Article from the German Press on Ukraine: Russia Wants to Negotiate

________________________________________

(publishers note: This article first was posted by Max Blumenthal on Twitter. It appeared in the German publication “Emma” in German. For the original go to the Emma link just below. Using “Google Translate” it was translated from German to English. R.P)

________________________________________

In the current EMMA

March 4, 2023

“RUSSIA WANTS TO NEGOTIATE!”

Retired Major General Harald Kujat explains in an interview why the war could have ended long ago and complains about the media that want to make politics themselves. The former highest-ranking German soldier and chairman of the NATO-Russia Council says: “Perhaps one day the question will be asked who did not want to prevent this war.”

Will the Chinese proposal for ending the conflict in Ukraine result in negotiations?

________________________________

A positive starting point for a negotiated solution emerged at the end of March last year, for example, when the Russians decided to turn off before Kiev and concentrate on the east and the Donbas. That made the negotiations in Istanbul possible. A similar situation arose in September, before Russia carried out the partial mobilization. The opportunities that arose at that time have not been used. Now it would be time to negotiate again, and we don’t use this opportunity either, but do the opposite: we send weapons and escalate. This is also an aspect that reveals the lack of security policy foresight and strategic judgment.

________________________________

 

What value do you give to coverage of Ukraine in our mainstream media?

The Ukraine war is not just a military struggle; it is also an economic and information war. In this information war, one can become a participant in the war by embracing information and arguments that one cannot verify or judge on one’s own authority. In some cases, moral or ideological motives also play a role. This is particularly problematic in Germany, because it is mostly “experts” who have their say in the media who have no knowledge or experience of security policy or strategy and therefore express opinions that they obtain from the publications of other “experts” with comparable expertise. Obviously, this also puts political pressure on the federal government.

The debate about the delivery of certain weapon systems clearly shows the intention of many media to make politics themselves. It may be that my unease about this development is a result of my many years of service in NATO, including as Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission of Chiefs of Defense. I find it particularly annoying that so little attention is paid to German security interests and the dangers to our country as a result of the war escalating and escalating. This shows a lack of responsibility or, to use an old-fashioned term, a highly unpatriotic attitude. In the United States, one of the two main actors in this conflict, the handling of the Ukraine war is much more differentiated and controversial, but always guided by national interests.

At the beginning of 2022, when the situation on the border with Ukraine was becoming increasingly critical, you spoke to the then Inspector of the Navy, Deputy General Kai-Achim Schönbach, and in a certain sense backed him. He urgently warned against an escalation with Russia and accused the West of having humiliated Putin and that one should negotiate with him on an equal footing.

I did not comment on the matter, but to protect him from unqualified attacks. However, I have always believed that this war must be prevented and that it could have been prevented. I also made a public statement on this in December 2021. And at the beginning of January 2022, I published proposals on how negotiations could achieve a result acceptable to all sides that would still avoid war. Unfortunately, things turned out differently. Perhaps one day the question will be asked who wanted this war, who didn’t want to prevent it and who couldn’t prevent it.

How do you assess the current development in Ukraine?

The longer the war lasts, the more difficult it becomes to reach a negotiated peace. The Russian annexation of four Ukrainian territories on September 30, 2022 is an example of a development that will be difficult to reverse. That is why I found it so regrettable that the negotiations that took place in Istanbul in March broke down after great progress and a thoroughly positive outcome for Ukraine. In the Istanbul negotiations, Russia apparently agreed to withdraw its armed forces to the level of February 23, before the start of the attack on Ukraine. Now the full withdrawal is being demanded again and again as a prerequisite for negotiations.

The longer the war lasts, the more difficult it becomes to reach a negotiated peace. The Russian annexation of four Ukrainian territories on September 30, 2022 is an example of a development that will be difficult to reverse. That is why I found it so regrettable that the negotiations that took place in Istanbul in March broke down after great progress and a thoroughly positive outcome for Ukraine. In the Istanbul negotiations, Russia apparently agreed to withdraw its armed forces to the level of February 23, before the start of the attack on Ukraine. Now the full withdrawal is being demanded again and again as a prerequisite for negotiations.

What did Ukraine offer in return?

Ukraine had pledged to renounce NATO membership and not to permit the stationing of foreign troops or military facilities. In return, it should receive security guarantees from states of its choice. The future of the occupied territories was to be resolved diplomatically within 15 years, with the explicit renunciation of military force.

Why wasn’t the treaty that would have saved tens of thousands of lives and spared Ukrainians the destruction of their country?

