Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
There's a good reason you've been ignoring the Ukraine conflict. This war will not end with any kind of negotiated settlement, so the process is simply not worth discussing. It will end with facts on the ground, determined solely by Russia. This will take at least two more years, perhaps more. I suspect that, by the time it's over, so much else will have happened that few will barely even notice.
There is plenty to chew on for 24-hour news cycle junkies, but it's mostly noise. To get the signal you have to step back at look at the macros because, as was stated, the outcome has already been decided. Shame about the 7 figure casualty count, I guess this is just how the East Slavs play in their sandbox.
The plan ever always only was to drag NATO, and eventually the United States, into the war. That plan is inching ever closer to fruition, the result of Russian dithering, indecision and naive good faith.
Hermann Goering had some practical experience in the matter.
"Naturally the common people don't want war . . . but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Anyway, we've been hearing for three years now about how NATO is out of everything from cat treats to burrito coverings, how Ukraine is collapsing, but these things never seem to happen. (To be fair, we hear similar allegations with respect to Russia, but that's not the issue here right now.)
Keep telling yourself that. The state today has capacities that a Goering or a Vyshinskii only dreamed of.
As Goering and others pointed out, humans are easily led and the will to fight can be quickly manufactured. Hell, it even works in Ukraine, where we continually hear that Ukraine is cracking, but there are no mass surrenders.
BTW, Ukraine doesn't make its own drones, or much of anything else other than warm live bodies. Anyway, if Ukraine really were producing drones in such numbers as to make Russia's life as difficult as they have, then europe has an infinitely greater manufacturing capacity than Ukraine.
IMO they could have brought it all to a stop by levelling a couple of city blocks around the US Embassy in Kiev (leaving the embassy untouched), together with the thorough destruction of the administrative district in Lvov.
I won't criticise Putin personally (it's not fair) but Russia needed (and still needs) to be tougher. This is a war for survival.
For example, Minsk-2 was obviously a sham that Ukrainenever was going to adhere to, as admitted by Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko, yet Russia spent eight years trying to get Ukraine to comply with that agreement.
>At some point in the coming future, a conflict will break out on the Ukrainian side as to whether to accept a US-backed peace deal or not
Even though there are certainly factions in Ukraine that would never accept a deal of any kind, if the past is any indication then whatever the shape of the next US-supported Ukrainian government will be, they will have no problems dealing with these factions. An example of this could be seen immediately post-Maidan where the weaker radical factions were disbanded and some of their leaders quite literally killed off, while the stronger ones, like Azov, were integrated into the official power structure. And that was at the height of their revolutionary fervor - post-war, the situation would be completely different, as the losses keep piling up and the fatigue begins to set in. I just don't believe the energy would be there to keep the fighting going.
Speaking of, the post-Maidan situation should've been the first signal to these revolutionary factions about what US friendship actually looks like, but alas...
Where does the Russian $400Bn in assets configure in these settlements? It's often discussed that a lifting of the sanctions is in the cards but the Russians have got to believe that the Trump admin is treated effectively as substitute teachers and any deal that is signed will simply be deemed null and void (other than the Ukrainians handing over their natural resource assets) by Nuland-lite or whoever the next in line is. Does Russia simply play this gamble to get their reserves back then says f it as revenge for Minsk? I don't see how this works in Russias favor considering its in the same position pre 2022 invasion with a little bit more land.
Sanctions complicated. The US hardly needs further turbulence in the financial markets and were sanctions to be lifted Russia could cause a crisis for the US dollar. Ideally, Trump would seek a deal whereby Russia agreed to repatriate foreign reserves slowly.
Russia has cards to play. Russia's large civilian fleet operates under flags of convenience. Were the sanctions lifted, Russia may well steer insurance away from London towards other markets. This would punish the UK for its role in the Ukraine but would enrich alternative insurers.
Russia has been desperate to avoid war and do a deal since the beginning of this war. They don't want to make war on what they still see as sadly misguided bretheren. They don't seek to destroy the West, but to join it.
Dumb scrotes. The West smells blood, and will be satisfied with nothing less than doing to Russia what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria. Nobody cares about how many symphonies Russian wrote, their efforts to be conciliatory are seen as contemptible weakness.
The only question is whether the destruction of Iran takes priority.
