Yes, it’s unseemly to say, “I told you so.” But it was remarkable to see most (one might say pretty much all) commentators on the Ukraine war beat go gaga after Trump called Putin to discuss negotiating to end the Ukraine war, among other things, on February 12. The tacit and sometimes explicit view was that the US and Russia, to resort to Trump-speak, could do a deal, and the US could force Ukraine to fall in line.
As we’ll unpack below, a decision has yet to be made, but given the way Ukraine and key NATO members doubled down on batshit crazy ideas in their meeting in Paris with Rubio, it’s hard to see the Trump Administration not delivering on this warning.
Not only we had predicted theses negotiations would fail, but they are also failing for the reasons we foretold in December 2024 in What Happens When Trump’s “Negotiations” Over Ukraine Quickly Hit the Wall?1 We refined and updated our view after Putin and Trump agreed to start talks in Initial Thoughts on US-Russia Talks on Ukraine War as Ukraine and EU Have Nervous Breakdowns.
It was a given that there was no overlap in the Russian and Ukraine bargaining positions. Let’s looks at just one issue. Putin in his now oft-cited June 14, 2024 statement of Russia’s requirements, had said Ukraine needed to withdraw all forces from the four oblasts that Russia now deemed to be Russia. That included major parts of Zaporzhizhia and Kherson oblast that Russia still does not occupy, importantly their capital cities. Even though that was on one level a reasonable demand by Putin (as in a statement he was dead certain Russia could and would take them), on another it’s extremely cheeky to demand territory you have not yet taken. That requirement alone seemed to be a spoiler that the US could not agree to (absent the negotiations dragging on so long that Russia did secure these areas). Heads would explode in the US over what would be depicted as a US capitulation. Trump, who is very attached to him image as a domineering figure, would be decried as weak.
But the other big impediment, oddly assumed away by optimists, was that, as we stressed, that Ukraine and NATO, even though they were dismissed as weak, have agency. As the lawyers are wont to say, possession in 9/10th of the law. Even though Ukraine is flagging and set to lose, it is still in possession of the majority of the territory of Ukraine, and its armed forces are still even now at least a few months away from falling apart. The very fact that Rubio and Witkoff had to go to Paris to meet with France and invited Ukraine and European representatives proves that the US cannot “do a deal” over their heads.
According to Axios, the reason for the pronouncement that the US might shut down the Ukraine negotiations was a hissy fit by Trump early in the week. From Trump ranted to aides about washing his hands of Russia-Ukraine:
Behind the scenes: Trump made his frustrations clear a few days earlier in an impromptu conversation about the ceasefire push with several of his top advisers,including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and diplomatic envoy Steve Witkoff.
- That’s where Trump raised the idea that if a deal isn’t reached soon he could simply move on to other foreign policy issues, a U.S. official briefed on the issue said.
Driving the news: By Friday, Trump’s rant had turned into a public policy statement.
- Rubio said Trump had decided “he has dedicated a lot of time and energy to this, and there are a lot of things going on in the world right now that we need to be focused on.”
- “We need to figure out … within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. If it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio said.
- Later on Friday Rubio held a phone call with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and reiterated that “if a clear path to peace does not emerge soon, the United States will step back from efforts to broker peace,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said.
Note that this blow-up occurred in the wake of Witkoff’s over four hour meeting with Putin. We had speculated that it was nearly entirely about Ukraine, since Putin likely needed to educate the uninformed envoy not just on the firmness of Russia’s red lines, but its reasons for them, as in its security needs versus the history of Ukraine, the EU, and the US duplicity reneging on commitments.
Le Monde has some detail on the discussions in Paris. If you’ve been following the war, they come from an alternative reality. Not only has Ukraine not budged from its fantasy of expelling Russia from Ukraine, but Ukraine and the Europeans are still making demands rejected by Trump, even after in-person entreaties by Macron and Starmer. A snippet:
In reality, the discussions went far beyond establishing mere contact, sometimes resembling a polite reframing of American negotiators. Yermak took the opportunity to hammer home Kyiv’s “red lines,” which the US would be wise not to cross in case of a peace deal: no neutrality status for Ukraine; no demilitarization or limitation of its armed forces; no recognition of Moscow’s occupation of its territories; solid security guarantees to prevent further aggression; the return of prisoners of war, civilians and children deported to Russia.
Ukraine also demanded that its reconstruction be financed by Russia as compensation, along with accession to the European Union. It further requested the continuation of its “irreversible path” toward NATO, as phrased within the alliance, although this is hindered by the US veto.
There is now consensus among participants to abandon partial ceasefires, such as the unsuccessful one meant to halt strikes on energy infrastructure. Americans, Ukrainians and Europeans are now calling for a “complete ceasefire as soon as possible,” according to the Elysée, for at least one month, with the possibility of renewal. “Fewer and fewer people favor a partial ceasefire, as it is extremely complicated to deal with, as shown by the one in place on energy infrastructure,” said a diplomat.
Ukrainians reiterated on Thursday that they do not want a mission from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), already deployed in vain in the Donbas between 2015 and 2022, nor a UN peacekeeping mission. They insist that the US should take on the role of monitoring the ceasefire.
No wonder even the diehard neocon Rubio threw up his hands.
However, the action on the US side had not been promising either. One of the Russian requirements at their first serious meeting with the US in Riyadh was to normalize diplomatic relations. That meant getting various ambassadors appointed/authorized and getting embassy staffing up to old normal levels (there was apparently no Russian ambassador in Washington). That included letting the Russian embassy in the US have access to banking services again to pay local bills and returning its seized diplomatic property. As of the last technical meeting in the last 2 weeks, the US was still developing its process for achieving that. This can’t be that difficult and to the Russians would look like foot-dragging.
Admittedly, everyone, but really the Ukraine/EU side, has been granted a few days to relent. Again from Axios:
State of play: The U.S. isn’t out of the game yet.
