š§µ by @Tendar
1/9
The latest surge of news pages discussing the openness of the Kremlin for āpeace talks" is something what was expectable. The Kremlin monitors closely debates in the West, and from time to time inserts talking points into the debate, either directly or through its lesser minions in politics or in social media.
š§µ by @Tendar
2/9
To clarify this in the beginning: this proposal is neither serious nor it is Viable. Behind that lurks the same perfidious attempt as previous attempts of the Kremlin, playing with idea of peace but without seriously wanting it. It is about to dissuade and deter the West from doing the right thing and what the Kremlin seriously harms: serious opposition. The Kremlin cannot win this war when the West decides to help Ukraine in an organised and especially large fashion.
š§µ by @Tendar
3/9
Russia has always been working with that method. If Moscow cannot achieve its goals by military means, needs time or even gets into trouble, then it speaks of ceasefires or peace talks. Chechnya in 1995, Ukraine in 2014-15, Syria in 2015-19 ete. the list goes on. Whenever Russia needs to pause then it "negotiates" temporal peace fires in order to reorganize and to focus at certain other points.
š§µ by @Tendar
4/9
In Syria "de-escalation" zones were formed, but they were only tactics to free Russia and its Iranian and Assad's minions on the ground, in order to focus on those battles they deem necessary. They did not have the numbers to fight all opponents in Syria at once. One by one Russia and its helpers violated the deals and destroyed the "de-escalation" zones.
š§µ by @Tendar
5/9
Russia, especially under Putin, considers peace and ceasefire as signs of weakness which can and will be exploited in the long run. They are but means to establish control and are stages of preparation for later engagements. In fact, Russia stands as the best example for the proverb: "Treaties are only ink on paper". Moscow regularly violated treaties whenever necessary. The Budapest Memorandum is but another example how detrimental any agreement with Putin is.
š§µ by @Tendar
6/9
He is a spy and thug, thinking only in categories of grandism, revanchism, imperialism and the zero sum game. There is literally no room for genuine peace with this kind of an opponent. Not today, not tomorrow.
Any suggestion of a peace deal with this Russia would lead to anywhere but peace. In the contrary, aside from a eventual escalation in Ukraine, Putin would feel so emboldened that he would even consider a direct attack against NATO possible.
š§µ by @Tendar
7/9
He would conclude that the West is weak and not even considering to defend its eastern borders. This is of course a misconception, but a dangerous one because it would eventually lead to a world war. It is imperative that the West leaves not even the slightest ambiguity.
š§µ by @Tendar
8/9
The only lasting solution leading to peace is Russia's sound and clear defeat. We already have very good examples in this very war in Ukraine how this works. Without any grain deal, Ukraine was able to re-establish grain supplies to the world. It achieved this not by having any fragile agreements, but by thoroughly defeating the Russian navy and forcing its withdrawal. This is the only language Moscow understands and even respects.
š§µ by @Tendar
9/9
It is time that the last people in the decision-making positions in the West recognize, accept and react to this very fact which even the old Romans understood:
"Si vis pacem para bellum."
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Tendar
What's Betamax? š¼