The West lacks insight, especially at an elite level. Russia is not a threat to Europe any more than it was in the days of Napoleon, the Kaiser or Hitler. But any excuse is good enough. What is shocking is the general incomprehension about history, politics, war or conditions in post-Soviet Russia. No awareness that Yeltsin was a Western asset or that the managed decline (aiming for eventual genocide) was road-testing what Washington was preparing for its own people.
Iran is something else. The regime in Iran is weakening very fast and elements of the government have actively sought conflict with the US and Israel. IMO the contrast between the governments of Russia and Iran is extraordinary. Once the mullahs fall the US will find a secular state, devoted to national development, a great challenge.
True as far as the Iranian nation is concerned, but the regime is something else. The regime itself needs tension with the West to maintain its ideological pretensions as the armed champion of the global South. Tehran also needs pretexts for channeling money into the IRGC and Hizbollah, which form essential regime clients. The needs of the Iranian masses (employment, environment, relief from corruption and governmental sadism) are neglected because of the regime's foreign policy obsessions. It is insane that Isfahan suffers water shortages for the first time in three thousand years, but Tehran finances massive infrastructure projects in Lebanon.
The Carter Administration greatly preferred an anticommunist, dysfunctional, theocratic despotism to the enlightened managed democracy under the last shah. The trouble is that Tehran invariably overdoes everything and makes an unpredictable frenemy, while the US increasingly lacks the capacity to successfully play its preferred game of getting clients, rivals and enemies to compete for favours. Russia's recovery of its independence under Putin, the relationship between Tehran and Beijing, the rise of India, reform in Sa'udi Arabia under King Salman and MBS and the ambitions of the Qataris add further complications.
Pahlavi Iran was an Enlightened despotism. But it is worth remembering that the Shah insisted at the time of his flight that he would authorise any actions that would result in deaths.
Happy to correct any other errors, but in future please identify them.
Now as a virulent despiser of Russia this is a very acceptable settlement, but also the Russians would never take this, this is a Russian defeat for all practical purpouses.
I think the Americans are finding out the old truth, that once loosed, the dogs of war do not return to their kennel when man wills.
We re-learn that old truth again and again, but because American leadership has for a long time been so craven and stupid, we will continue to re-learn it.
In 1920 the Irish were winning their independence, not losing like Ukraine is now. So rather than Ireland 1920 I would like to compare Ukraine's position with Germany in 1918. They are slowly losing and likely the situation will get worse. But the situation is not bad enough that the public opinion is aware of it. The rational thing would be some kind of soft surrender but it is unlikely that the public would understand that. And Ukraine's right wing militias are unlikely to accept that. So it is quite likely that the fighting will go on for some time.
Kellogg's plan will force Ukraine's population and also the EU to face reality. That will be its main function. It is unlikely to be accepted but it will force them to face the prospect that the outcome of the war will be different from the total victory that they still are selling their public as the likely outcome.
The plan ignores all Russia's demands but that is only to be expected: the US is still on Ukraine's side and any real concession to Russia's demands would be seen as betrayal by many in the West. The goal at the moment is to get everyone in the West behind the idea that victory is no longer the goal and that some kind of negotiated outcome is desired.
I think the comparison with Ireland is apt. Once the Ukrainians are forced to accept their defeat there will be two factions: the ones that accept the inevitable (Michael Collins) and their hard line opponents (IRA). The Irish civil war caused more casualties than the Irish war for independence. The same thing will happen in Ukraine. Finally: the Russians don´t want all of Ukraine. They are not crazy. They want Ukraine firmly in their sphere of influence. They will get it. Just like Ireland had to acknowledge the same with regard to the UK.
It seems unlikely to me that once the fighting is over there will be much enthusiasm to restart the war with Russia. There will be resentment but that will be directed towards lesser goals. That happened in Germany in 1918. It also happened in Ukraine in 2015.
"So rather than Ireland 1920 I would like to compare Ukraine's position with Germany in 1918. They are slowly losing and likely the situation will get worse."
The difference is that Germany in 1918 had no hope that NATO would ride to the rescue.
The big question is what Trump understands. Is he aware that this is only the first step and that it will be long road where more concessions must be done? Or will he at some point become impatient and angry and double down on support for Ukraine?
