Did you know that the Ukraine-Russo War was on track to END back in 2022?
If so, don’t feel bad… neither did I. Sheesh, and here I am calling myself a news junkie.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. There was something known as the “Istanbul
Communiqué” back in 2022 that was all set to bring the killing to an end. But as we all know, this particular bloodbath continues to grind on.
Cutting through all the legalese and diplomat-speak, the Istanbul Communiqué comes down to three key points;
- Ukraine will be deemed a “neutral state,” renouncing ANY military coalitions.
- Russia will withdraw its troops from Eastern Ukraine.
- The “Guarantor States” (US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Belarus, Turkey) could provide to Ukraine armed troops and material aid if a neutral Ukraine were ever attacked.
Honestly, sounds more than reasonable to me. Yet for some odd reason, this whole thing fell apart. Golly gee, I wonder why?
Here’re the meat and potatoes of the same agreement (as cited by the New York Times, emphasis mine);
Article 3
The Parties to this Treaty share the understanding that Ukraine’s status as a
permanently neutral state is, subject to the provisions of this Treaty, compatible with Ukraine’s possible membership in the European Union, as well as its participation in UN, OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] or EU [European Union] peacekeeping missions.
Article 5
The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the even to an armed attack on
Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States, after holding urgent and immediate consultations (which shall be held within no more than three days) among them, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all Guarantor States, will provide (in response to and on the basis of an official request from Ukraine) assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack, by immediately taking such individual or joint action as may be necessary, including closing the air space over Ukraine, the provision of the necessary weapons, using armed force in order to restore and subsequently maintain the security of Ukraine as a permanently neutral state.
Article 11
The timing and procedure for a ceasefire, withdrawal of troops and exchange of
prisoners of war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine from the beginning of the provisional application of this Treaty are determined by Annex 5.
Can you think of any groups or individuals would want to kill this proposed peace deal? I know I can, but that would just be speculation on my part.
However, this agreement was still dead on arrival. As reported on by Ben Aris of the everything-foreign-policy IntelliNews.com (news site focuses on Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Middle East);
But the deal was rejected, because the Western powers intervened via the UK’s Johnson because they were more interested in weakening Russia than in ending the war, Putin claims.
The West remained sceptical of the deal as the communiqué sidestepped the question of territory and borders, and the parties remained far apart on other crucial issues.
The United Kingdom took the lead with Johnson coming out with a hard line, saying on March 30 that, “we should continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling program until every single one of [Putin’s] troops is out of Ukraine,” before he arrived in Kyiv on April 9.