According to reliable information, the British Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, intervened in Kiev on April 9 and prevented the signing. His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war.

It is outrageous what is being played, of which the gullible citizen has no idea.

The negotiations in Istanbul were well known, and that an agreement was about to be reached, but from one day to the next nothing was heard. In mid-March, for example, the British Financial Times reported on progress. Corresponding reports also appeared in some German newspapers. However, it was not reported why the negotiations failed. When Putin announced partial mobilization on September 21, he publicly mentioned for the first time that Ukraine responded positively to Russian proposals in the March 2022 Istanbul negotiations. “But,” he said literally, “a peaceful solution did not suit the West, so it actually ordered Kiev to nullify all agreements.”

Our press is actually silent about this.

Unlike the American media, for example. Foreign Affairs and Responsible Statecraft, two renowned journals, published very informative reports on this. The Foreign Affairs article was by Fiona Hill, a former senior staffer on the White House National Security Council. She is very competent and absolutely reliable. Very detailed information was also published in the pro-government Ukrainska Pravda on May 2nd.

Do you have any more information about this monstrosity?

It is known that the main content of the draft agreement is based on a proposal by the Ukrainian government on March 29. Many American media are now also reporting on this. However, I have learned that the German media are not willing to take up the subject even if they have access to the sources.

What do you think is the core problem?

Russia wants to prevent geopolitical rival USA from gaining a strategic superiority that endangers Russia’s security. Be it through Ukraine’s membership in the US-led NATO, be it through the stationing of American troops, the relocation of military infrastructure or joint NATO maneuvers. The deployment of American systems of NATO’s ballistic missile defense system in Poland and Romania is also a thorn in Russia’s side, because Russia is convinced that the USA could also use these launching facilities to eliminate Russian intercontinental strategic systems and thus endanger the strategic nuclear balance. The Minsk II agreement also plays an important role, in which Ukraine has committed to granting the Russian-speaking population in Donbas by the end of 2015, through a constitutional amendment with greater autonomy for the region, minority rights that are standard in the European Union. There are now doubts as to whether the US and NATO were prepared to seriously negotiate these issues before the Russian attack on Ukraine. In his book “Am Abgrund” (2015), Wilfried Scharnagl clearly shows that Western policy is an unbelievable provocation and that if the EU and NATO do not change course, a catastrophe could ensue. Yes, you have to reckon with that. The longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of expansion or escalation.

There are now doubts as to whether the US and NATO were prepared to seriously negotiate these issues before the Russian attack on Ukraine. In his book “Am Abgrund” (2015), Wilfried Scharnagl clearly shows that Western policy is an unbelievable provocation and that if the EU and NATO do not change course, a catastrophe could ensue. Yes, you have to reckon with that. The longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of expansion or escalation.

We already had that in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That was a similar situation.

How do you assess the decision to supply tanks to Ukraine?

Weapon systems have strengths and weaknesses due to technical features and thus – depending on the training level of the soldiers and the respective operational framework conditions – a certain operational value. In combined arms combat, various weapon systems work together in a common command and information system, whereby the weaknesses of one system are offset by the strengths of other systems. With a low level of training of the operating personnel or if a weapon system is not used together with other systems in a functional context and the operating conditions are possibly difficult, the operational value is low. This means there is a risk of being knocked out prematurely or even the risk of the weapon falling into the opponent’s hand. This is the current situation in which modern western weapon systems are used in the Ukraine war. In December, Russia began an extensive program to evaluate the technical and operational-tactical parameters of captured Western weapons, which is intended to increase the effectiveness of its own operations and weapon effectiveness. In addition, there is the fundamental question of the means-end relationship. What purpose should Western weapons serve? Zelenskyi has repeatedly changed the strategic goals of Ukrainian warfare. Currently, Ukraine’s goal is to recapture all Russian-held territories, including Crimea. The German Chancellor says we will support Ukraine as long as it is necessary, including in pursuing this goal, although the US has meanwhile emphasized that it is only a question of “retaking the territory that has been occupied by Russia since February 24, 2022 “. It is therefore necessary to answer the question of whether the means of Western arms deliveries are suitable for fulfilling the purpose intended by Ukraine. This question has a qualitative and a quantitative dimension. The US is not supplying any weapons other than those for self-defense, weapons that would enable combined arms combat, and most importantly none that could trigger a nuclear escalation. Those are President Biden’s three `no’s.

How does Ukraine intend to achieve its military goals?