- Rubio and Witkoff also presented a framework for a potential peace deal to end the war during Thursday’s meetings in Paris, the State Department said.
- Rubio said he’s now awaiting the responses from Kyiv and Moscow.
However, as Larry Johnson pointed out, the US has already moved towards the exit:
Although the United States continues to provide some support to Ukraine’s fight with Russia, President Trump apparently has decided to disengage, not abruptly, but methodically from the war. The US is shutting down operations at the airfield in Poland, which has been a major supply hub for Ukraine. No additional supplies of weapons and vehicles are being sent to Ukraine. Donald Trump rejected Zelensky’s plea for more Patriot missile batteries. There are only two big shoes left to drop — i.e., withdrawal of US military and intelligence personnel from Ukraine, and an end to intel sharing, particularly intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data that is used to program Ukrainian missiles aimed at Russia.
Keep in mind this is not over until the fat lady sings. The issue of whether Ukraine continue to get US ISR support is very important. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said Germany will give Ukraine Taurus missiles. But they can’t be effectively deployed without US ISR. These are longer-range than any other Western missile system and per Lawrence Wilkerson, are particularly effective due to their maneuvering capabilities, such as climbing before the final strike to them come down as close to vertically as possible, and then detonating after penetration.
The isolated use of better wunderwaffen will not turn the tide of the war. If Ukraine were to get off some damaging strikes into Russia, there would be renewed calls to finish off Ukraine faster and more fully and to attack Germany, which the disciplined long-game player Putin would be able to tamp down. But if the US supported Germany and the EU in this last-ditch effort, this would signal that the US has turned against the idea of normalizing relations with Russia.
Per Alexander Mercouris (forgive me for not tracking down print sources), the UK, France, Denmark and the Balts have been planning to send whatever their current branding of a “coalition of the willing” force into Ukraine, at Ukraine’s invitation, with the latest ploy for it to protect Odessa. These NATO members believe that the US will not stand pat if Russia were to attack these troops, as Russia has repeatedly promised if any military units from NATO members enter Ukraine.
The coalition plan to send in what would amount to tripwire forces to Odessa underscores that the Trump exit from talks increases his political risk when he’s already in hot water domestically, between the train wreck of his tariffs damage only just starting, to ire even among Republicans about court-defying deportations to DOGE destruction of key programs, most of all Social Security.
There is admittedly no good way to lose Ukraine, given how much the US has invested in treasure and increasingly scarce weapons. But there are less bad ways.
If Trump had the patience to keep playing at negotiations, even if they were clearly futile, he could maintain the appearance that he was doing everything he could to “save” Ukraine within the givens while not increasing US commitment, and also keep the level of NATO adventurism down. Two more months of Ukraine losses, Russian advances, and persistent messaging about how US resources were limited and the US has more pressing needs would have reduced the cost to Trump of the inevitable Ukraine abandonment. But not only is Trump all tactics and no strategy, but is he also hopelessly ruled by his out-of-control emotions.
___
1 Less than three months is quick for end-of-war pacts ex surrenders. And we also noted that there could be negotiation theater with no progress, as in the fiction that the war could be settled might be kept alive for the appearance needs of the US. Russia would go along to make clear to the Global South that it was not the obstacle to resolution and so as not to embarrass the Trump Administration.
Talks founded on “immediate ceasefire” were never serious!
What is US threatening to withdraw from.
“it’s extremely cheeky to demand territory you have not yet taken”
But that would not be the first time Russia does it.
At the end of the Winter War, when the Finnish army was retreating after the main front collapsed, the government in Helsinki sent his envoys to negotiate peace with the USSR.
As one of the conditions, Molotov demanded some territories in Finland that the Red Army had not even occupied. When the Finns remarked that granting a party territories it had not been able to conquer was not customary, Molotov replied something to the effect that if the Finnish delegation wanted, they could just wait until the Red Army had dealt with the matter. The Finns caved in — militarily, they could no longer resist.
The Russians know when they are a in strong position, and as a consequence make harsh, but realistic demands.
Well, the first offer from Stalin was a Soviet base in Gogland and Finland fortifying Åland island with the Soviet support. Finland rejected this offer.
When Finland shorty after figured fortifying Åland might actually be a good idea, Soviet Union wanted to rent all the big islands in the Gulf Finland, and offered parts of Soviet Karelia to sweeten the deal. Finnish military wanted this deal to happen, but the government rejected it.
All this was kinda unofficial, and the third phase happened in Moscow, over the table. Soviet Union asked for border to be moved away fro Leningrad, the island mentioned above and a naval base or two in Finnish harbors. For this Finland would get huge areas from Soviet Karelia.
The main problem was lack of trust; the winning side of the Finnish civil war had wrapped itself in the narrative of having fought against Soviet Communism – so all those executed and imprisoned Finns had been traitors and had deserved it – which resulted in serious case of Russophobia in the top level of the nation (not to forget the “officially unsupported” invasions of Soviet Karelia in the 1920’s), while Soviet Union had at this point used similar demands (bases and mutual defense) to take over the Baltic countries.
So, yes, the first offer was the best one, and once blood was spilled the terms were going be more and more drastic.
Knowing some Finns today who are all in all peaceful people otherwise, the Russophobia runs deep.
Stalin gave Finland a better deal in 44 than he gave Hungary or Romania. Probably because he knew the sentiment in London and DC, who had forgotten Finland was part of the Axis coalition.
Well, the current Russophobia in Finland has been carefully cultivated for about 120 years, one way or the other. Between 1945 and 1990 it was kinda suspended, though. And it draws from 700 years of wars, mostly surprisingly Swedes/Finns expanding to Karelia/Novgorod/Muscovy and yet Finns always presented as victims and without agenda.
