Hit the like button at the top or bottom of this 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.
And don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Good summary, but I am skeptical as to whether the Kremlin will make major concessions, even if you are right about the blood and treasure.
I tend to read their statements plainly, and my take is that since the start of the Kursk incursion, they have given up on the idea of a settlement anywhere east of the Dnipro.
I go back and forth on this, and I brought this up on the Russians With Attitude podcast as well. Based on recent history, I think that it is never safe to discount the possibility that the Russians do accept a bit less than expected for the sake of the deal.
Putin will take anything which does allow him to hold currently taken territory. He was willing to sign away Crimea in Instanbul ( while keeping it occupied) and surrender Donbas .
So the whole problem is Zelensky and the insistence on 1991 borders. Putin cannot make this concession.
If I'm the Russians I ask who's the legit government of Ukraine. I assume also the Russians hate Zelensky on a deep, personal level and won't deal with him in power. His lucrative retirement funded by a consortium of US arms manufacturers is probably being negotiated now.
zelensky will be lucky to get out alive, between the Russians and all he knows about the American regime. His utility is probably short lived for the Americans now.
It's not that simple. 2022 was a clever blitzkrieg that failed, Putin likely did see the bloodshed and wanted to prevent it. But West and Ukraine became greedy and wanted to press this war, so Putin had no other choice but to go full war. And now West and Ukraine have really angry Russians ...
In Soviet Russia, NATO enters Ukraine. I don't see any other way.
Because the only two realistic outcomes (forget "peace talks" - they will barely amount to anything more than Minsk) are either a capitulaton of Kyiv (with terrible consequences for the rest of Europe) or NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine. There is nothing in between, medium or long-term.
I don't think anybody has written a comparison about Croatia's Ustachi movement and its influence in the 1990s Yugoslavian wars, and Ukraine's far-right, Ustachi-like Nazi nostalgics. I was in Croatia in 1994 and was shocked by the extent to which people would openly refer to Serbs as subhuman Orcs to be exterminated for the sake of mankind, much like Russians are openly derided in the West now. Seems to me that West has the same plan for the Azov morons as they did for the likewise dim Croatian nostalgics: let them get themselves killed for the better good, and later forced into swallowing everything that membership of the Western bloc entails.
Croatians never used the term "orcs" to refer to Serbs. As for the Ustasha types, they were quickly purged.
And the biggest difference is that Croatia won its war and is doing much better now than it was while in Yugoslavia, when compared to Ukraine and its post-Soviet existence.
Furthermore, the remnants of pro-Ustasha groupings (few in number), have a more positive attitude towards President Tudjman than they did during the war. I doubt that this will be the case with Azov types vis a vis Zelensky et. al.
Sure, we'll see. The future is, as we know, hard to predict. My point is that the blueprint for using the hard-core Ustacha as tip of the anti-Serb spear, hiding their obvious deplorable leanings, has been applied to the T in the Ukraine against the Russians, with the Azov now been given a leeway that they will lose after, as you write, they are quickly purged when they are no longer needed. I'm not really surprised that Azov et al didn't notice, because they are morons; but somebody else should have, and I haven never seen this pointed out by anybody before.
Serious states purge themselves of liabilities one way or another. They have no choice. It is one of the great points of contrast between trash-heaps and places that prosper.
This is a point to keep in mind as Hizbollah gets thinned out.
They did quell them effectively. It's less about getting them killed, and more about giving them a more or less satisfying ending.
I don't know where you have been in Croatia, but in and around Split Ante Gotovina still has quite a large following. Saw multiple places his face framed. Still, that was that...he is still a hero, but those times have passed. With the croatians, the Oluja was a satisfying ending enough.
I guess something like this might have worked with the ukrainians in a longer term. After the initial counteroffensives, they might have jumped out of the conflict with the myth, that they did effectively protected their neutrality. Most of the militant far-right groupings are fed by only a context. I don't see the context where they can effectively be unarmed right now.
They sacrificed too much for basically nothing. Meanwhile the framing in the west is just giving the horse under them. They are here to stay for a long time(or the russians will crush them indefinitely).
There are a lot of parallels with the conflict in Ukraine. The West supported and trained and provided intelligence to the Croat military for Operation Storm in 1995. I suspect something like that was planned for the Donbas residence. In a case of Croatian war, Serbia's (Rump Yugoslavia) Miosevic, unlike Putin, not only didn't intervene on behalf of the Serb minority, but he had an oil and arms embargo on the Krajina Serbs. Also, the International volunteers, headed by the French extremist Gaston Besson, could be called the earliest "Azov" regiment. They brutalized the Serbs, either civilians or captured soldiers. Incidentally, Besson was killed in Ukraine at the end of 2022. Serbs were and still are called Chetniks, and in some instances during the war the Smurfs (mockingly to emphasize their inemptness).