Ukraine’s chief of staff, General Zalushniy, recently said: “I need 300 main battle tanks, 600-700 infantry fighting vehicles and 500 howitzers to push Russian troops back to the positions before the February 24 attack. However, with what he received, “major operations are not possible”. However, it is questionable whether the Ukrainian armed forces still have a sufficient number of suitable soldiers to be able to use these weapon systems in view of the heavy losses in recent months. In any case, General Zalushniy’s testimony also explains why the supply of weapons from the West does not enable Ukraine to achieve its military goals, but only prolongs the war. In addition, Russia could surpass the western escalation with its own at any time. In the German discussion, these connections are not understood or ignored. The way in which some allies are trying to publicly urge the federal government to deliver Leopard 2 main battle tanks also plays a role here. That has never happened before in NATO. It shows how badly Germany’s reputation in the alliance has suffered as a result of the weakening of the Bundeswehr and with what commitment some allies are pursuing the goal of exposing Germany to Russia in particular.

What fuels Zelsenkyj’s view that the Russians can be expelled from Ukraine?

Possibly, with the weapons systems promised to them at the next donor conference on January 20, the Ukrainian armed forces will be able to defend themselves somewhat more effectively against the Russian offensives taking place in the coming weeks. However, you cannot reconquer the occupied territories by doing so. According to the US Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, Ukraine has achieved what it could achieve militarily. More is not possible. That is why diplomatic efforts should now be started to achieve a negotiated peace. I share this view. It should be borne in mind that Russian forces apparently intend to defend the conquered territory and conquer the rest of the Donbas in order to consolidate the territories they annexed. They have well adapted their defensive positions to the terrain and heavily fortified. Attacks on these positions require great effort and the willingness to accept significant casualties. The withdrawal from the Kherson region freed up approximately 22,000 combat-ready troops for offensives. In addition, other combat units are relocated to the region as reinforcements.

Possibly, with the weapons systems promised to them at the next donor conference on January 20, the Ukrainian armed forces will be able to defend themselves somewhat more effectively against the Russian offensives taking place in the coming weeks. However, you cannot reconquer the occupied territories by doing so. According to the US Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, Ukraine has achieved what it could achieve militarily. More is not possible. That is why diplomatic efforts should now be started to achieve a negotiated peace

But then what is the purpose of the arms deliveries that do not allow Zelensky’s goal to be achieved?

Current US efforts to persuade Europeans to continue supplying arms may have something to do with this development of the situation. You have to distinguish between the publicly expressed reasons and the concrete decisions of the federal government. It would lead too far to go into the whole spectrum of this discussion. However, I would wish that the federal government would be given really competent advice on this issue and – what is perhaps even more important – would be receptive and able to make judgments in line with the importance of this question. The federal government has already gone a long way in supporting Ukraine. Arms deliveries do not yet make Germany a party to the conflict. But in connection with the training of Ukrainian soldiers on these weapons, we support Ukraine in achieving its military goals. In its report of March 16, 2022, the scientific service of the German Bundestag therefore declared that the secured area of non-warfare was thus left. The USA will also train Ukrainian soldiers in Germany. In its preamble, the Basic Law contains a strict imperative for peace in our country. The Basic Law only tolerates the support of a warring party if this is suitable for enabling a peaceful solution. The Federal Government is therefore obliged to explain to the German population within what limits and with what aim support for Ukraine is provided. Finally, the Ukrainian government should also be shown the limits of support. Some time ago, even President Biden stated in a dedicated article that the USA will continue to support Ukraine militarily, but also its efforts to achieve a negotiated peace in this conflict.

The Ukrainian army has been attacking the Russians for weeks – without success. Nevertheless, Selenskyj speaks of reconquest. Is this propaganda or is there a real possibility?

No, the Ukrainian armed forces are incapable of doing that, according to both the American and Ukrainian chiefs of staff. Both warring factions are currently back in a stalemate, exacerbated by seasonal restrictions. So now would be the right time to resume the broken-off negotiations. The arms shipments mean the opposite, meaning that the war will be needlessly prolonged, with more casualties on both sides and the continued destruction of the country. But also with the result that we are drawn even deeper into this war. Even the NATO Secretary General recently warned against escalating fighting into a war between NATO and Russia.

They say we have a “stalemate” again. What do you mean by that?

A positive starting point for a negotiated solution emerged at the end of March last year, for example, when the Russians decided to turn off before Kiev and concentrate on the east and the Donbas. That made the negotiations in Istanbul possible. A similar situation arose in September, before Russia carried out the partial mobilization. The opportunities that arose at that time have not been used. Now it would be time to negotiate again, and we don’t use this opportunity either, but do the opposite: we send weapons and escalate. This is also an aspect that reveals the lack of security policy foresight and strategic judgment.