Anyway, in 1944 Stalin just wanted to knock Finland out of the war to release troops for the final battle against Germany. DC had never declared war on Finland, so it was out of the picture anyway. London realized soon that it had only ceremonial role in dealing with Finno-Russian relations, as Finns (led by Paasikivi and Mannerheim, who both for concessions in 1939) finally understood that security of Finland depended on Moscow, not London, Berlin or Washington. That, of course, still holds, and there are indications that many Finns are coming around to understand this.
It’s my understanding that main difference between the treatment of defeated Finland compared to Hungary or Romania was before the war Finland had been a republic, not a kingdom and had managed to squelch the right-wing rise to power, so at the end of the war Finland was still a functional democracy with a uniting self-preservation agenda.
As in, the working class of Finland was averse of political violence since the aftermath of the Finnish civil war, and had actually proved during the WW2 (by bitterly fighting for Finland) that the narrative of them being traitors had been totally false. And for once the bourgeoisie understood to yield to social democracy which was good enough for all, so there were really no cracks in society Stalin could have used.
I guess one must point out that the big industrial and social advancements in Finland did happen when the relations with Russian Empire or Soviet Union were good. But that understanding of history is not really popular at the moment, and some circles has never been.
The Finns had aided the Nazi seige of Leningrad, and the Nazis were by this way on their way to defeat, which the Finns could see. Molotov had not just the military upperhand, but the moral one. In effect he said, “be good little boys and we will treat you like a normal country and not the Nazi collaborators you are.” The Finns jumped at the chance. Pascal Lotatz of Neutrality Studies has a very informative interview with Finnish historian Tuomas Malinin on the oft-misunderstood but of history. https://youtu.be/YD86Fh6esTo?si=by2K79ff8piGXsTq
The present situation in Ukraine does not map onto the Finnish example; Yves’ characterization of the Russian position today as a “cheeky” one is apt.
Tuomas Malinen is not a historian, he’s an economist.
Not sure what that observation has to do with the post but the video is interesting.
It’s not an observation, it’s a fact. Even Lotatz introduces him as “adjunct professor of economics” – which means Malinen is qualified to teach at university, but actually does not. He’s a private entrepreneur giving economic advice and consulting. So it had error correction to do with the post, wasn’t that obvious?
I’m sure the video is interesting, usually Malinen is 50% on point and 50% total crank. For example, he speak of the size of the Finnish army according to the peace agreement with Soviet Union, but actually the allowed size was bigger than Finnish Army had been before the war (42,000/520,000 vs 12,000/460,000) because Soviet Union wanted Finland to be able to defend it’s neutrality.
For Finno-Russian relations it was all about developing trust after the war, and it proceeded so well that Finland was the first country offered to purchase of brand new Mig-21 fighters, because if a neutral Finland was able and willing to prevent the use of it’s airspace against NATO attacks on Lenindgrad, Soviets would have one less worry.
And that’s the thing to do if Ukraine wants a lasting peace – they will spend the next decade on building trust with Russia that Ukraine will remain neutral no matter what and defend it’s neutrality no matter what.
Not actually so strange a concept.
For reasons that we consider justified and you do not, we find your continued control over these territories to be unacceptable to us.
You have the option of losing the remainder of these territories:
a) by surrendering them to us
b) after vainly expending immense resources to retain them
We have the option of gaining these territories:
a) by destroying your capacity to retain them, at some expense to ourselves
b) by accepting your surrender of them, which is an option less costly to us, and therefore an authentic ‘card’ for you to play in a negotiation (as opposed to, say, a probably unkept promise about your future conduct).
Twelve to eighteen months Aurelien predicted the US would find itself fairly irrelevant to the final outcome in Ukraine and I thought, then decided that seems correct.
The myth of the US’s supreme importance has occupied a lot of space rent-free for too long in too many people’s minds, especially among the West brain-dead political and pundit class.
I remember something a bit different, admittedly not from his Substack but here at NC:
The present flailing around and what happens if the diehards do send troops to Ukraine that Russia obliterates would feed nasty down the road possibilities. Europeans might be able to get serious about rearming despite the cost to citizens (right now, it seems like a noisy pipe dream) and/or having France bulk up on nukes.
I was talking purely about his comment re. the US’s non-centrality to the ultimate outcome in Ukraine — wherever he said it — not Europe’s ‘epic sulking.’
And as for the EU getting serious about rearming despite the cost to citizens, if it happens it’ll be because of the cost to Europe’s general citizenry — that is, precisely because it’ll constitute an excuse to cut social programs and siphon that money to elites.
Just thinking aloud, the tariff war on Europe (remember, that even though he paused some tariffs for 90 days, Trump continues with the 10% base tariffs and others) will further limit how much Europe can spend on rearmament.
Another way that Trump works at cross purposes, assuming that he even wants Europe to re-arm.
“get serious about rearming”
Do not hold your breath on that. At least per some definitions of serious.
I thought at the time, and remain convinced, that European “epic sulking” is about as certain an outcome regardless of all else where resolution of the conflict in Ukraine is concerned.
Indeed I am increasingly convinced that they are collectively capable of little else …
I’ve always suspected that the US was irrelevant to the final outcome in Ukraine because what’s most relevant are the centuries old fears of Russia and rivalries with Russia, especially in European countries (with a special shout out to Britain).
That’s what is manipulated in all the games.
So until other European countries can catch their breath and have diplomatic relationships with Russia…
RU media floating various stories trying to be positive about it
https://www.rt.com/news/615979-trump-could-recognize-crimea-russian/
https://www.rt.com/russia/615920-zelensky-attacks-setev-witkoff/
https://tass.com/world/1946175
“In addition, the US draft implies that all territories liberated by Russia will remain under Russian control.”
