Early yesterday, Reuters published what it claimed is the text of the Ukraine/Europe proposal prepared for the London meeting earlier this week. It is full of provisions that Moscow has already rejected and otherwise cannot accept. In fact, it almost appears to be designed to fail, in order to force a breakdown in talks and usher in a new crisis—which has been the British strategy from the outset.
First on the list is “Commit to a full and unconditional ceasefire in the sky, on land and at sea,” followed by “Both sides immediately enter into negotiations on technical implementation with the participation of the U.S. and European countries.”
It proposes that “Ukraine receives robust security guarantees including from the U.S. (Article 5-like agreement), while there is no consensus among Allies on NATO membership. -No restrictions on the Ukrainian Defense Forces.” It then says “The guarantor states will be an ad hoc group of European countries and willing non-European countries. No restrictions on the presence, weapons and operations of friendly foreign forces on the territory of Ukraine.”
It declares that territorial issues will not be discussed “and resolved” until “after a full and unconditional ceasefire.” As for the resolution of territorial issues, it demands that “the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant be handed back to Ukraine (with U.S. involvement), along with the Kakhovka Dam.” Ukraine will enjoy “unhindered passages on the Dnieper River and control of the Kinburn Spit.”
Ukraine’s reconstruction is to be paid for by Russia “including through Russian sovereign assets that will remain frozen until Russia compensates damage to Ukraine.” It concludes: “U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 may be subject to gradual easing after a sustainable peace is achieved and subject to resumption in the event of a breach of the peace agreement (snapback).”
This is a text whose authenticity has not been confirmed by either Kiev or the Europeans. It treats Russia as a defeated power, even though Russia is not only not losing the war, but is clearly winning on the battlefield.
