The US should negotiate the best possible peace deal for Ukraine in bilateral negotiations with Moscow and then present it to Ukraine for approval to end Biden's senseless and unnecessary war.
Regarding point 7 of the peace proposal, I see the link to far-right parties links to a specific listing of parties. Who judges what counts as far-right and/or ultra-nationalist? We have seen that European media and politicians label AfD and several conservative parties in eastern Europe as "far right". I bet they (the European power elites and media) would label any right of center party as "far right" to stigmatize them. Who is to determine if a new Ukrainian right wing party counts as "far right"? My concern that this provision would be used to label and thus make illegal ordinary populist conservativism like powerful interests have already tried to do elsewhere in Europe.
That's a tricky and rather pertinent question you pose. How to define the limits beyond which ideas and actions cannot be tolerated in a democracy. And I think there does have to be limits. And importantly who determines these limits and then who is responsible for banning parties that over-step the set limits.
I'm assuming the elected legislative body of a country determines said limits and an independent judiciary is finally responsible for the decision to ban a party.
But then I'm no expert to be sure.
I did look this up for Europe (being based in the UK) as I found your question stirred up my need to know more and found the following:
"The most active countries on party closures are the Russian Federation (53 prohibited parties before 2022), Turkey (23 prohibited parties), Ukraine (22 prohibited parties), France (13 prohibited parties) and Romania (9 prohibited parties).
Fewer parties were prohibited in Spain (4 prohibited parties), Italy (3 prohibited parties), the Netherlands (3 prohibited parties and 1 rejected case), Belgium (3 prohibited parties), Germany (2 prohibited parties), Austria (2 prohibited parties).
Only one party ban occurred in Norway, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria, the UK and Greece.
Thus, a ban on political parties has taken place in 21 domestic jurisdictions among 46 member states of the [Council of Europe]."
Which tells you something about all these countries .... something which is very open to interpretation!
The UK party that was banned was Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. That ban was finally reversed after peace was restored. We still have some very unpleasant small ultra-nasty parties but they have never won a seat in Parliament although have won small numbers of seats in our local council elections, where they decide on road maintenance, street cleaning and building regulations. They generally tend to bicker and be nasty to each other when they get a bit more support and show their true colours and then fizzle back down.
Russia is not actually wanting to conquer or govern more territory of Ukraine. Acquiring territory was never a stated objective of Russia. A primary objective has always been to ensure that their neighbor Ukraine is not heavily armed with US or Nato weapons pointed toward Russia. This is why Russia invaded, because Ukraine was being heavily armed with offensive weapons and with an expanding military funded and trained by Nato. Putin viewed this as a blatant provocation of war. So Russia's major demand is Ukraine's neutrality. After Ukraine is de-weaponized, other countries could nontheless help Ukraine defend itself if attacked in the future. Russia cannot stop Ukraine being defended, but they will demand that Ukraine not have long range missiles and other offensive weapons.
The other main objective of Russia is for new elections and a regime change in Ukraine, so that the Russian related people in Ukraine are not subject to a Ukrainian ethnic-nationalist government intent on suppressing people's freedom to have Russian speaking schools and media in Ukraine. Russia wants a Ukrainian government that is not dominated by the Russian-hating ethnic nationalists, aka the neonazis.
So now, Ukraine and Nato will have to accept these terms in order to stop the conflict, or else the Russian military will continue its advanced and capture more territory... that's the reality of the war... Ukraine cannot win nor capture back any territory, according military experts. We already gave them 200 plus Billion and plenty of tanks and weapons, but they still lost, so giving more at this point won't help. It's Over. Just make the peace deal now, rather than wait until Ukraine loses even more.
If Putin and Trump can agree on a comprehensive Peace Proposal, Then Trump can say to Ukraine, Either agree to this or else the US will completely stop all assistance and remove all US personnel from Ukraine. This would surely end the war, no matter what help is offered by the European Coalition.
Perhaps the CIA could give their sock puppet Zelinsky the order to surrender. I think he’s having issues with the whole concept of unconditional and complete surrender of the occupied territories.