Probably a hail Mary, won’t hold my breath
This was quickly debunked by Witkoff:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/rubio-warns-us-readying-to-abandon
Pretty sure that when Trump became President again, he thought that through his ‘mastery’ of negotiating skills that he would be able to shut down this war pretty fast and in such a way that the Russians would win the war but lose the peace. Now Trump is getting a handle with what he is dealing with and realizes that he does not have that many cards to play. He tried for a partial truce on Russia and the Ukraine not attacking each others energy infrastructures but Zelensky reneged on that within hours and has done nothing but attack Russia’s energy infrastructure the past month. He then tried for a Black Sea truce but it sank immediately out of sight as the EU said that they would not honour it. So is Trump suddenly helpless now in front of the might of the EU? But the EU is calling for a full ceasefire as that is all they can think of.
Mind you, Trump may walk away from military involvement but that does not mean that he is walking away from having the US fully committed to the Ukraine. That is what that so-called rare earths in perpetuity deal is all about – making sure that the Ukraine will be joined at the hip to the US for all time but in such a way that he does not have to go to Congress and ask for another $60 billion for the Ukraine. That will be paid for by normal budgetary expenses by the State Department and friendly US corporation that will probably give kickbacks to the Trump regime. Maybe even Burisma can get involved here. Long story short – the US is never leaving the Ukraine. They may as well make it a language option in American schools. Oh, one other thing. That 30 day truce about not attacking energy infrastructure? It has now has officially expired-
https://www.rt.com/russia/615957-ukraine-energy-strike-moratorium-over/
Just for the record, as grind your teeth and yell at clouds difficult as a Russian language option in American schools would have been – because Slavic and Germanic languages interact quite poorly – Ukrainian would be about ten times worse. In part because to date, each region of Ukraine speaks a different shade of “Ukrainian”, so that in the West you’re basically getting a dialect of Polish, while in the East it’s a dialect of Russian. Plus they constantly try to scrub what’s left of the language of any “Russian-ness”.
As an example, when back in 2022 a helo with their minister of the interior crashed somewhere near Kiev – not due to any Russian action, I should note – Ukrainian newspapers literally did not know how to properly say “helicopter” in Ukrainian. I counted at least four different root words with two or three different spellings for each. [The Kiev Telegraph actually did a whole article on whether one should call it a “гвинтокрил”, a “гелікоптер”, a”вертоліт” or even a “роторкрафт”.] To either Russian or Polish speakers, this is borderline insane, but that’s where we are today…
…which is why, I suppose, the Americans just told those prospective pilots to learn bloody English, rather than messing about with translating the technical manuals.
Rotorkraft? That sounds very Germanic to me (in German it is Hubschrauber btw).
I also thought that Surzhik was the real Ukrainian language (some kind of fusion of Russian and Galician if I remember correctly).
Rotorkraft sounds like hovercraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grA5XmBRC6g&t=40s
Not arguing against your premise (that the US will never walk away from Ukraine), but as a practical matter, the minerals agreement is only an MOU. (Letter of intent.)
And even if it becomes some sort of legally binding agreement, it cannot bind a future US administration unless it becomes a treaty, with the advice and consent of the US Senate.
As you point out, it involves private parties on the corporate side, and an illegitimate figure (Zelensky) who cannot sign anything without invoking questions of nullification.
Then there are practical issues – no US corporation is going to invest in, let alone send workers into an active war zone. Without a true peace agreement, there will be a play for Russia to continue the Slo-mo SMO indefinitely, taking small chunks of territory progressively westward.
Investing in mining and exploration requires a long timeline of stability in governments and legal systems. It could easily be a decade before any profits theoretically spring forth from all the money being bandied about in Trump’s reptilian brain.
By 2035, who knows what Ukraine looks like, in terms of both territory, legal systems, and governments. It may be broken up into multiple countries. There could be HTS terrorists running the place for all we know.
Therefore, my conclusion is that while the US may want to stay involved in Project Ukraine, this particular “rare earths” thing is an illusory promise or perhaps Trumpian blather that will be null and void within a few years.
The minerals deal is to give the US dominance over Russians supplied energy to the EU (quantity and price) and repayment of their war costs. I don’t believe the rest of it is any more than a sham. It certainly isn’t a funding mechanism for was, quite the opposite.
Russia is destined to take control over the entirety of Ukraine.
Russia could never achieve the peace & security they demand, without occupying all of Ukraine.
Not a chance in hell Russia is going to allow any American presence on some Ukrainian rump.
Imo any agreement trump reaches with Z will be repudiated by the russ leaning gov to come with peace. Seems more likely the efficient Chinese that will be involved in development, with ores shipped east, not west.
Can’t see the west stopping the neolib accelerated slide, we’ll be a cautious tale for the east.
This is new so I couldn´t get into it yet:
Mark Sleboda with Garland Nixon:
Russia Advances All Along the Frontline & Trump Prepares to Walk Away from Ukraine
https://marksleboda.substack.com/p/russia-advances-all-along-the-frontline
p.s. One quick question though – in case of some stupid NATO adventure – why should Russia not enforce sanctions of their own against Europe (stop oil / LNG / Uranium) instead of getting themselves entangled in some minor military squabble which can spiral out of control any time. It would hit Europe much harder and would be much easier to control. To eventually straighten them out.
re: Taurus – call me biased but if I have to choose between Wilkerson´s expertise and Martyanov I opt for latter.
Why should Taurus fare any better than Tomahawks or for that matter Storm Shadows, which as far as I know are produced by the same company as Taurus. They both are airborne, Taurus has an advantage of 500 km range which outperforms RU air-to-air missile systems of 400km – correct? But that´s it. Nothing new beyond that.
Apart from the fact that Merz backed down before and would do so now even more. He has gigantic problems ahead.
Telepolis just today liked to call it “triple-recession”.
And even German military must know by now how effectively RU´s AD and EW work. So – create even another failure?
