E TAMBÉM EU, QUE NÃO SOU NINGUÉM COMO O ROMEIRO, ESTOU DESDE O INÍCIO A TENTAR PERCEBER A ESTRATÉGIA

E parece que até Josep Borrell, ao vir queixar-se publicamente da cobertura ocidental às operações de charme por esse mundo fora de Sergei Lavrov, já terá percebido que o isolamento internacional da Rússia... pois, tem dias.

Entretanto, nos EUA, segundo a Associated Press

«The Biden administration likes to say Russia has become isolated internationally because of its invasion of Ukraine. Yet Moscow's top officials have hardly been cloistered in the Kremlin. And now, even the U.S. wants to talk.

President Vladimir Putin has been meeting with world leaders, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country is a NATO member. Meanwhile, his top diplomat, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, is jetting around the world, smiling, shaking hands and posing for photos with foreign leaders — including some friends of the U.S.

And on Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he wants to end months of top-level U.S. diplomatic estrangement with Lavrov to discuss the release of American detainees as well as issues related to Ukraine. The call has not been scheduled but is expected in coming days.

The handshakes and phone calls cast doubt on a core part of the U.S. strategy aimed at ending the Ukraine war: that diplomatic and economic isolation, along with battlefield setbacks, would ultimately force Russia to send its troops home. (...)»

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: MAIS UM PERIGOSO CASAL DE PUTINISTAS A APELAR A CONVERSAÇÕES NO "NEW YORK TIMES", ESSE ANTRO DE PROPAGANDA PRÓ-RUSSA

O artigo vem assinado por Samuel Charap e Jeremy Shapiro e tem por título, «The US and Russia need to talk to each other before it’s too late»

Curiosamente, ignora a União Europeia.

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: GUTERRES SAI DE CASA!

António Guterres, na qualidade de Secretário-Geral da ONU, irá à Rússia encontrar-se com Putin dia 26, seguindo-se encontro com Zelensky a 28. Como diz o velho ditado: a esperança é a última a morrer.

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: «A BOLA ESTÁ DO LADO DA UCRÂNIA»?

 A linguagem é futebolística, as bombas são as bombas e os relvados serão ruínas...

«O porta-voz do Kremlin, Dmitri Peskov, disse hoje que a Rússia apresentou à Ucrânia uma proposta de acordo que explicita os seus pedidos no âmbito das conversações de paz e que aguarda a resposta de Kiev. (...)»

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: PONTOS DE VISTA SOBRE AS CONVERSAÇÕES EM ISTAMBUL

O representante ucrâniano na ONU, Sergiy Kyslytsya, afirma sobre o encontro na Turquia, que «as negociações (...) demonstraram que talvez a Rússia esteja disposta a avançar [no processo de paz], embora haja ainda um longo caminho até chegarmos a um cessar-fogo sustentável e a uma desescalada geral».  

O chefe da delegação russa em Istambul, Vladimir Medinsky, diz que o «terceiro dia de conversações em Istambul foi construtivo», embora também tenha declarado que o recuo das tropas russas em Kiev e Chernigov não representa um cessar-fogo.

Zelensky avalia o encontro dizendo: «Podemos considerar positivos os sinais que nos chegam (...), embora esses sinais não silenciem a explosão das bombas russas. (...) Claro que não vemos razão para confiar nas palavras de certos representantes de um Estado que continua a lutar pela nossa destruição. Os ucranianos não são ingénuos. Os ucranianos já aprenderam durante estes 34 dias de invasão e nos últimos oito anos de guerra no Donbass que apenas podemos confiar num resultado concreto.»

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: RETOMAM-SE AS CONVERSAÇÕES

De 28 a 30 de Março vão de novo sentar-se à mesma mesa representantes da Ucrânia e da Rússia. O encontro terá lugar na Turquia. Entretanto, Biden pediu, durante a visita à Polónia, a cabeça de Putin, esquecendo-se de que a hipocrisia é um ganho civilizacional. Digo-o sem qualquer espécie de cinismo. Macron esteve bem e custa-me para caramba escrever isto. 

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: QUER PUTIN REALMENTE A PAZ?

«Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a televised statement said that he was ready to discuss a commitment from Ukraine not to seek NATO membership with Russian President Vladimir Putin in exchange for a cease-fire as the 'West doesn't know what to do with us [Ukriane] in regard to NATO membership.'  Such a commitment can be done only if Russia agrees to complete withdrawal of its troops and a guarantee of Ukraine’s security, said Zelesnkyy. 

“It’s a compromise for everyone: for the West, which doesn’t know what to do with us with regard to NATO, for Ukraine, which wants security guarantees, and for Russia, which doesn’t want further NATO expansion,” Zelenskyy said on Ukrainian television channels.