Yeah, get us out of the Muslim NATO alliance and make friends with Putin and work with him and let the Muslims have Europe because they gave up on it their own people instead of taking the streets and dealing with the problem at hand sit around and tolerate it that’s her problem. We don’t need NATO. We don’t need Ukraine.
– Russia requires all of 4 providences. But probably would accept that Russia governs all of Donetsk and Luhansk providences, but for the other 2 providences Russia only governs the amount of territory already gained.
-- As a compromise, Putin will not attempt to take Kherson, Kharkiv, or Odesa. But will need equal civil rights laws for Russians living there.
– The new Ukraine must be militarily neutral and not aligned with any aggressive or expanding military alliance such as NATO.
– The new Ukraine military must have a limit on their large weapons and certainly no long-range missiles of any kind, in order to protect Russia and its people from outside aggression.
– Yet Ukraine is free to make agreements with other countries for them to provide some security defense in case Russia ever makes proven attacks against Ukraine.
– Ukraine, the US and NATO have to legally recognize Russia's new territory, including Crimea from 2014.
– Ukraine must hold fair democratic elections within one month, overseen by the UN, Europe and Asia.
– Ukraine's Secret Intelligence and Security Force must be dismantled and not run by the extreme nationalists or neonazi groups.
– Russian-related and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine must be lawfully protected against government discrimination and disrespecting their equal rights and freedoms. All people in Ukraine must have equal rights and freedoms.
So lets say that Putin refuses any compromises or any goodwill in making a Ukraine settlement, and instead insist that his Russian Peace Proposal stands as it is, take it or leave it.
What can be the US options in response?
A) not agree to the Russian Peace Proposal
and in consequence Russia starts to easily take Ukrainian territory, and with no realistic militaristic opposition to an inevitable Russian advance. Then, each day Russia has more of Ukraine, and the West has less bargaining power in negotiating a final end to the 3 year conflict.
B) ask for some gestures of compromise and goodwill from the Russian president, to end the conflict and not acquire anymore territory, yet spare more Russian and Ukrainian lives by an immediate end to all fighting.
Regarding point 7 of the peace proposal, I see the link to far-right parties links to a specific listing of parties. Who judges what counts as far-right and/or ultra-nationalist? We have seen that European media and politicians label AfD and several conservative parties in eastern Europe as "far right". I bet they (the European power elites and media) would label any right of center party as "far right" to stigmatize them. Who is to determine if a new Ukrainian right wing party counts as "far right"? My concern that this provision would be used to label and thus make illegal ordinary populist conservativism like powerful interests have already tried to do elsewhere in Europe.
That's a tricky and rather pertinent question you pose. How to define the limits beyond which ideas and actions cannot be tolerated in a democracy. And I think there does have to be limits. And importantly who determines these limits and then who is responsible for banning parties that over-step the set limits.
I'm assuming the elected legislative body of a country determines said limits and an independent judiciary is finally responsible for the decision to ban a party.
But then I'm no expert to be sure.
I did look this up for Europe (being based in the UK) as I found your question stirred up my need to know more and found the following:
"The most active countries on party closures are the Russian Federation (53 prohibited parties before 2022), Turkey (23 prohibited parties), Ukraine (22 prohibited parties), France (13 prohibited parties) and Romania (9 prohibited parties).
Fewer parties were prohibited in Spain (4 prohibited parties), Italy (3 prohibited parties), the Netherlands (3 prohibited parties and 1 rejected case), Belgium (3 prohibited parties), Germany (2 prohibited parties), Austria (2 prohibited parties).
Only one party ban occurred in Norway, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria, the UK and Greece.
Thus, a ban on political parties has taken place in 21 domestic jurisdictions among 46 member states of the [Council of Europe]."
Which tells you something about all these countries .... something which is very open to interpretation!
The UK party that was banned was Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. That ban was finally reversed after peace was restored. We still have some very unpleasant small ultra-nasty parties but they have never won a seat in Parliament although have won small numbers of seats in our local council elections, where they decide on road maintenance, street cleaning and building regulations. They generally tend to bicker and be nasty to each other when they get a bit more support and show their true colours and then fizzle back down.