I had forgotten about the Smurfs thing, thanks. Generally speaking, the level of dehumanization the Serbs were subjected too in the 1990s was unparalleled until the West found out that it's legal to steal property from people, if they are Russians (or Iranians, etc.)
Yes, these petty inter-ethnic conflicts will keep us down probably forever. Nobody is better "better" now, regardless of their economic status. The GDP alone doesn't provide the accurate picture of human flourishing. Each of the states have less sovereignty now, than when they were Yugoslav republics. Best wishes.
A good piece, yet again very balanced. FbF practically alone in commenting on Russia without hysteria or wishful thinking.
NATO's problem is that security guarantees are meaningless because the US lacks both capacity and good faith.
The US cannot defend Ukraine's borders. It can barely support Ukraine's defence of its own borders. Moreover, the US lacks the will to go to war for Ukraine. The Biden Administration is already operating at the extreme limits of what it can achieve politically. Any promise now would be a sick joke.
Furthermore, the US is simply incapable of negotiating with Moscow. It lacks the political capital or the diplomatic resources. The most senior US officials make fools of themselves in Moscow. Their personal conduct towards their Russian peers has been ludicrous, overbearing and provocative. This has been the case under successive presidents. It makes communication difficult, trust impossible.
Finally, we all know that the US lacks good faith towards all parties, including its allies, without exception. Before he died a senior Hizbolllah figure recently admitted to the BBC Arabic service that the Obama Administration had leaked advance knowledge of Israeli military operations to Lebanon. This was confirmed by Lebanese officials.
This speaks for itself. The Ukrainians cannot trust their masters in Washington anymore than Moscow could. The US is not just incapable of functioning diplomatically, it cannot function as an ally.
TurboAmerica has made gains from the war, especially in gouging Europe on energy and weapons and further deindustrialiasing a once formidable rival.
For now the task for the US is to take whatever measures can be taken to reduce the exposure of the US to counter-party risk from Ukrainian securities, prepare another Operation Paperclip for the US fifth column and identify appropriate talent in the ranks of the US diplomatic corps to succeed the current generation. There is not much point in doing anything else.
The great unexamined issue (worthy of your attention, Niccolo) are the likely effects of the Ukraine war on Europe. TurboAmerica can process any humiliation simply by managing the narrative and waiting for the next celebrity scandal. Europe is in a different position.
It goes without saying that industry policy across Europe will now be done to meet expectations in Washington. The great indistrial exodus from Germany will continue, with downstream effects from Texas to Latin America and China.
The European governments and banks, however, quite likely own the bulk of the Ukraine's debts. The effects of this on politics could be wild. Imagine the inter-war years seen via beer goggles laced with horse tranquillisers. Weimar cabaret with a cast of troons and cripples performing for a near-vegetative audience.
Best play for Russia is to let 2025 play out before engaging in any sort of negotiations.
Russian advantages are compounding and the situation is only getting worse for the ukraine.
Biggest danger is a possible Putin zrada, knowing how much he likes to make deals with his cherished western partners.
In any scenario, the control of the 4 new oblasts in their entirety and a neutral, non NATO, non EU ukraine should be the minimal terms Russia is willing to accept, yet obviously a commitment problem remains as there's no feasible scenario where they could trust GAE not to deceive them as they're wont to do.
If I was advising the Russians, I would be telling them much the same thing....not that they don't already know it, especially re: "agreement incapable" USA.
"Security guarantees" mean NATO membership without calling it so. Russia will never agree to that as long it has any say. Alternatively it might want territorial concessions that put the border at the Dnieper or further west.
Waging war to achieve security guarantees is a rather dumb. The whole aim of security guarantees is to prevent war.
Key clause of any agreement, one no doubt now supported by a wide swathe across the Russia-Ukraine polity, is that all the chickenhawk thinktank NGO types and talking heads and opinion columnists and retired generals and bloodthirsty NAFO keyboard warriors, who’ve promised and demanded such unrealistic nonsense for so long, be taken out back and shot as one might a rabid animal.
As I was saying right from the start, the being of buffer state was the best for Ukraine's geopolitical realities. Nuland might be gone, but her lifework will haunt the world for a good while. I don't think Russia would accept any less than a nominal overlordship over Ukraine and they can do it.
In retrospect, there were so many times when this could have been stopped with a much better results but the western man is too much up in their asses.
In the Franco-Prussian war Moltke and Bismarck knew this. They might have been able to crush France even more, but the french were almost instantly able to refill the ranks so it would have resulted in a slugfest with diminishing results(at the battlefield...the damage for the hinterlands would have been immesurable).