He then reiterated that Kyiv intends to hold direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding that unless the two leaders meet it may be impossible to understand if Russia "even wants to stop the war."  Kyiv will be ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the eastern Donbas region held by Russian-backed separatists, Zelenskyy offered, adding that this can be done only after a cease-fire and security guarantees.»

LIDO AQUI

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: JOE BIDEN e XI JINGING, UMA CONVERSA DE SURDOS

«Joe Biden and Xi Jinping failed to bridge their differences over the Ukraine war, with the US president warning of “consequences” if Beijing provided military aid to the Kremlin while China’s leader lashed out at “sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions” imposed on Russia by the west. (...)»

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: NOTÍCIAS DAS CONVERSAÇÕES AO VIGÉSIMO DIA DE GUERRA

«On the 20th day of the Russian attacks on Ukraine, the Adviser to the Head of the Office of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Mykhailo Podolyak said that they have resumed talks on the major negotiating topics with Russia. He further stated that they will discuss the topics of general regulation, ceasefire and troops withdrawal from their country's territory. Both sides are signalling progress in the talks.»

SOBRE CONVERSAÇÕES DE PAZ EM TEMPO DE GUERRA

«When war erupts, we are tempted to assume that diplomacy has failed. In fact, most states use force and diplomacy simultaneously. This assessment applies negotiation analysis methods to the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine—and, indirectly, NATO—to determine the likelihood of a negotiated ceasefire agreement that would end the Russian invasion and open the door to a more comprehensive peace deal. (...).»

GUERRA NA UCRÂNIA: NEM CESSAR-FOGO NEM ACORDO

Um encontro na Turquia entre os ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros ucraniano e russo que durou hora e meia e nada trouxe de novo ao estado da guerra. A previsão, ao invés de apontar para uma solução mais próxima, é, pelo contrário, a de que os bombardeamentos e as movimentações das tropas russas se intensificarão nos próximos dias.

Em paralelo, Macron e Olaf Scholz terão falado separadamente com Zelensky e Putin.

Portanto, a guerra e o seu cortejo de horrores continuam.

Com o aumento do número de pessoas desesperadas a tentarem fugir, a ONU veio alertar para a situação das crianças que dão por si sozinhas no meio do conflito, sujeitas ao tráfico de menores. E se pior é sempre possível, às vezes é difícil imaginar pior. 

QUANDO FINALMENTE OS MINISTROS DOS NEGÓCIOS ESTRANGEIROS UCRÂNIANO E RUSSO SE ENCONTRAM...

Oxalá, desta reunião na Turquia, país anfitrião representado pelo turco Mevlvut Çavusoglu, possamos vir a dizer, bem-humorados: Mevlvut Çavusoglu, Dimitro Kuleba e Sergey Labrov entram num bar...

«ARE WE CHEERING ON UKRAINE TO DESTRUCTION?» GRANDE, GRANDE ARTIGO!

A jornalista e escritora Mary Dejevsky diz tudo o que eu gostaria de ter a inteligência para dizer. O artigo é de 5 de Março. A evolução dos acontecimentos parece estar a dar-lhe razão. 

«We’re just ten days into Russia’s assault on Ukraine and the western world has painted itself in Ukraine’s colours. Cities and towns have hung out Ukrainian flags and lit their public buildings in blue and gold. The BBC has changed the pronunciation of the Ukrainian capital from Kiev to Kyiv. Tesco is driving the supermarkets’ charge to rename chicken Kiev.

And leading the cheers for Ukraine’s heroes have been the legislatures, from London to Brussels to Washington DC. MEPs watched a video message from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in respectful silence before erupting in applause and tears. The US Congress gave the blue-and-gold clad Ukrainian ambassador a prolonged standing ovation at Joe Biden’s State of the Union address. At Westminster, the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, gave his blessing to the deafening applause, normally forbidden, that greeted Ukraine’s ambassador to the Court of St James.

All the cheering for Ukraine is as commendable as it is understandable, and it is hard not to be swept up in the fervour. After all, here is a David with a fierce sense of nationhood that has been subject to an unprovoked attack by its Goliath neighbour. President Zelensky has risen magnificently to the task, remaining in Kyiv and rallying his people as few other national leaders in recent memory. Ukrainians, for their part, have volunteered in their legions to fight.

So far, so inspirational. As one parliament after another cheered Zelensky and his compatriots to the rafters, however – and Boris Johnson started signing off his speeches with ‘slava Ukraini’ (glory to Ukraine) – I started to feel more than a little unease.

