Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while attending the annual NATO summit in Washington as a special guest has admitted that from Kiev's point of view, it can never get enough weapons from the West.
He said Tuesday night at a side event to the NATO forum that Ukraine has not yet received enough weapons to defeat Russia. And that's when he made an astounding admission: not only have Western arms deliveries not been enough to "change the situation on the battlefield" - but the reality remains that...
"It’s not enough. It’s never enough," according to Zelensky's remarks.
And while he welcomed Secretary of State Antony Blinken's earlier announcement that US F-16s are en route to Ukraine and will be airborne soon this summer, the Ukrainian leader also admitted, "Even if we will have 50, it’s nothing."
He then offered a specific figure he had in mind for US advanced jet fighters: "We need — they have 300. We need… because we are defending, we need 128," he told an audience at the Reagan Foundation.
Sadly this will not be the wake-up call for the West that it should be, which has only had a one-track approach to the proxy war with Russia, which can be summarized as: more, more and more weapons.
What about using the tens of thousands of diplomat personnel employed by the US Foreign Service to try to forge peace in Eastern Europe?
Meanwhile, the reality is that very few Western officials and diplomats are urging ceasefire negotiations and peaceful settlement as soon as possible...
Wow, two former British ambassadors and one American ambassador to Moscow here. The problem is both sides in the conflict are against ceasefire which will be just another Minsk - an opportunity to regroup and prepare for another war. Talks will likely happen sooner rather than… https://t.co/IbZ2VLTDVZ
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) July 10, 2024
Below is the full letter, Seize peace in Ukraine before it’s too late, as published in the Financial Times, authored by a number of former diplomats, statesmen, and prominent pundits.
* * *
Russia’s latest military gains in the Donetsk region reinforce the case for a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine. The US and its allies support Ukraine’s key war aim, which is a return to the 2014 frontiers, i.e., Russia’s expulsion from Crimea and Donbas. But all informed analysts agree that short of a serious escalation of war, the likeliest outcome will be continued stalemate on the ground, with a not insignificant chance of a Russian victory.
This conclusion points to the desirability, even urgency, of a negotiated peace, not least for the sake of Ukraine itself. Reluctance by the official west to accept a negotiated peace rests on the belief that anything short of a complete Ukrainian victory would allow Putin to “get away with it”.
But this ignores by far the most important outcome of the war so far: that Ukraine has fought for its independence, and won it — as Finland did in 1939-40. Some territorial concessions would seem a small price to pay for the reality, rather than semblance, of independence.
If a peace based on roughly the present division of forces in Ukraine is inevitable, it is immoral not to try for it now.
Washington should start talks with Moscow on a new security pact which would safeguard the legitimate security interests of both Ukraine and Russia. The announcement of these talks should be immediately followed by a time-limited ceasefire in Ukraine. The ceasefire would enable Russian and Ukrainian leaders to negotiate in a realistic, constructive manner.
We urge the world’s leaders to initiate or support such an initiative. The longer the war continues the more territory Ukraine is likely to lose, and the more the pressure for escalation up to a nuclear level is likely to grow. The sooner peace is negotiated the more lives will be saved, the sooner the reconstruction of Ukraine will start and the more quickly the world can be pulled back from the very dangerous brink at which it currently stands.
Lord Skidelsky
Professor Emeritus in political economy University of Warwick
Sir Anthony Brenton
British Ambassador to Russia (2004-2008)
Thomas Fazi
Journalist, author, columnist for UnHerd
Anatol Lieven
Senior Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship
Jack Matlock
US Ambassador to the USSR (1987-1991)
Ian Proud
British Embassy in Moscow (2014-2019)
Richard Sakwa
Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics, University of Kent
Christopher Granville
British Embassy, Moscow (1991-1995)
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while attending the annual NATO summit in Washington as a special guest has admitted that from Kiev’s point of view, it can never get enough weapons from the West.
He said Tuesday night at a side event to the NATO forum that Ukraine has not yet received enough weapons to defeat Russia. And that’s when he made an astounding admission: not only have Western arms deliveries not been enough to “change the situation on the battlefield” – but the reality remains that…
“It’s not enough. It’s never enough,” according to Zelensky’s remarks.
And while he welcomed Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s earlier announcement that US F-16s are en route to Ukraine and will be airborne soon this summer, the Ukrainian leader also admitted, “Even if we will have 50, it’s nothing.”
He then offered a specific figure he had in mind for US advanced jet fighters: “We need — they have 300. We need… because we are defending, we need 128,” he told an audience at the Reagan Foundation.
Sadly this will not be the wake-up call for the West that it should be, which has only had a one-track approach to the proxy war with Russia, which can be summarized as: more, more and more weapons.
What about using the tens of thousands of diplomat personnel employed by the US Foreign Service to try to forge peace in Eastern Europe?
Meanwhile, the reality is that very few Western officials and diplomats are urging ceasefire negotiations and peaceful settlement as soon as possible…
Wow, two former British ambassadors and one American ambassador to Moscow here. The problem is both sides in the conflict are against ceasefire which will be just another Minsk – an opportunity to regroup and prepare for another war. Talks will likely happen sooner rather than… https://t.co/IbZ2VLTDVZ
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) July 10, 2024
Below is the full letter, Seize peace in Ukraine before it’s too late, as published in the Financial Times, authored by a number of former diplomats, statesmen, and prominent pundits.
* * *
Russia’s latest military gains in the Donetsk region reinforce the case for a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine. The US and its allies support Ukraine’s key war aim, which is a return to the 2014 frontiers, i.e., Russia’s expulsion from Crimea and Donbas. But all informed analysts agree that short of a serious escalation of war, the likeliest outcome will be continued stalemate on the ground, with a not insignificant chance of a Russian victory.
This conclusion points to the desirability, even urgency, of a negotiated peace, not least for the sake of Ukraine itself. Reluctance by the official west to accept a negotiated peace rests on the belief that anything short of a complete Ukrainian victory would allow Putin to “get away with it”.
But this ignores by far the most important outcome of the war so far: that Ukraine has fought for its independence, and won it — as Finland did in 1939-40. Some territorial concessions would seem a small price to pay for the reality, rather than semblance, of independence.
If a peace based on roughly the present division of forces in Ukraine is inevitable, it is immoral not to try for it now.
Washington should start talks with Moscow on a new security pact which would safeguard the legitimate security interests of both Ukraine and Russia. The announcement of these talks should be immediately followed by a time-limited ceasefire in Ukraine. The ceasefire would enable Russian and Ukrainian leaders to negotiate in a realistic, constructive manner.
We urge the world’s leaders to initiate or support such an initiative. The longer the war continues the more territory Ukraine is likely to lose, and the more the pressure for escalation up to a nuclear level is likely to grow. The sooner peace is negotiated the more lives will be saved, the sooner the reconstruction of Ukraine will start and the more quickly the world can be pulled back from the very dangerous brink at which it currently stands.
Lord Skidelsky
Professor Emeritus in political economy University of Warwick
Sir Anthony Brenton
British Ambassador to Russia (2004-2008)
Thomas Fazi
Journalist, author, columnist for UnHerd
Anatol Lieven
Senior Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship
Jack Matlock
US Ambassador to the USSR (1987-1991)
Ian Proud
British Embassy in Moscow (2014-2019)
Richard Sakwa
Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics, University of Kent
Christopher Granville
British Embassy, Moscow (1991-1995)
Loading…