In your text, you also mentioned that the Russian Defense Minister, Shoigu, had signaled his readiness for negotiations…

… that’s what Putin did too. Putin explicitly offered to resume negotiations on September 30, when he declared two more regions to be Russian territory. He has done this several times in the meantime. Now, however, the fact is that Shoigu didn’t make it conditional, but Putin sort of raised the bar by saying we’re ready to negotiate, but of course that assumes that the other side annexes the areas that we’re annexing have, acknowledges. This shows that the positions of both sides harden the longer the war lasts. Zelenskyy said he would only negotiate once the Russians had completely withdrawn from Ukraine. This makes a solution increasingly difficult, but it is not yet impossible.

I would like to mention one more event. In an interview, Ms. Merkel…

… yes, what she says is clear. She only negotiated the Minsk II agreement to buy Ukraine time. And Ukraine also used this to build up its military forces. Former French President Hollande has confirmed this.

Petro Poroshenko, the former President of Ukraine, said the same thing.

Russia understandably calls this a scam. And Merkel confirms that Russia was deliberately deceived. You can assess that however you want, but it is a blatant breach of trust and a question of political predictability. What cannot be denied, however, is that the refusal of the Ukrainian government – aware of this intended deception – to implement the agreement just a few days before the start of the war was one of the triggers for the war. In the UN resolution, the federal government had committed itself to implementing the “entire package” of the agreed measures. In addition, the Chancellor and the other participants in the Normandy format signed a declaration on the resolution in which she once again expressly committed herself to implementing the Minsk agreements.

Concerning Merkel’s comment that she only negotiated the Minsk II agreement to buy Ukraine time:

Russia understandably calls this a scam. And Merkel confirms that Russia was deliberately deceived. You can assess that however you want, but it is a blatant breach of trust and a question of political predictability. What cannot be denied, however, is that the refusal of the Ukrainian government – aware of this intended deception – to implement the agreement just a few days before the start of the war was one of the triggers for the war. In the UN resolution, the federal government had committed itself to implementing the “entire package” of the agreed measures. In addition, the Chancellor and the other participants in the Normandy format signed a declaration on the resolution in which she once again expressly committed herself to implementing the Minsk agreements.

Isn’t that also a breach of international law?

Yes, that is a breach of international law, that is clear. The damage is immense. You have to imagine the situation today. The people who wanted and still want to go to war from the start took the position that you cannot negotiate with Putin. He doesn’t keep the agreements anyway. Now it turns out we are the ones who are breaking international agreements.

As far as I know, the Russians are honoring their contracts, even during the current war, Russia has continued to supply gas. But Ms. Baerbock announced full-bodied: “We don’t want any more Russian gas!” Russia then throttled the crowd. Wasn’t that how it was?

Yes, we said we don’t want any more Russian gas. All the consequences, the energy crisis, the economic recession, etc. are the result of the decision of the federal government and not a decision of the Russian government.

But if you hear or watch the news, there is the energy crisis because of Putin’s decision to go to war with Ukraine.

In the past there have been two gas supply difficulties caused by Ukraine. You should be honest about that. Russia would continue to deliver, but we no longer want anything from there because it attacked Ukraine. Then the question arises: who actually blew up North Stream II?

What is your experience in negotiations with Russia?

I conducted many negotiations with Russia, e.g. B. about the Russian contribution to the Kosovo mission of NATO. The United States asked us to do this because they couldn’t come to any conclusions with Russia. Finally, Russia was willing to place its troops under a German NATO commander. In the 1990s there was close political coordination and military cooperation between NATO and Russia, regulated by the NATO-Russia Basic Treaty since 1997. The Russians are tough negotiating partners, but if you come to a joint result, then that’s it and it’s valid.

What was the result?

The Russians wanted a kind of codecision right in the negotiations on the basic treaty. That wasn’t possible. However, we have found a way to find common solutions in cases where the security interests of one side or the other are affected. Unfortunately, after the war in Georgia, NATO largely suspended cooperation. The run-up to the Ukraine war has also shown that arrangements made to resolve crises and conflicts when relations are good are valuable when tensions arise. Unfortunately, you didn’t understand that.

(The interview, conducted by Thomas Kaiser, first appeared in the Swiss internet newspaper Zeitgeschehen im Focus. Thank you for permission to reprint.)