The Irish IRA in 1922 were within 1-3 weeks of collapse and defeat when the Truce was called as both Irish sources and Churchill’s history agree.
Moreover the entire Irish conflict flared because the British government was trying to implement Home Rule in Ireland 1912-1914 which set off The Protestants-Unionists into Militia and the British Army Curragh Mutiny , which set off the (Irish, mostly Catholic) Irish Volunteers, then infiltrated by the Irish Republican Brotherhood which became the IRA. In short the North/Unionists started a war they mostly lost.
Background is mentioned for this reason; Ireland-
The entire mess 1916-1923 can be seen as a very bloody way of achieving Home Rule. In effect that’s what happened.
Churchill who was involved for the entire matter can’t quite say that the end result was Home Rule called the Free State, but it does come through he wasn’t displeased to have the Irish MPs out of the English Parliament.
Kellogg's proposal is an opening bid and there is nothing in it that meets Moscow's needs. Russia has time and industrial capacity on its side and there is little to no chance that this specific proposal is going anywhere.
The Ukraine was established in the 20s as a buffer zone between Russia and the West. If it cannot function as such Moscow will fight on and seize substantial territory to secure a degree of safety from the West.
There is no way that Moscow will accept any Euro-American puppet state of any great size on the present territory of the Ukraine. At best a rump Ukraine in the far west. The remainder will either get absorbed by Russia or will reform its politics.
The great unanswered question hanging over all this is that of Russo/American relations. Moscow requires resolution to any number of issues: US withdrawl from the nuclear arms limitation treaties, financial sanctions, Iran and China.
The only certainty is that the final agreement, when it comes, will horrify the Europeans.
First of all, Zelensky cannot concede even one square metre of territory to the Russians without being deposed or assassinated. The Russians are not prepared to cede even one square metre of the territory they have taken. So this proposal is dead in the water, a non-starter.
Other proposals, plans, deals may be laid on the table but none will solve the problem the basic issue which is that territorial compromise is not possible.
Hence, the war will grind on to its military conclusion.
I see neither any point to this FRA/UK/UKR zone not any likelihood Russia will accept it - its not even required! Ukrainian forces alone are perfectly able to hold the current line should it become the long term border. The Dnieper is impassable short of some Normandy scenario and the contact line is a giant minefield.
The true long term aim is to wait out Putin and take whatever advantage that can be taken once the beta wolves start fighting over the Russia carcass.
The fact that NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine is being suggested shows (imo) the the U.S is not pushed for time and are happy to some degree to continue 'bleeding' Russia as is their goal despite the sanction regime largely failing, they continue to actively support the Ukrainian war efforts logistically, and rather than offer Russia an end to the war this is the first step on handing over management to Europe.if this hand over happens I would expect the conflict to continue tho not as open warfare as it is now.the brits and french won't be there for the good of their health nor the Ukrainians for that matter
1. The stickiest part of the deep state is senior uniformed military leadership. You can install an untabbed NG platoon commander / former Fox News host as SECDEF and the joes won't have any issue with it (especially since he's a culture carrier for the GWOT-era "I'm actually a crusader" motard mindset that is pervasive in the combat arms community). But you can't install a similar individual as a four-star general. Flag officers are, ipso facto, always going to be guys with 30+ years in. Part and parcel to this is that whoever is going to be running things where the rubber hits the road -- i.e., EUCOM -- is going to be an infantry or armor officer who has a decades-long relationships with French, German, British, etc. counterparts. These guys are on a first-name basis. They chat, off the record, over beers every time they get together. Their friendships transcend Republican or Democrat administrations in the US, Tory and Labour in the UK, left and right in other countries. They've been brainstorming what to do in Ukraine amongst themselves continuously since Russia invaded three years ago. The idea that "Kellogg has to go" or "we have to get someone in there who's not a Biden holdover" is a red herring. Even if they fire Kellogg and put someone else in his place, it'll be damn near impossible to find anyone credible who isn't from the cohort described above.
2. The Kellogg plan is an anchor for negotiation and has another alternative that is worse for the Russians. Kellogg's deal, with the corresponding pseudo-NATO encroachment, might sound like a shit deal to the Russians, but it also is predicated on a cessation of hostilities. What Kellogg is likely saying to his Russian counterparts (whom he also knows personally, albeit is not buddy-buddy with), is "you can have this setup peacefully, or the French are going to just do it without a cease-fire".
