A discussion on the Russian president’s motivations, the West’s response and how the conflict could play out.
www.nytimes.com
A treaty with Ukraine with a "never join NAtO" clause, and "No NATO troops or military assets inside Ukraine", and "No EU membership" , and a Donbas settlement with withrawal of all Ukrainian forces out of Donetsk and Luhansk would have meant no Russian interference or troops and military operations inside Ukraine. Well, for a while at least.
NATO expansion makes it a competitive cold war all over again.
Putin's "opposition" inside Russia is Russia's (ostensibly at least) Communist Party and a lot of younger webz-minded younger people who are basically "Western" in culture and politics.
I think Putin knows his plan was broken up by popular support galvanized by Zelensky and western media. I think he knows there is a real threat to his continued power from within Russia. Putin's or Russia's (considering militarists and cultural nationalist Russians) do not really expect to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I think it is conceded that independent former Soviet states will be, at best, tepidly pro-Russian in any conveivable future, and nobody is going to hitch back up in any kind of stable political alliance. Pro-Russian oligarchs are a breed in the region that can best be understood as "Rat's on a sinking ship".
However, EU and western folks will become the pariahs in the region who fail most dramatically. Zelensky will fail politically sooner than Putin will.
It is actually irrelevant what Fiona Hill's endgame aspirations are, or what Obama wannabe totalitarians hope to achieve. The end of this will be more actual democracy, not less.
Putin would settle today if Zelensky took EU membership and Western alliances like NATO off the table.
www.fontanka.ru
