I maintain that it was in Europe's and Ukraine's best interest to sign the Istanbul document. I wouldn't value a "protectorate" very highly if their advice lead to the current situation.
Discussion
Everyone thought Russians would eventually tire of war.
I have to admit, so did I, alas, here we are, but the strategy stubbornly remains the same.
You mean this deal? It didn't even include territorial agreements, and Russia started out like:
> One disagreement was over security guarantees. The Istanbul Communiqué said that if Ukraine was attacked and asked for help, the guarantor states would be obliged to help Ukraine militarily. The Russians then demanded this be changed so that the guarantor states would only defend Ukraine from an attack if "all guarantor states" agreed, including Russia. This meant that Russia could veto a military intervention to defend Ukraine from repeated Russian invasion.
🥴
You've never haggled? You don't walk away when the opening bid is high.
Bear in mind this is an existential threat to Russia, they need Iron clad security guarantees or risk being Balkanised.
Merkel actually admitted, after the horse had bolted of course, that previous "treaties" with Russia were nothing more than an attempt to buy time and arm Ukraine.
When trust is that broken, it makes sense to me that any diplomatic proposal would start with a very high opening bid, and perhaps concessions made elsewhere.
Russia pokered too high. Their entire strategy was that they'd quickly overrun Ukraine and European namby-pambies would just sit on their hands and cry.
They need to stop drinking the koolaid they give to the Americans. 😂