3. The senior leadership of the US both under the Biden and Trump administrations has been playing a long game. They all thought/think that Russia is going to implode into a civil war amongst siloviki, Chechens, oligarchs, ethnic groups out east, etc. once Putin dies. Their strategic goals here are formulated with containment of that eventuality in mind. The US policy under Biden was, "let's bleed Russia as much as possible so that it's as weak as possible when it implodes". The US policy under Trump is, "let's disengage from Ukraine as much as possible so that we can generate a perceived win that we can sell to our base at home, none of this shit matters anyway, we're going to be doing a redux of the early 90s in a few years where instead of babysitting the USSR breakup, we're going to be babysitting the breakup of Russia and whatever happens in Ukraine isn't really going to change that."
Let the French do it without a ceasefire, they will end up like all the other NATO terrorists who decided to attack Russia without the benefit of article 5.
The Ukraine conflict was dreamed up and carried out by US intel agencies. Period. Russia should persevere until the last mercenary/Banderans are eliminated and a Russian-friendly government installed in Kiev. Trump should simply order all US forces in or out of uniform to leave the region.
When I read this article I farted really loudly I thought it was a great article about something that will not happen but yknow fbf when are you coming over to Sicily, it’ll be fun, we’ll go steal copper from a ghost town, we’ll ride on my junker to uhhhhh tartarus
Hit the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
Kellogg has to go , has no understanding of working with the Russians .
He may well have been chosen for this very reason. There could be other negotiating teams at work away from the spotlight right now.
There's a good reason you've been ignoring the Ukraine conflict. This war will not end with any kind of negotiated settlement, so the process is simply not worth discussing. It will end with facts on the ground, determined solely by Russia. This will take at least two more years, perhaps more. I suspect that, by the time it's over, so much else will have happened that few will barely even notice.
There is plenty to chew on for 24-hour news cycle junkies, but it's mostly noise. To get the signal you have to step back at look at the macros because, as was stated, the outcome has already been decided. Shame about the 7 figure casualty count, I guess this is just how the East Slavs play in their sandbox.
No, it will end with WWIII.
The plan ever always only was to drag NATO, and eventually the United States, into the war. That plan is inching ever closer to fruition, the result of Russian dithering, indecision and naive good faith.
Hermann Goering had some practical experience in the matter.
"Naturally the common people don't want war . . . but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
https://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
Anyway, we've been hearing for three years now about how NATO is out of everything from cat treats to burrito coverings, how Ukraine is collapsing, but these things never seem to happen. (To be fair, we hear similar allegations with respect to Russia, but that's not the issue here right now.)
Keep telling yourself that. The state today has capacities that a Goering or a Vyshinskii only dreamed of.
As Goering and others pointed out, humans are easily led and the will to fight can be quickly manufactured. Hell, it even works in Ukraine, where we continually hear that Ukraine is cracking, but there are no mass surrenders.
BTW, Ukraine doesn't make its own drones, or much of anything else other than warm live bodies. Anyway, if Ukraine really were producing drones in such numbers as to make Russia's life as difficult as they have, then europe has an infinitely greater manufacturing capacity than Ukraine.
IMO they could have brought it all to a stop by levelling a couple of city blocks around the US Embassy in Kiev (leaving the embassy untouched), together with the thorough destruction of the administrative district in Lvov.
I won't criticise Putin personally (it's not fair) but Russia needed (and still needs) to be tougher. This is a war for survival.
Yes Putin is known to be very naive and has always be a man of his word and operated in the highest good faith possible hahaha
For example, Minsk-2 was obviously a sham that Ukrainenever was going to adhere to, as admitted by Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko, yet Russia spent eight years trying to get Ukraine to comply with that agreement.
>At some point in the coming future, a conflict will break out on the Ukrainian side as to whether to accept a US-backed peace deal or not
Even though there are certainly factions in Ukraine that would never accept a deal of any kind, if the past is any indication then whatever the shape of the next US-supported Ukrainian government will be, they will have no problems dealing with these factions. An example of this could be seen immediately post-Maidan where the weaker radical factions were disbanded and some of their leaders quite literally killed off, while the stronger ones, like Azov, were integrated into the official power structure. And that was at the height of their revolutionary fervor - post-war, the situation would be completely different, as the losses keep piling up and the fatigue begins to set in. I just don't believe the energy would be there to keep the fighting going.