I think after the initial Kherson and Kharkov counteroffensives, Ukraine might have been still able to negotiate a quite good deal. Zelensky's biggest misstep was priming the population for a Nato membership and in a moment of weakness(and from the high of the recent victories) they believed that they can actually win this war.
Then the switch happened from the cabinet war with the Bakhmut campaign which could have been another exit point, with admittedly much worse prospects. Nobody needed this war, the russians doesn't have a good time either, except they have the means to keep on fighting.
As I mentioned, I don't think they can avoid being under Moscow control at this point. A buffer state resolution would have worked, so that both sides prop them up, making any transgressor having a really hard time when acting up.
I'm from Hungary, and actually of Rusyn ancestry(Ukraine only recognize them as part of the larger ukrainian volk). What I mean with this is, that Ukraine was always right protecting itself...anybody is right doing that. But even if I hate Orbán a LOT, he did have a key sentence. I'm paraphrasing but it's something like this.
We would rather have a country between us and the russians.
The status quo was the best for all of us, because we sure don't have the means (the US neither). Lee Kuan Yew knew this too. Much of the posturing is just that...posturing. You don't want to out your weakness by getting into unnecessary conflicts.
Interesting, but unlike France in 1871, Ukraine is a disposable proxy. Nobody cares how many Ukrainians die, not in Washington, not in Brussels, not in Kiev.
In fact, take away Russia, and Ukraine would go from The Beacon Of Freedom Amd Democracy to a nazi-infested pariah state.
Only the people are disposable. The land itself is invaluable. Fertile farmland available on a scale that enables considerable economies of scale. The helots for the latifundia are available in India if too many locals are dead or exiled. Kiev an essential outpost of Western values available for either crisis or sex tourism...think Bangkok for travellers who prefer blondes. If the locals are not available blondes can be shipped in from the Baltic or the Rumanians can use bleach.
And the Nazis won't hang around in number. Too many jobs in law enforcement or Deep State related enterprises in US for that. Nightclubs in London or Toronto need bouncers too. Deutchestan could also use Dynamo Dnieperpetrovsk fans to balance the Syrian and Afghan entrepreneurs.
True but Ukraine has an outstanding comparative advantage in Frankenstein foods. The agreement for the eventual acession to the EU was drafted to include a clause enabling close cooperation between Kiev and Brussels on food regulation etc. The lobbyists for Monsanto and Cargill think long term.
You win. Just tried to make a point. Where I live people still regard Ulraine as victim of Russia, rather than NATO. An acquaintance just published a poem on Ukraine. Needed to vent.
"The helots for the latifundia are available in India if too many locals are dead or exiled. Kiev an essential outpost of Western values available for either crisis or sex tourism...think Bangkok for travellers who prefer blondes. If the locals are not available blondes can be shipped in from the Baltic or the Rumanians can use bleach."
The future is Old Sicily with digital surveillance but without the manners and much worse food. The covert alliance between a tiny refined elite and organised crime, generational poverty, extractive foreigners and resignation...it is all forming. The promise of mass prosperity, leisure and dignity is no longer necessary when labour is cheap and the Reds advocate for endless migration. And no place for a 'leopard' of course.
All I need is my shotgun, my Lampedusa, my mama and her macaroni and I'll feel right at home. (And maybe a Sophia Loren to make a bambina with—a man can dream!)
The shotgun reference reminds me of a character in Merimmee's COLOMBA. an ex-seminarian turned bandit brandishes his rifle and says: 'with this I am king, settle disputes and give orders' or words to tbat effect.
A major omission on my part. The Europeans will pay for the gas at globally competitive prices especially so they will have to work harder, take fewer holidays. Fashions will incorporate heavier fabrics.
For the ukrainians it is not disposable. Just as France was not disposable for the french. Then question is, do the germans or the russians have the resource to spare. The germans decided (rightly) that any further gains would result in diminishing gains, while weakening themselves. Russia wanted to avoid this, hence the initial talks.
So it is not about how many ukrainians(french) die, but how many capabilities we spend on solving the situation. That is a deterrence on which they could have built on. But they overstayed that...they can't really effect the russians by making them suffer casualties.
Of course Ukrainians are disposable. The elite will bugger off to London or Miami (which is where they'd rather be and they will end up, regardless) and nobody will ask the poor dumb scrotes left to hold the bag.
The French elites in 1871 didn't really have this option. They certainly didn't see exile in Portugal as a desirable end-goal.
Well, that's an entirely different subject then. Yes, my starting point is/was that the elite itself is interested in the countries future. Maybe because I didn't wanted to be too long (and boring) I omitted that part, that they were obviously acting in other interests, otherwise they would have taken the exits.