Russia is not actually wanting to conquer or govern more territory of Ukraine. Acquiring territory was never a stated objective of Russia. A primary objective has always been to ensure that their neighbor Ukraine is not heavily armed with US or Nato weapons pointed toward Russia. This is why Russia invaded, because Ukraine was being heavily armed with offensive weapons and with an expanding military funded and trained by Nato. Putin viewed this as a blatant provocation of war. So Russia's major demand is Ukraine's neutrality. After Ukraine is de-weaponized, other countries could nontheless help Ukraine defend itself if attacked in the future. Russia cannot stop Ukraine being defended, but they will demand that Ukraine not have long range missiles and other offensive weapons.
The other main objective of Russia is for new elections and a regime change in Ukraine, so that the Russian related people in Ukraine are not subject to a Ukrainian ethnic-nationalist government intent on suppressing people's freedom to have Russian speaking schools and media in Ukraine. Russia wants a Ukrainian government that is not dominated by the Russian-hating ethnic nationalists, aka the neonazis.
So now, Ukraine and Nato will have to accept these terms in order to stop the conflict, or else the Russian military will continue its advanced and capture more territory... that's the reality of the war... Ukraine cannot win nor capture back any territory, according military experts. We already gave them 200 plus Billion and plenty of tanks and weapons, but they still lost, so giving more at this point won't help. It's Over. Just make the peace deal now, rather than wait until Ukraine loses even more.
If Putin and Trump can agree on a comprehensive Peace Proposal, Then Trump can say to Ukraine, Either agree to this or else the US will completely stop all assistance and remove all US personnel from Ukraine. This would surely end the war, no matter what help is offered by the European Coalition.
Perhaps the CIA could give their sock puppet Zelinsky the order to surrender. I think he’s having issues with the whole concept of unconditional and complete surrender of the occupied territories.
Yeah, get us out of the Muslim NATO alliance and make friends with Putin and work with him and let the Muslims have Europe because they gave up on it their own people instead of taking the streets and dealing with the problem at hand sit around and tolerate it that’s her problem. We don’t need NATO. We don’t need Ukraine.
Here's the peace solution:
– Russia requires all of 4 providences. But probably would accept that Russia governs all of Donetsk and Luhansk providences, but for the other 2 providences Russia only governs the amount of territory already gained.
-- As a compromise, Putin will not attempt to take Kherson, Kharkiv, or Odesa. But will need equal civil rights laws for Russians living there.
– The new Ukraine must be militarily neutral and not aligned with any aggressive or expanding military alliance such as NATO.
– The new Ukraine military must have a limit on their large weapons and certainly no long-range missiles of any kind, in order to protect Russia and its people from outside aggression.
– Yet Ukraine is free to make agreements with other countries for them to provide some security defense in case Russia ever makes proven attacks against Ukraine.
– Ukraine, the US and NATO have to legally recognize Russia's new territory, including Crimea from 2014.
– Ukraine must hold fair democratic elections within one month, overseen by the UN, Europe and Asia.
– Ukraine's Secret Intelligence and Security Force must be dismantled and not run by the extreme nationalists or neonazi groups.
– Russian-related and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine must be lawfully protected against government discrimination and disrespecting their equal rights and freedoms. All people in Ukraine must have equal rights and freedoms.
So lets say that Putin refuses any compromises or any goodwill in making a Ukraine settlement, and instead insist that his Russian Peace Proposal stands as it is, take it or leave it.
What can be the US options in response?
A) not agree to the Russian Peace Proposal
and in consequence Russia starts to easily take Ukrainian territory, and with no realistic militaristic opposition to an inevitable Russian advance. Then, each day Russia has more of Ukraine, and the West has less bargaining power in negotiating a final end to the 3 year conflict.
B) ask for some gestures of compromise and goodwill from the Russian president, to end the conflict and not acquire anymore territory, yet spare more Russian and Ukrainian lives by an immediate end to all fighting.