Speaking of, the post-Maidan situation should've been the first signal to these revolutionary factions about what US friendship actually looks like, but alas...
Good post. I have personal experience with this thing, in which once-useful groups are easily discarded after 'mission accomplished'.
Kellogg is delusional if he thinks the Russians would agree to that.
He is delirious if he thinks NATO can force the Russians to agree.
Where does the Russian $400Bn in assets configure in these settlements? It's often discussed that a lifting of the sanctions is in the cards but the Russians have got to believe that the Trump admin is treated effectively as substitute teachers and any deal that is signed will simply be deemed null and void (other than the Ukrainians handing over their natural resource assets) by Nuland-lite or whoever the next in line is. Does Russia simply play this gamble to get their reserves back then says f it as revenge for Minsk? I don't see how this works in Russias favor considering its in the same position pre 2022 invasion with a little bit more land.
Sanctions complicated. The US hardly needs further turbulence in the financial markets and were sanctions to be lifted Russia could cause a crisis for the US dollar. Ideally, Trump would seek a deal whereby Russia agreed to repatriate foreign reserves slowly.
Russia has cards to play. Russia's large civilian fleet operates under flags of convenience. Were the sanctions lifted, Russia may well steer insurance away from London towards other markets. This would punish the UK for its role in the Ukraine but would enrich alternative insurers.
Russia has been desperate to avoid war and do a deal since the beginning of this war. They don't want to make war on what they still see as sadly misguided bretheren. They don't seek to destroy the West, but to join it.
Dumb scrotes. The West smells blood, and will be satisfied with nothing less than doing to Russia what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria. Nobody cares about how many symphonies Russian wrote, their efforts to be conciliatory are seen as contemptible weakness.
The only question is whether the destruction of Iran takes priority.
The West lacks insight, especially at an elite level. Russia is not a threat to Europe any more than it was in the days of Napoleon, the Kaiser or Hitler. But any excuse is good enough. What is shocking is the general incomprehension about history, politics, war or conditions in post-Soviet Russia. No awareness that Yeltsin was a Western asset or that the managed decline (aiming for eventual genocide) was road-testing what Washington was preparing for its own people.
Iran is something else. The regime in Iran is weakening very fast and elements of the government have actively sought conflict with the US and Israel. IMO the contrast between the governments of Russia and Iran is extraordinary. Once the mullahs fall the US will find a secular state, devoted to national development, a great challenge.
If Iran sought conflict, the West has given it plenty of reasons.
True as far as the Iranian nation is concerned, but the regime is something else. The regime itself needs tension with the West to maintain its ideological pretensions as the armed champion of the global South. Tehran also needs pretexts for channeling money into the IRGC and Hizbollah, which form essential regime clients. The needs of the Iranian masses (employment, environment, relief from corruption and governmental sadism) are neglected because of the regime's foreign policy obsessions. It is insane that Isfahan suffers water shortages for the first time in three thousand years, but Tehran finances massive infrastructure projects in Lebanon.
The Carter Administration greatly preferred an anticommunist, dysfunctional, theocratic despotism to the enlightened managed democracy under the last shah. The trouble is that Tehran invariably overdoes everything and makes an unpredictable frenemy, while the US increasingly lacks the capacity to successfully play its preferred game of getting clients, rivals and enemies to compete for favours. Russia's recovery of its independence under Putin, the relationship between Tehran and Beijing, the rise of India, reform in Sa'udi Arabia under King Salman and MBS and the ambitions of the Qataris add further complications.
Assumes numerous facts not in evidence, and again recycles long debunked neocon talking points.
The idea that that the Pahlavi Iran was an "enlightened managed democracy l" is particularly risible.
Pahlavi Iran was an Enlightened despotism. But it is worth remembering that the Shah insisted at the time of his flight that he would authorise any actions that would result in deaths.
Happy to correct any other errors, but in future please identify them.
Now as a virulent despiser of Russia this is a very acceptable settlement, but also the Russians would never take this, this is a Russian defeat for all practical purpouses.
I think the Americans are finding out the old truth, that once loosed, the dogs of war do not return to their kennel when man wills.