Remember, the German generals who were eavesdropped on agreed that even if Taurus were fired upon that much hated bridge it wouldn´t necessarily have the intended effect. So it wouldn´t lead anywhere only anger those nations Germany is depending on (USA, RU, CHINA).
Martyanov is a naval guy. Wilkerson rattled off the performance characteristics of the Taurus v. other Western missiles. It is a much better missile system due to its maneuverabilty as well as its range. But Wilkerson never said, and nor did I, that it would be a game changer.
The Germans unlike pretty much every other economy in the EU have borrowing capacity and think military Keynesianism would get them out of their malaise.
I recently heard someone on of the good YouTube channels (The Duran, Mercouris, Christoforu, Dialogue Works—I can’t remember which) referred to SPD officials eho’ve said “Merz hasn’t seen the intelligence yet, and once he’s seen what we have seen he’ll stop talking about sending Taurus.”
I heard that, too. Pretty sure it was on a duran clip about german politics, recently.
I took that to mean, by implication, that SPD understands that russia will pound the heck out of germany if they use taurus missiles.
No matter which way I look, I see no peace for Russia to win. The Europeans are insane and unhinged from reality and become ever more so with each passing day, devoting all their efforts for war and banning sane politicians and movements that seek change and peace with Russia. The US offers a temporary respite with a return to normal reslations until the next President reverses that, and it’s not even yet clear the current US regime even has sufficient intelligence to get to normal relations with Russia.
The Europeans, well actually the EU elites, will sooner or later realize that you cannot have a champagne military on a beer budget. And with Trump demanding that the EU nations up their NATO contributions to 5% as well as him hitting them with high tariffs let’s just say that they will only be able to afford a very, very cheap beer.
I don’t think the problem is “size of budget”, but more the philosophy underlying the military-industrial complex. RF MIC is purpose-driven, while Western MICs seem to be more profit-driven. RF gets more war-fighting capability per unit government expenditure than does the West.
And neoliberal “markets make the best decisions in every realm”-minded Western elites are not likely to be able to conceptualize, much less implement, the reorganization of Wester MIC that would be required to become a peer conventional land war competitor with RF.
I wouldn’t undertake to speak about the rest of the West, but psychologically we Americans don’t really believe the U.S. will ever be attacked or invaded, no matter how badly we screw up militarily. Russians seem to have, well, a somewhat different perspective.
If Western troops set foot on Ukranian soil with the intention of supporting Uraine, I’m pretty sure that Russia has already conceptualised a quick way to re-organise the MIC in every European country just to avoid future irritation.
The RF, China, Iran and other BRICS countries will also supply a way out of unemployment, precarious work and shit jobs for qualified or qualifiable Europeans (and, indeed, young people from the US and Latin America) to assist with both the demographic problems faced by some BRICS member as well as assist in building their social and physical infrastructures.
l also expect the fears and the reality of the collapse of the European economies into a longterm depression will help draw some of the countries with less clueless leaders into BRICS.
timbers: No matter which way I look, I see no peace for Russia to win.
Sure. So Cold War 2.
So what? This time round, the US and NATO countries represent only 13% of the world’s population and a far smaller segment of the global economy — in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms, 35% of it. And this share is diminishing increasingly rapidly.
That latter fact is what drove the West’s attempt to do regime change in Russia via a Ukrainian proxy in the first place, after all.
It all has an increasing air of ‘Continent cut off at Channel’ syndrome.
It was more an effort by the US to kick Russia out of Europe.
Brzezinski even put it in writing that if the US wanted to keep hegemony over Europe it had to remove Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence rendering Russia just another local Asian power.
Kissinger about a decade ago lamented the fact that the US has invested so much in doing so that they ignored the rapprochement between Russia and China. Brzezinski had put out a warning to not push Russia, China and Iran together in the process of getting Russia out of Europe.
Note that what I just described is not the only factor (not by a long shot) but it is a lot bigger reason then we’re losing total share of world income.
Great reference: Zbig spelled it all out over 25 years ago:
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdf
So why didn’t he realize the option was greater Europe, ie including Russia, was needed as a counterweight to China, splitting Russia off from Europe would push them tight with China by definition? And the fit of Russian resources with China mfg/resource needs was such a perfect fit it would overcome historic animosity?
Aside from ‘keeping Germany down’ weakened Europe and the west, any boost to us is only wrt eu.
Imo he must have bought (along with the rest of our best and brightest) the notion Russia would never recover from the 90’s.
He explains all this in the book I linked above. I highly recommend reading it
I think The Grand Chess Board shows a resolute regard of the reality that the US had created since the Second War and a attempt the conceal his hatred and contempt for the Russian Empire by imposing rose tinted glasses on his readers, and his incapacity to imagine that Russia would gain a leader of President Putin’s calibre:
“A loosely confederated Russia– composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic– would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia’s own development. Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand.
“A clear choice by Russia in favor of the European option over the imperial one will be more likely if America successfully pursues the second imperative strand of its strategy toward Russia: namely, reinforcing the prevailing geopolitical pluralism in the post-Soviet space. Such reinforcement will serve to discourage any imperial temptations. A postimperial and Europe-oriented Russia should actually view American efforts to that end as helpful in consolidating regional stability and in reducing the possibility of conflicts along its new, potentially unstable southern frontiers. But the policy of consolidating geopolitical pluralism should not be conditioned on the existence of a good relationship with Russia. Rather, it is also important insurance in case such a good relationship fails to develop,as it creates impediments to the reemergence of any truly threatening Russian imperial policy.”
pp.203-3
Whatever happened to America, land of sticktoitiveness? It is impossible to take these whiners seriously, and the Trump administration is full of them, but the larger issue is that this “attention disorder” afflicted the Biden administration (especially on economic matters) and runs through the whole culture.
Trump has a gigantic Department of State that can negotiate for months at a time.
This is the star system in play: But as the adage goes, Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.
