I agree - the Russians typically drive a hard bargain at the negotiating table. But I also think the window of opportunity is closing for both Moscow and Kiev. The offensive by the Ukrainian Army demonstrated the weakness of the insurgency and prompted Russia's committment to escalate. That can only be done so many times and sustained for so long before the political and economic consequences start to overtake the value of intervening in the first place.Originally Posted by Firn
Also - there's the question of what are Russia's intentions? If the goal is to weaken the political stability of Ukraine, this is essentially mission accomplished.
I think this is a complex question once we start expanding the scope of consideration beyond Ukraine-Russia relations. I don't think the sanctions are compelling the Russians to come to the table - I think it's their recognition that they've achieved a good portion of the goals, and a good deal now is better than holding out for a perfect deal later. There's a decreasing return on investment the longer the intervention continues. And the Russians aren't typically ones to fret too much about spilled milk and the loss of good will when it comes to preserving their perceived core interests. Ukraine is going to need alot of help in the near future and by necessity, Russia will probably play a role in that - and I think that's exactly what the Russians want.Originally Posted by Firn
The question I'm concerned about: what's in it for the U.S.? The U.S. can afford to be bellicose in its rhetoric: (1) it doesn't cost anything, (2) it signals to domestic and international audiences that the U.S. is serious, and (3) the U.S. does not have to live with the threat of a potential Russian invasion. Hence - the willingness of Kiev, Berlin, etc to talk with Moscow. But can the U.S. afford to undermine an agreement between Kiev and Moscow, even if that agreement appears to favor Russia?
Bookmarks