We re-learn that old truth again and again, but because American leadership has for a long time been so craven and stupid, we will continue to re-learn it.
In 1920 the Irish were winning their independence, not losing like Ukraine is now. So rather than Ireland 1920 I would like to compare Ukraine's position with Germany in 1918. They are slowly losing and likely the situation will get worse. But the situation is not bad enough that the public opinion is aware of it. The rational thing would be some kind of soft surrender but it is unlikely that the public would understand that. And Ukraine's right wing militias are unlikely to accept that. So it is quite likely that the fighting will go on for some time.
Kellogg's plan will force Ukraine's population and also the EU to face reality. That will be its main function. It is unlikely to be accepted but it will force them to face the prospect that the outcome of the war will be different from the total victory that they still are selling their public as the likely outcome.
The plan ignores all Russia's demands but that is only to be expected: the US is still on Ukraine's side and any real concession to Russia's demands would be seen as betrayal by many in the West. The goal at the moment is to get everyone in the West behind the idea that victory is no longer the goal and that some kind of negotiated outcome is desired.
I think the comparison with Ireland is apt. Once the Ukrainians are forced to accept their defeat there will be two factions: the ones that accept the inevitable (Michael Collins) and their hard line opponents (IRA). The Irish civil war caused more casualties than the Irish war for independence. The same thing will happen in Ukraine. Finally: the Russians don´t want all of Ukraine. They are not crazy. They want Ukraine firmly in their sphere of influence. They will get it. Just like Ireland had to acknowledge the same with regard to the UK.
It seems unlikely to me that once the fighting is over there will be much enthusiasm to restart the war with Russia. There will be resentment but that will be directed towards lesser goals. That happened in Germany in 1918. It also happened in Ukraine in 2015.
"So rather than Ireland 1920 I would like to compare Ukraine's position with Germany in 1918. They are slowly losing and likely the situation will get worse."
The difference is that Germany in 1918 had no hope that NATO would ride to the rescue.
Sounds like good common (Dutch) sense to me. From one 'Dutchie' to another. :)
The big question is what Trump understands. Is he aware that this is only the first step and that it will be long road where more concessions must be done? Or will he at some point become impatient and angry and double down on support for Ukraine?
The Irish IRA in 1922 were within 1-3 weeks of collapse and defeat when the Truce was called as both Irish sources and Churchill’s history agree.
Moreover the entire Irish conflict flared because the British government was trying to implement Home Rule in Ireland 1912-1914 which set off The Protestants-Unionists into Militia and the British Army Curragh Mutiny , which set off the (Irish, mostly Catholic) Irish Volunteers, then infiltrated by the Irish Republican Brotherhood which became the IRA. In short the North/Unionists started a war they mostly lost.
Background is mentioned for this reason; Ireland-
The entire mess 1916-1923 can be seen as a very bloody way of achieving Home Rule. In effect that’s what happened.
Churchill who was involved for the entire matter can’t quite say that the end result was Home Rule called the Free State, but it does come through he wasn’t displeased to have the Irish MPs out of the English Parliament.
Kellogg's proposal is an opening bid and there is nothing in it that meets Moscow's needs. Russia has time and industrial capacity on its side and there is little to no chance that this specific proposal is going anywhere.
The Ukraine was established in the 20s as a buffer zone between Russia and the West. If it cannot function as such Moscow will fight on and seize substantial territory to secure a degree of safety from the West.
There is no way that Moscow will accept any Euro-American puppet state of any great size on the present territory of the Ukraine. At best a rump Ukraine in the far west. The remainder will either get absorbed by Russia or will reform its politics.
The great unanswered question hanging over all this is that of Russo/American relations. Moscow requires resolution to any number of issues: US withdrawl from the nuclear arms limitation treaties, financial sanctions, Iran and China.
The only certainty is that the final agreement, when it comes, will horrify the Europeans.
What doesn’t horrify the Europeans?
First of all, Zelensky cannot concede even one square metre of territory to the Russians without being deposed or assassinated. The Russians are not prepared to cede even one square metre of the territory they have taken. So this proposal is dead in the water, a non-starter.
Other proposals, plans, deals may be laid on the table but none will solve the problem the basic issue which is that territorial compromise is not possible.
Hence, the war will grind on to its military conclusion.