This also caught my eye: “Ukrainians reiterated on Thursday that they do not want a mission from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), already deployed in vain in the Donbas between 2015 and 2022, nor a UN peacekeeping mission.”
I have three of the reports from the OSCE between 2015 and 2022 — and they embarrass the central government in Kiyev, with details of rampaging rightwing militias, torture chambers, disappearances / assassinations, and confiscation of Russian Orthodox churches. Translation, then, from the original Ukrainian >> We don’t want a force from the OSCE or the UN that might hold us accountable.
Trump HAD a gigantic Department of State.
Tillerson fired a ton of career staffers under Trump 1.0
Musk was pressuring Rubio for more, faster firings. Not sure where that stands.
And in any event, any Department of State members who have expertise like the right language skills are hard core anti-Russia (Scott Ritter has even read all the dissertations of the ones that have PhDs on the Russia beat and depicted them as having majored in Putin-hating studies) and so not suitable for this task.
Good point but it is worse than Trump just firing a bunch of career staffers. He came out a coupla days and said that he wants to halve the State Department budget-
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-wants-halve-state-dept-budget-slash-foreign-aid-75-2025-04-14/
That’s not going to leave a lot of money for more colour revolutions.
Rev Kev: He came out a coupla days and said that he wants to halve the State Department budget-
Weak. He’s just not trying hard enough. There ought to be some way to privatize the US State Department entirely, damn it.
“damn it”
indeed :-P
Given that the state department seems to be counterproductive to advancing American interesting in the last few years I wonder what the effect will be.
Less resources to spend on causing chaos?
Or more chaos because they will have an even worse idea of what they’re doing?
good info thanks
TYPO Ff you’ve been following the war
Could we not have a thread for typos, so we don’t pollute comments?
Thanks for all the hard work
Thanks for the kind words and the correction.
In reality, one half of one side in this war is deciding whether or not to step back because it can’t get either the other half of its side or the other side to take a hit in order to make out its ‘won’ in some mysterious way.
There have been some talks with the other side but mainly opportunities for it to spell out its well known terms which given the ‘ADHD’ of the recipients seems to have passed them by.
But mainly its the same old story of one side talking endlessly with itself trying to work out what to say and do. Which comes down to demanding a ceasefire from the winning side.
Unsurprisingly this has got nowhere , as pointed out in many places Trump should have just walked away when the WH bust up occurred , it gave him the perfect opportunity. But it seems the ‘resources’ deal was more important, which lines up with view that enriching his friends and himself lies behind every move he makes. What else do you expect from a mob boss?
And so, just as in Vietnam, just as in Afghanistan, just as in Cambodia and Laos, and NATO, and in Iraq, the US taxpayer has forked over Trillons, not billions mind you, but trillions of its hard earned money, for bizarrely stupid, uncertain, and illogicaly aggressive foreign policy strategies that did not work…and shockingly, all back up by the so-called media, which has forsaken its role as the 4th estate, and supported and encouraged the government..against the interests of its own people…and alas, just like in Rome many centuries ago, the outcome will have to be economic catastrophe…
/As I recall the Afghanistan-Iraq efforts are estimated to cost the USA about 8.8 trillion dollars or about 26k per USA citizen.
But not all USA citizens see a cost, as many benefited economically from this elite supported effort.
The USA’s general population has been damaged by its vaunted institutions: schools of government, the war pimps in the USA media, diplomatic corps, NGO think tanks and the military/armaments industry
Now that climate change, industrial decepitude, resource shortages and parasitic medical, financial and educational sectors are all manifesting in the USA, one can wonder if only severe USA decline is baked into the cake.
Expecting the same elite who led the USA and the world into these conditions to “change their stripes” is wildly optimistic.
As long as the money is there to be captured, the game will go on.
This is one of the consequences of “pure” capitalism. In an unregulated, free market, competition decides the winners, and lowering prices is an important part of the process of pursuing market dominance. As prices decline, so do profits. That’s the law of declining profits in a nutshell. Since profit guides virtually all of firms’ decisions, the managers fight the law with market dominance (monopoly/oligopoly) and unproductive activities, of which military goods are a prime example. Most weapons contracts are “cost plus,” which means the more expensive the weapon, the more profitable. See the F-35 for a good example. It’s a crappy plane, but very profitable.
The decline of Rome had an important military component, but its social inequity was certainly a contributing factor. Previously sustainable Italian agriculture was supplanted by slave-farmed entities as the empire grew, and slaves care nothing for sustainability or soil. The soil became depleted, so Rome had to rely on its North African colonies for food. The Visigoths came down the Iberian peninsula, and Rome was too over-extended militarily to stop them. They conquered the North African colonies and the food stopped coming to Rome. That’s what made the population eager to open the city’s gates to the barbarians. They were starving. (See Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians)
This is similar to the causes for the American Civil war. Slavery farming depleted the soil, so having new, western slave states was not optional, it was required. That was the dispute that led to all the trouble.
Anyway, capitalism with massive social inequity is a recipe for trouble any way we slice it.
Denmark has decided to send “unarmed” soldiers to Ukraine to train on Drones!
Why the Ukrainians couldn’t come to Denmark has not been explained.
In addition, the Minister of Defence acknowledges that they might be killed by Russian forces, but that is just the conditions.
So I think we are seeing the approach to insert French-British-Danish troops into Ukraine, thet are un-armed, they aren’t there in an aggresive capacity and then one day ooops they are actually armed and they are now fully engaged, so what can you do Russia – remember NATo is super strong as Kaja LKallas says Putin is afraid of NATO….
Russia has said again and again that if NATO soldiers enter the Ukraine, that it will not be duck season or even wabbit season but NATO soldiers season.
We have 15 parties in Parliament, but not one of them has asked any critical question. Media the same, it is simply reported like we will have rain tomorrow and then the sun will be back!
