There have been peace proposals put forward, and the United States government has seen fit to throw shade on them, particularly on China's effort.
Whether they were right to do so is itself a question that would engender significant debate. It is certainly facetious to suggest that all "peace" proposals are of equal merit, or that any peace proposal is intrinsically superior to continued conflict.
By the same token, a peace proposal is not necessarily a bad one merely because it originated from China or even Russia.
As I have observed before, NATO's strategy appears to be supporting Ukraine in an attritional war with Russia, so as to grind down and effectively neuter Russia's military. The strategic objective for NATO is to, once again, have the Paris-Berlin axis (expressed hegemonically by Brussels) prevail over Moscow, leaving the EU as the overlord of Europe. If that is NATO's strategic objective, peace talks are not something they will be eager to see happen just yet.
Whether the EU/NATO will prevail with this strategy is an open question, but if that is the strategy then we should not be surprised that they are looking askance at peace talks just yet. Much the way Clemenceau rejected peace proposals to end WW1, the EU seems poised to push war so as to degrade Russia beyond the point of sustainability.
Whether that is a defensible policy is a question that moves rather beyond the scope of my historical assessment.
The difference was that Germany after WW1 was a viable state with a future.
Russia is not a viable state and has no future. Their demographics sealed their fate 20 years ago. Time is running out on Putin's would-be Russian Empire, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
More like I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.
Russia's defense strategy for the past 300 years has been to expand (i.e., build an empire) out to borders which are more naturally defensible. With Ukraine inside Russia the defensible border is reduced to the Bessarabian Gap to the south of Ukraine and the border with Poland just north of the Carpathians. If Russia gobbled up Poland to the Vistula River that also improves the natural defenses (and Medvedev has already speculated just recently that after Ukraine Poland's borders might need to be "redrawn").
The geopolitical problem with their chosen modality of defense is that it necessarily involves subjugating peoples like the Ukrainians who do not want to be a part of Russia. No matter what one thinks of Putin's motives for invading Ukraine, the tenacity the Ukrainians have shown in fighting is absolute proof that Ukraine has exactly ZERO desire to be a part of Russia.
This is also why the best lens for viewing the geopolitics at play is to recognize that this is merely the same jockeying for hegemonic influence and power on the European continent that drove the foreign policies of Paris, Berlin, and Moscow--with London always seeking to keep the other power loci more or less in "balance", so that no one of them could dominate the entire continent. Thus Britain went to war against Napoleonic France but then backed Belgian neutrality in WW1 to keep Germany from becoming too dominant.
NATO and the EU bind London, Paris, and Berlin into perpetual common cause against Moscow, with Paris and Berlin constantly jockeying for influence within and over the EU while seeking to project EU power outward across the continent, but the essential power dynamics on display with the war in Ukraine are not that much different than what was in play in the run up to WW1.
If the EU dominates Europe then Russia cannot dominate Europe and vice versa. How much of that is imperialism and the quest for hegemony and how much of that is "defense" is ultimately a matter of opinion and depends on where one's sympathies lie.
Myself, I wish the entire power game itself would just end and everyone would leave everyone else alone. Then there would be real and lasting peace. But war is Europe's favorite hobby and they've been denied it for over 80 years, so I don't hold out much hope that I'll get my wish.
And how much weight do you put on the Maidan coup as a catalyst to the current situation? The eastern part of Ukraine has sustained steady bombardment from Ukraine since then. I can't help but feel we've played a part as belligerents in this saga.
It is my understanding the U.S. (and Canada) have repeatedly rebuffed peace talks?
There have been peace proposals put forward, and the United States government has seen fit to throw shade on them, particularly on China's effort.
Whether they were right to do so is itself a question that would engender significant debate. It is certainly facetious to suggest that all "peace" proposals are of equal merit, or that any peace proposal is intrinsically superior to continued conflict.
By the same token, a peace proposal is not necessarily a bad one merely because it originated from China or even Russia.
As I have observed before, NATO's strategy appears to be supporting Ukraine in an attritional war with Russia, so as to grind down and effectively neuter Russia's military. The strategic objective for NATO is to, once again, have the Paris-Berlin axis (expressed hegemonically by Brussels) prevail over Moscow, leaving the EU as the overlord of Europe. If that is NATO's strategic objective, peace talks are not something they will be eager to see happen just yet.
Whether the EU/NATO will prevail with this strategy is an open question, but if that is the strategy then we should not be surprised that they are looking askance at peace talks just yet. Much the way Clemenceau rejected peace proposals to end WW1, the EU seems poised to push war so as to degrade Russia beyond the point of sustainability.
Whether that is a defensible policy is a question that moves rather beyond the scope of my historical assessment.
That's not advisable to push Russia that far as we learned with the Treaty of Versailles and Germany.
The difference was that Germany after WW1 was a viable state with a future.
Russia is not a viable state and has no future. Their demographics sealed their fate 20 years ago. Time is running out on Putin's would-be Russian Empire, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
You view this as a war for empire and not of defence for Russia?
More like I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.
Russia's defense strategy for the past 300 years has been to expand (i.e., build an empire) out to borders which are more naturally defensible. With Ukraine inside Russia the defensible border is reduced to the Bessarabian Gap to the south of Ukraine and the border with Poland just north of the Carpathians. If Russia gobbled up Poland to the Vistula River that also improves the natural defenses (and Medvedev has already speculated just recently that after Ukraine Poland's borders might need to be "redrawn").
The geopolitical problem with their chosen modality of defense is that it necessarily involves subjugating peoples like the Ukrainians who do not want to be a part of Russia. No matter what one thinks of Putin's motives for invading Ukraine, the tenacity the Ukrainians have shown in fighting is absolute proof that Ukraine has exactly ZERO desire to be a part of Russia.
This is also why the best lens for viewing the geopolitics at play is to recognize that this is merely the same jockeying for hegemonic influence and power on the European continent that drove the foreign policies of Paris, Berlin, and Moscow--with London always seeking to keep the other power loci more or less in "balance", so that no one of them could dominate the entire continent. Thus Britain went to war against Napoleonic France but then backed Belgian neutrality in WW1 to keep Germany from becoming too dominant.
NATO and the EU bind London, Paris, and Berlin into perpetual common cause against Moscow, with Paris and Berlin constantly jockeying for influence within and over the EU while seeking to project EU power outward across the continent, but the essential power dynamics on display with the war in Ukraine are not that much different than what was in play in the run up to WW1.
If the EU dominates Europe then Russia cannot dominate Europe and vice versa. How much of that is imperialism and the quest for hegemony and how much of that is "defense" is ultimately a matter of opinion and depends on where one's sympathies lie.
Myself, I wish the entire power game itself would just end and everyone would leave everyone else alone. Then there would be real and lasting peace. But war is Europe's favorite hobby and they've been denied it for over 80 years, so I don't hold out much hope that I'll get my wish.
Couldn't agree more about the last paragraph.
And how much weight do you put on the Maidan coup as a catalyst to the current situation? The eastern part of Ukraine has sustained steady bombardment from Ukraine since then. I can't help but feel we've played a part as belligerents in this saga.