Here we all were, Britons, Europeans, Americans and their elected representatives expressing support as fervently as possible, in the belief perhaps that we were boosting Ukraine’s morale and their chances of withstanding the firepower of mighty Russia. But we have not the slightest intention of putting ourselves in any danger to join them. We’ve given cheers, sent equipment, up to and including defensive weapons, helped refugees (once they escape from Ukraine under their own steam, of course). But any intervention that might spur a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia – absolutely not. That is our ‘red line’. Now, our new hero, Zelensky has rightly denounced us, or rather Nato, for cowardice.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting that this ‘red line’ is wrong, that ‘our boys (and girls)’ should be sent to fight for Ukraine, or that the West should risk world war three. What I am questioning is the morality of urging Ukrainians into the fight, while standing back and watching them die. Might we not have done better to counsel caution and now, rather than cheering, to be lamenting the resort to arms?

Of course, Ukrainians would probably have fought anyway. They are defending their land and their future. They have a fierce loyalty to their nation. But this is suddenly war, real war, and Ukrainians are going to their deaths, their cities are being destroyed, and we are standing on the sidelines shouting ‘Well done, we salute you (oh, and we’ll send you some more weapons when we can)’. No wonder Zelensky is upset with the West.

If this conflict continues as it has begun, with minimal give or take on either side, Ukraine will eventually lie in ashes and the casualties could be in the hundreds of thousands. At what point should the West stop its cheerleading for valiant Ukraine and urge instead that its leaders cut their losses and sue for peace, to save their country and themselves?

I heard one retired American veteran say at the outset that Ukraine would be well advised to surrender on day one and focus on maximising its position at the talks that would have to follow. Such defeatism, as it might be seen, would have flown in the face of the patriotic defiance of Ukrainians, but, in the cold hard light of day, might have been a preferable course. There is a time for heroics; but is there also a time when the heroics should stop?

As Zelensky may be concluding with his attack on Nato for hanging back, there is a sense in which the West is at least partly responsible for where Ukraine finds itself today. It supplied advisers, and training and weapons, all to Nato specification – then all the foreigners fled when Russia responded.

Even as the US warned of Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s borders, President Biden said that if Russia advanced only as far as the Donbass, the West might find it hard to agree on a response. Then, less than three weeks before the invasion, the Nato Secretary General, UK ministers and others set out with crystal clarity that they would under no circumstances fight. Nato beefed up the defences of its members and pledged their troth once again to Article 5, but Ukraine was not a member – so, tough. Might everyone have been wiser, perhaps, to leave just a sliver of ambiguity, or were they banking, even at this late stage, on assuaging Russian fears?

The latest calls, from Ukraine and some of its western supporters, for Ukraine to be protected by a no-fly zone were roundly rejected by Nato foreign ministers at their latest meeting. So western governments will dispatch more weapons, pass on more intelligence, and marvel at Ukraine’s courage from afar. There will be no Nato planes over Ukraine and no boots on the ground. Ukraine fights alone.

An argument can perhaps be made that Ukraine’s stout resistance has gained something. The talks in Belarus have produced a joint agreement on the creation of ‘humanitarian corridors’ and, if Ukrainian reports are correct, Russia has dropped its insistence on ‘demilitarisation’ and ‘de-Nazification’ as conditions for ending hostilities. Without the war, though, there would have been no need for humanitarian corridors.

Before the war, Ukraine’s Nato ambitions were described by Kyiv, its western neighbours, and by Nato itself as non-negotiable. They will probably have to be negotiable now.

What will be left for Ukraine when hostilities cease will be a new story of Ukrainian valour and a new icon in Voldymyr Zelensky that will together reinforce Ukraine’s already compelling national idea. But this will not instantly rebuild Ukraine’s wrecked cities; it will not mend the millions of shattered lives, and it will not bring back the dead.»

A ÍNDIA FOI UM DOS PAÍSES QUE NÃO CONDENOU PUTIN

E como é que defensores mais ou menos assumidos de Putin analisam a actual evolução da guerra? Como o início da derrota da Ucrânia. A ler.

[O autor do texto, M.K. Bhadrakumar, ex-diplomata indiano, é membro do Valdai Discussion Club, um think tank com sede em Moscovo] 

«Belying the predictions of western media, Russia’s special operation in Ukraine is entering a successful endgame on the political and diplomatic track much sooner than one would have thought. 
A close reading of the outcome of the 3rd round of peace talks in Belarus last night is that the Ukrainian negotiators have sought some more time to come up with a full response to the Russian terms for ceasefire. 
Ukraine has signalled willingness to be a neutral country ruling out NATO membership. The main sticking points narrow down to: a) recognition of Crimea as part of Russia; and, b) sovereignty of Lugansk and Donetsk. 
They are non-negotiable demands. But they are a bitter pill for the Ukrainian leadership to swallow. The Ukrainian stance is that these demands are “practically” impossible. 
But, as Vladimir Medinsky, leader of the Russian team, told RT, “In my opinion, there is a big difference between impossible and ‘practically impossible’… I hope that eventually we will find a solution.” 
The Russian side feels encouraged albeit yesterday’s talks produced no tangible results. They are in no hurry to rush into major military offensives. (cont.)»