THE unfolding situation in Ukraine as reported has thrown up in the past few days some odd pieces of “news”.

Ukraine’s president was reported on – delivered through Yahoo News – as follows: “President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he is no longer pressing for Nato membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia’s stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbour.”

Does this indicate that “negotiations” are ongoing behind the “official” meetings between Russia and Ukraine in recent weeks and the posturing by politicians across the divide?

ABC News continued the report as follows: “In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelenskyy said he is open to ‘compromise’ on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that president Vladimir Putin recognised as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24.

“’I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... Nato is not prepared to accept Ukraine,’ Zelenskyy said.”

What is one to make of this? Outwardly, Zelenskyy is keeping the pressure up, defying the invaders in word and action, yet he concedes that Russia has a genuine concern about the advance of Nato since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

He seems to be resigned to the fact that Nato, despite support and outward solidarity, has openly stated that it is on the borders of Ukraine simply to defend Nato! The West has come up against the dilemma of its limitations. A rethink is needed?

Reuters on March 11 reported: “The Kremlin said on Friday that the conflict in Ukraine would end when the West took action over Russia’s repeatedly raised concerns about the killing of civilians in eastern Ukraine and Nato enlargement eastwards.

“Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, asked by reporters how the crisis could end, set out Russia’s position and said he believed that Ukraine was discussing Moscow’s demands with the United States and other allies.”

And yet on same day, Kamala Harris, US vice-president, openly stated in a joint press conference with the Romanian president that Putin is not interested in serious diplomacy.

Given the actions by Nato’s leaders on support and defence of Ukraine with weapons and assistance, the outward actions are restricted by no direct intervention.

Is the Ukrainian president now realising that some accommodation with Russia with conditions and firm guarantees is now simply a realpolitik he has to accept, albeit from a position of strength?

Obviously, moves of some kind apparently are taking place even as Russian pressure and advance are continuing.

Will Nato retrospectively now regret that it continued to “advance” after the Cold War eastwards?

Martin Kettle in the Guardian on March 10 stated it succinctly: “Rupture is not an option. After this war, the West must learn to live with Russia.”
John Edgar
Kilmaurs

GERRY Hassan’s article, “Boris Johnson’s UK is officially closed for compassion and solidarity”, is depressingly accurate of this government’s performance so far, and the only point I want to take issue with is that he describes this performance as “the UK Government’s habitual failings”. One dictionary definition of a failing is that it is a weakness or shortcoming.

To be clear, all of which GH lists in his article, along with the very long list of other Downing Street and Conservative Party activities we are aware of, are examples of deception, corruption, nepotism, immorality and inhumanity, to list just a few; this cannot be described as habitual failings.
Trish Grierson
Via email