peace-prevention
mission to Kyiv.
Will NATO, this time, give peace a chance?