From what I see, Zelensky is looking to find an exit where outside forces are to blame for any settlement. A "stab in the back", if you will.
I see neither any point to this FRA/UK/UKR zone not any likelihood Russia will accept it - its not even required! Ukrainian forces alone are perfectly able to hold the current line should it become the long term border. The Dnieper is impassable short of some Normandy scenario and the contact line is a giant minefield.
The true long term aim is to wait out Putin and take whatever advantage that can be taken once the beta wolves start fighting over the Russia carcass.
The Dnipro has been crossed repeatedly over the last century.
So? Normandy ? Not that hard.
The fact that NATO troops being stationed in Ukraine is being suggested shows (imo) the the U.S is not pushed for time and are happy to some degree to continue 'bleeding' Russia as is their goal despite the sanction regime largely failing, they continue to actively support the Ukrainian war efforts logistically, and rather than offer Russia an end to the war this is the first step on handing over management to Europe.if this hand over happens I would expect the conflict to continue tho not as open warfare as it is now.the brits and french won't be there for the good of their health nor the Ukrainians for that matter
10050 Cielo Drive? Very droll. I'm reading Bugliosi's book now, so I just caught that one.
If you have not already heard about it, you may be interested in this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_CIA,_and_the_Secret_History_of_the_Sixties
A few thoughts on the matter:
1. The stickiest part of the deep state is senior uniformed military leadership. You can install an untabbed NG platoon commander / former Fox News host as SECDEF and the joes won't have any issue with it (especially since he's a culture carrier for the GWOT-era "I'm actually a crusader" motard mindset that is pervasive in the combat arms community). But you can't install a similar individual as a four-star general. Flag officers are, ipso facto, always going to be guys with 30+ years in. Part and parcel to this is that whoever is going to be running things where the rubber hits the road -- i.e., EUCOM -- is going to be an infantry or armor officer who has a decades-long relationships with French, German, British, etc. counterparts. These guys are on a first-name basis. They chat, off the record, over beers every time they get together. Their friendships transcend Republican or Democrat administrations in the US, Tory and Labour in the UK, left and right in other countries. They've been brainstorming what to do in Ukraine amongst themselves continuously since Russia invaded three years ago. The idea that "Kellogg has to go" or "we have to get someone in there who's not a Biden holdover" is a red herring. Even if they fire Kellogg and put someone else in his place, it'll be damn near impossible to find anyone credible who isn't from the cohort described above.
2. The Kellogg plan is an anchor for negotiation and has another alternative that is worse for the Russians. Kellogg's deal, with the corresponding pseudo-NATO encroachment, might sound like a shit deal to the Russians, but it also is predicated on a cessation of hostilities. What Kellogg is likely saying to his Russian counterparts (whom he also knows personally, albeit is not buddy-buddy with), is "you can have this setup peacefully, or the French are going to just do it without a cease-fire".
3. The senior leadership of the US both under the Biden and Trump administrations has been playing a long game. They all thought/think that Russia is going to implode into a civil war amongst siloviki, Chechens, oligarchs, ethnic groups out east, etc. once Putin dies. Their strategic goals here are formulated with containment of that eventuality in mind. The US policy under Biden was, "let's bleed Russia as much as possible so that it's as weak as possible when it implodes". The US policy under Trump is, "let's disengage from Ukraine as much as possible so that we can generate a perceived win that we can sell to our base at home, none of this shit matters anyway, we're going to be doing a redux of the early 90s in a few years where instead of babysitting the USSR breakup, we're going to be babysitting the breakup of Russia and whatever happens in Ukraine isn't really going to change that."
Interesting comment.
Let the French do it without a ceasefire, they will end up like all the other NATO terrorists who decided to attack Russia without the benefit of article 5.
Excellent post, thank you.
I shared your comment here https://x.com/FistedFoucault/status/1912434812586975405
The Ukraine conflict was dreamed up and carried out by US intel agencies. Period. Russia should persevere until the last mercenary/Banderans are eliminated and a Russian-friendly government installed in Kiev. Trump should simply order all US forces in or out of uniform to leave the region.
When I read this article I farted really loudly I thought it was a great article about something that will not happen but yknow fbf when are you coming over to Sicily, it’ll be fun, we’ll go steal copper from a ghost town, we’ll ride on my junker to uhhhhh tartarus