Mette Frederiksen (most un-pupular Prime Mnister in 100 years) is gaining in media polls, and we are being asked to prep for three days. Why only three days? Who knows and no-one is going to ask that pesky question.
It really feels more and more like the Summer of 1914.
Before the body bags start to arrive back from Kiev on the night train. I am at a loss as to how this can be stopped.
In Vietnam, the USA first sent “advisors” to help.
There is precedent.
Yes, and how did that turn out?
Better than it will with Danes.
Why the Ukrainians couldn’t come to Denmark has not been explained.
I suspect because there is a big risk that they would defect/disappear to avoid having to go back to what would be near certain death/disfigurement, as has been the case with Ukrainians sent for training in other Nato countries.
That is just sad and pathetic.
A former colleague from Germany still believes in much of the Russo-phobic propaganda and wants to “stop Putin”. I ruthlessly and sarcastically respond with: “But the youth of Germany don’t want to go to the Russian Front 2.0!, they’re not into the Drang nach Osten anymore” He asked for it though.
Barbarossa 1.0 was the largest ground invasion in the history of the world, and it still failed miserably. So, go ahead, knock yourselves out, send your pathetic troops. I can just imagine public opinion in Denmark, Germany etc. if/when body bags start coming back in numbers.
I see lot’s of organizational problems there. The Danish wouldn’t suddenly learn Ukrainian or Russian only because they are armed and engaged.
ha-ha!
right
The foreigners and Ukrainians tend to communicate in broken English and hand gestures.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9T0piHtOCyUh
Ruski, Ruski, five, five
Looks like the US will let Russia finish taking the remainder of the four Oblasts at Putin’s own chosen speed. Putin will want to minimize Russian casualties, so this will take time. Meanwhile the EU will further fracture. Russia is already bombing Odessa and will not hesitate to continue if the UK and the willing are stupid enough to put their troops there. The US will do nothing and has just informed the Europeans of this. Not a bad outcome for either Russia or the US.
Hmmm. ‘Russia announces Easter ceasefire’
‘Russia will pause hostilities with Ukraine from 18:00 on Saturday Moscow time until midnight on April 21, President Vladimir Putin has announced. The president announced the temporary ceasefire on Saturday after a meeting with Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov. He expressed his hope that Kiev will show goodwill and observe the truce.’
https://www.rt.com/russia/615998-russia-announces-easter-ceasefire/
Zelensky will never honour it but will tell his forces to attack. But if Zelensky does, it will show the US and the EU yet again that there is no dealing with him.
A few hours ago Zelensky announced that Ukraine will mirror Russian actions. It’s still not clear (at least to me) if the sides have actually stopped firing at each other.
Trump has probably realized that the role now required of him is not to mediate an intractable foreign war, but to fix a domestic mess of his own making.
I too was disappointed in quite a few prominent commentators who engaged in hopeful speculation and wishful thinking regarding the DT2 regime’s attempts at a “ceasefire”. It seems many have short memories of what happened during the DT1 regime: a lot of hot air, ignorance, incompetence and BS. Same then, same now, but worse.
In general, how could so many be blind to the incompetence, inexperience, and outright cartoon-like bufoonery of the DT and his kakistocrat crew? It’s downright embarrassing, if nothing else. Making excuses for buffoonery does not burnish one’s credibility.
This is where psychology comes in: how can very intelligent people fall victim to this sort of irrational expectation? Denial? Desperation? The Emperor has not clothes? Many still believe that the US has some sort of meaningful democratic choice, and has a functioning “democracy” (however defined). Old assumptions and habits die hard, I guess
Although I have no expertise in psychology, I would venture that the Orange Emperor is suffering from some sort of (possibly drug-induced) cognitive decline. Even the mass media, who is purportedly hostile, cover for him and ignore the obvious symptoms. This is likely to get worse in the coming years and we have over three more years to endure one of the most authoritarian, lawless regimes to date. It is surreal how we went from one crooked, cognitively-challenged pres, to another one who may well be strung out on drugs as well.
Most certainly psychology underpins what we are seeing, really in every aspect of this latest Trump regime. According to reporting on the Trump family, Trump’s mother had serious problems following the birth of his younger brother and was hospitalized and ill for many months when Trump was around two and a half. His mother was effectively unavailable to him at that very important age – a severe trauma that shouldn’t be minimized or dismissed. His will to dominate, and need for attention is rooted there in my opinion – very much linked to the will to survive abandonment and the loss of love.
Maybe those very intelligent people aren’t that intelligent.
I’m starting to think that Trump’s function, here and elsewhere, is to be an accelerator, and to finally push long-standing tensions to breaking point.
For nearly eighty years, western security policy has been based on trying to bridge the gap between Europe, wanting to use the US as a counterweight to Soviet and now Russian power but still retaining as much political independence as possible, and the US, which wanted a major voice in European security issues but wanted to avoid commitments it could not get out of. For almost all that time, the resulting tensions could be contained, because the question remained theoretical. Now, we see what happens when for the first time there is an actual security crisis in Europe with Russia. What we see is that the US walks away, which was always the European nightmare, and that it walks away mostly because Washington realises that there is nothing it can do now to affect the outcome, and it is the Europeans, and not the US, that will be left to suffer the damage.
Including Russia has always been the solution to European security arrangements. Counterweighting Russia is block thinking, and block thinking always results in conflict. At least, if one studies European history at all.
So, here we are.
Yeah, I really struggle to find anywhere in the historical record that Western Europe has treated Russia as a “normal” country since 1917. But I don’t see a Bismarck (“the secret of politics? A good treaty with Russia”) or a Metternich (architect of “The Concert of Europe”) anywhere on the near horizon … 😑
“it is the Europeans, and not the US, that will be left to suffer the damage.”
Europe and Russia can have diplomatic and trade relations.
And if that can’t happen with the USA walking away, it’s not about the USA.
