Russian president’s new ultimatum comes as foreign envoys meet in Switzerland to discuss western-led peace plan

Vladimir Putin has demanded that Kyiv cede more land, withdraw troops deeper inside its own country, and drop its Nato bid in order for him to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Putin’s fresh ceasefire demands were issued as envoys from more than 90 countries, including Ukraine, convene in Switzerland this weekend to discuss a western-led peace plan. Russia is not invited to the conference and the president’s remarks on Friday were likely to have been timed as a spoiler to that summit.

Speaking with diplomats at the Russian foreign ministry, Putin publicly updated his terms for ending the war in Ukraine for the first time since he launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, when he demanded regime change in Kyiv and the country’s “demilitarisation”.

The US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, said Putin was in “no position” to make demands on Ukraine and could end the war he had started “today if he chose to do that.”

  • Justas🇱🇹English
    231·
    6 months ago

    Yes, but now their propaganda machine can say that they want to stop the war.

    • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
      364·
      6 months ago

      As far as I can tell, that’s de rigeur for these now. It’s largely the same on both sides in the other war too.

      I think international pressure needs to be brought to bear. I can appreciate that the end of the war will likely require unpopular concessions. But I think humanitarian concerns as well as the need to halt the advance of authoritarian nationalism around the world requires an end to the two big wars.

      If we can’t find an end, the US should withdraw from both. Our role is prolonging them.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        50·
        6 months ago

        Can I come to your house and start taking your things and say you’re prolonging the suffering if you try to stop me, and we should just stop and go our separate ways (after I take a few more things)?

        • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
          113·
          6 months ago

          I don’t really get how this analogy is useful. I’m not of the opinion that anything Russia is doing is justifiable or just.

          Putin’s was of aggression is very bad. We agree on that.

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.worldEnglish
        27·
        6 months ago

        Lots of passive voice here. Ukraine is fighting off an existential threat from a historically genocidal state. All Putin has to do is stop issuing orders and the war ends right this second.

      • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
        24·
        6 months ago

        The sovereign government in Ukraine asks for our help in their defense. Why should we not?

        • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
          215·
          6 months ago

          This is a good question.

          I think I would support their defense more assertively if I was presented with a compelling case of what the options are, and what outcomes each might lead to.

          Currently, I feel like I’m only really presented with the demand that we continue to send enough weapons with restrictions that we keep the war going, as a way to weaken Russia geopolitically and to give money to the military industrial complex without a clear plan beyond that, or any sign that a victory is on its way. And then eventually, Biden loses in part because his foreign policy is broadly unpopular, and most likely Trump cuts off all aid and the Russia conquers Ukraine.

          I don’t see a coherent strategy to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position from where it is. Just a lot of jingoism. If there’s an actual plan to win, lay it out. Otherwise, it feels like the alternative is just the same outcomes currently on the table (or worse), but after more people are dead.

          • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            6 months ago

            The initial plan of US was to weaken Russia and make putin withdraw on its own.

            With recent delivery of long distance munition, changing policy on hitting into Russia and imposing sanctions on banks it is clear that the policy changed to let Ukraine defeat Russia even if it would result in a collapse of RF.

            • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
              23·
              6 months ago

              I appreciate that this is a little closer to an objective, but it doesn’t seem serious or coherent.

              For instance, why not fully commit? Why not give Zalinsky full permission to do whatever he wants? Why not let him strike Moscow? Why not threaten Moscow with a direct American attack?

              Are we willing to collapse the country or not? Are we committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure a complete victory for Ukraine or not?

              People act as though anyone who discusses limits to assistance is a traitor to our ally like we haven’t already been placing huge limits on our assistance, and like they themselves aren’t all opposed to actually doing the things I think it would take to win.

              Why are my limits a traitorous betrayal and Joe Biden’s limits courageous support of an ally when it’s not clear that there’s a meaningful difference in the outcome of the war?

              • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                6 months ago

                Oh, don’t worry, there will be full permission. In a few weeks, and it will be without headlines.

                • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  11·
                  6 months ago

                  Is this based on anything? I don’t know if this is meant to be taken literally, or if this is some kind of coded reference.

                  I feel like that would garner headlines.

                  • takeda@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    3·
                    6 months ago

                    It’s not.

                    The red line was placed by US itself as a response to Russia threatening using nuclear weapons if Ukraine gets any help.

                    Russia of course didn’t, but adopted that red line itself and used it on its propaganda.

                    As they started offensive on Kharkiv, and started bombing Ukraine from behind the border so Ukraine wouldn’t be able to respond, they essentially forced change of that red line.

                    US allowed to use of its weapons in that area.

                    Now the problem for Russia is:

                    • it was easy to say “no Western weapon can be used on territory of Russia”, but now they can’t say “it was fine to use Western weapons on Belogrod, but Rostov-on-don is a red line” that doesn’t work well in propaganda, is putin saying Belogrod isn’t Russia?
                    • other Western nations gave permission to use their weapons anywhere in Russia with no restrictions
                    • the actual agreement where Ukraine can hit and where it can’t are secret and known only to US and Ukraine

                    This means Russia (including maga politicians) once it stops with this sabre rattling, won’t really have much way to use propaganda about future changes.

                    The agreement being secret will also allow to be modified without much headlines. We will only learn after the fact. For example Russia reporting they saw fragments of US weapons in different areas. Most won’t care anymore.