It is curse to grow old with mental and physical capabilities mostly intact. To have witnessed so much–the repetitive stupidities–and to have to make an effort to avoid depression. Is this the fate of the species? Or is it just a hallmark of our “exceptional” era?
Buddha’s first noble truth: Life is “dukkha”…A Pali word variously translated as “difficult,” or “tough,” or “suffering”
If you dislocate your shoulder, it’s “dukkha”
From M. Scott Peck The Road Less Traveled opening paragraphs:
“Life is difficult. This is a great truth, one of the greatest truths. It is a great truth because once we truly see this truth, we transcend it. Once we truly know that life is difficult—once we truly understand and accept it—then life is no longer difficult. Because once it is accepted, the fact that life is difficult no longer matters.
“Most do not fully see this truth that life is difficult. Instead they moan more or less incessantly, noisily or subtly, about the enormity of their problems, their burdens, and their difficulties as if life were generally easy, as if life should be easy. They voice their belief, noisily or subtly, that their difficulties represent a unique kind of affliction that should not be and that has somehow been specially visited upon them, or else upon their families, their tribe, their class, their nation, their race or even their species, and not upon others. I know about this moaning because I have done my share.
“Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them? Do we want to teach our children to solve them?
“Discipline is the basic set of tools we require to solve life’s problems. Without discipline we can solve nothing. With only some discipline we can solve only some problems. With total discipline we can solve all problems.
“What makes life difficult is that the process of confronting and solving problems is a painful one….Yet it is in this whole process of meeting and solving problems that life has its meaning…As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘Those things that hurt, instruct.’ It is for this reason that wise people learn not to dread but actually to welcome problems and actually to welcome the pain of problems. ”
…well worth reading all of it, too
I continue to think that the USA will throw UKR under the bus, effectively dumping the whole pungent mess on Brussels. And I continue to think that RU is in no hurry whatsoever to wind up this conflict. RU will systematically establish facts on the ground in order to dictate the peace terms that it deems acceptable. This might take longer than we expect.
But I continue to be amazed by Putin’s phlegmatic patience, and especially by the collective stupidity of the present European elite. When I was a teenager cutting my teeth on the world of international affairs, there was Giscard, Schmidt, Thatcher, even Palme. One could disagree with their ideas, but they were very obviously highly intelligent and articulate. And today? Sigh. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.”
I’m curious about Trump’s Special Envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg. The guy has been around since at least April ’24 giving Trump a bunch of made-up Atlanticist baloney for advice. After conversations with Putin and others who have an actual grasp of the past, present and future of the Ukrainian situation, Trump must be souring badly on Kellogg who is surely totally exposed. Moreover, he keeps pushing the same old ‘peace plan’ where the Kremlin responds, “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand!?”
Anyway, Trump was ‘beautiful’ at firing badly dressed, chump-a$$ 22 year-olds on The Apprentice…not so good at firing serially failing ex-generals.
I don’t think whatever happens with Ukraine or the negotiations related to it matter much: the real thing of value is that US and Russia are restoring the diploamtic infrastructure for communication and potential communication concerning other world affairs and, that, I think is a real achievement.
I mentiond when the talks began that the whole thing reminds me of the Japan-USSR negotiations over the peace treaty in 1950s. The Kuriles were the stumbling block that kept getting in the way, even though they weren’t quite that important to either side compared to other issues that they could benefit via cooperation–but if they were going to have an actual peace treaty, they had to delineate whom they belong to and neither wanted to draw a line (and make explicit concessions). Then, in 1956, someone came up with a bright idea: we don’t need a peace treaty to normalize relations. So Japan and USSR just declared peace and normalized relations on that basis, while theoretically committing to continue negotiation over the final settlement…except no one really cared to do anything about that. To US, Ukraine is far less valuable than Kuriles were to Japan–they were, after all, Japanese territory from their perspective. As long as US and Russia can find some means to normalize relations and cooperate on other matters, what happens in Ukraine does not matter as long as nothing “big” happens that US cannot ignore. The fall of the Zelinsky regime might be likely, but if US can convince enough people (especially enough of the US public) that they are a bunch of crazy warmongering ingrates who think they are entitled to everythying (which, tbh, isn’t too far from the truth) who are a big drain on the US and who deserve whatever fate has for them, that should be good enough. If things stay as they are, “stalemated” (at least as far as people who are far away are concerned), it would be just as good. The important thing is that Ukraine does not become something that gets in the way of future cooperation and can be ignored safely.
In this sense, US does not need to “settle” Ukraine. Getting involved more explicitly is a no go, since that brings the conflict “closer” to home, when the administration is best off making the public forget everything about Ukraine. The biggest threat comes from the Europeans trying to stir up big enough trouble that can’t be ignored–which, I suppose, is the real agenda for the British and the French. But, if the Europeans are shown to be such fanatical warmongers that US isn’t obliged to bail them out should they get into trouble of their own fault, that should be fine too, especially if that sweeps the Staron out of office in their respective countries. I don’t think we have really deviated from this potential path, although obviously, there are enough troublemakers within the administration who seem to want to stir up trouble themselves.
As far as I know, Kuriles are where Russian subs pass trough on their way to/from Pacific. That seems of strategic importance to me. I suppose Japanese wouldn’t have much use for them, except letting USA put military bases there (which makes them imprortant for “their side”).
P.S. EU is not Europe, and EU leaders are Europeans even less. I know this may sound like hair-splitting, but attempts to equalize EU and Europe are intentional and part of brainwashing intended to make EU look important and those bunch of clowns look like they matter.
The importance of the Kuriles to Soviet submarines comes later–ballistic missile subs didn’t appear until 1960s. The “Bastion” strategy that the Soviets adopted for their subs is later still. These could not have affected the USSR-Japan negotiations in mid 1950s.
Trump should wave bye-bye, cut off all support and leave it to Starmer, BoJo, von der Leyen and Baerboch.