And with the french elites...yes. I mean...they could have done it, but why do it, when they could keep their country. But it is surely a good example for showing how irrational the "ukrainian" elite acts. "Ukrainian" because their loyalties are obviously elsewhere.
Actually everyone around the world should make this thought experiment about their leaders. Would they stay if shit goes down? If the answer is no, then probably you are getting colonised.
To amplify your concluding point - the first thing any Ukrainian oligarch does, the minute they become an oligarch, is to get a foreign passport and squirrel away offshore as many assets as they can.
Admittedly, Ukraine is not exactly a country known for stable institutions, but Ukrainian oligarchs spend as much time as they can outside the country, even though they can be a law unto themselves, back home. And foreign holdings are what make status symbols in Ukraine.
You tell me. After shit hit the fan the Budapest Hilton's parking places got full of cars with ukrainian license plates. Refugees...riiiiiight.
Even now, around 8 out of 10 will be ukrainian. And the real estate market go fucked up even more. (Sorry...the real estate market SOARED, making big profits for someone...somewhere)
I should add, the ukrainian elite are not irrational at all.
They simply see Ukraine and Ukrainians as a resource to be exploited, with less concern than a farmer has for the well-being of cattle to be milked or slaughtered.
They are not. My assumptions were only true Ukraine is not in a state capture and acting in its own interests. It is probably the most shining example of one. And it also explains why they are not called out on their undemocratic/authoritarian tendencies.(The ones trying to sell the "democratic" Ukraine narrative are for the same group as the "ukrainian" elite)
Probably every government is in some degree of state capture, true democracy doesn't exist.
The Americans incite conflicts around the world, offer temporary financial backing knowing at some point the side they backed is up shits creek and can't pay given its war time footing, then comes in to cede territory under a default/bankruptcy sale framing. It's rather genius
The rest of the sane world knows that Russia did not want this war. The US neocons and their low IQ sycophants led the Ukrainians to believe they could defeat Russia. Instead, Russia has defeated the Ukrainians, NATO, and the Americans. This will reverberate around the world. Think Russo-Japanese conflict of 1905 and its repercussions.
Germany was beaten prior to the Battle of the Bulge. Everyone knew it. The Bulge interrupted the defeat for a few months. Same with Ukraine. No miracles are in the offing.
And there is none now. NATO minus the USA is nothing. And since Russia has destroyed every weapons system NATO has thrown against them, including the vaunted American technology, Ukraine's chances are about the same as that of a late stage-four cancer patient. Our side wanted to fight WW2 over again using the same tactics. The Russians knew better. Modern SRI systems make that sort of warfare obsolete. The sooner our generals figure this out, the sooner peace will return to Europe.
How the hell did Russia defeat Ukraine let alone NATO? All of ther maximalist goals of having a border with Hungary and controlling Kyiv is not going to happen. You think having a militarized, russophobic Ukraine that still controls 80% of its 1991 territory a win?
You must be one of those sycophants I referred to above. I have no idea how much of Ukraine Russia will keep. They for sure don't want areas where non-Russian speaking people live. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland can figure out what to do with the leftover rump of Ukraine. Historically, it has belonged to all the aforementioned at one time or another. Russia wants a secure buffer against the vassal states of America (known as NATO). Otherwise Russians don't give a shit what happens to the rest of "Ukraine".
Your comment is grounded in ignorance. Russia officially ANNEXED 4 regions of Ukraine, it didn't create any kind of buffer. Russia definitely did not go into this war thinking it will only get 4 regions and still have a militarised country of 30 million russophobes on its doorstep. Russian speaking parts? Buddy, in 10 years you won't have any Russian speaking parts in Ukraine because of the consolidation of Ukrainian culture and language.
Also, do not use history as an argument for territorial gains, Europeans should know this kind of thinking only leads to bloodshed.
If you are a European, then join the Ukrainians in their stupid war. If you are an American, what business of yours is this? Either way, you're the ignorant one.
Read Clash of Civilizations, there is a picture where the border between the West and the East is. Russia is returning to its historical borders, it's really that simple.
The elephant in the room throughout this entire discussion is the role that China will inevitably play in negotiating a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine…whether the US, the West or NATO likes it or not. China has laid too much on the line to be left as a mere spectator to talks which bear directly or indirectly upon it’s continued existence as a modern-day superpower:
Which means inter alia: 1) It is agreed that China’s access to Russia’s Far East is, or will remain unimpaired. This includes access to all of Russia’s Arctic coastline up to and including Siberia and the Baring Strait. 2) This will necessarily require the lifting of all sanctions designed to stymie Russia’s trade with China relating to energy, other commodities, military material and so called dual use products. 3) The lifting of all sanctions which impair Russia’s trade or broader engagement with all members of BRICS or other partners of its choice.
I suspect that such strong demands will be made in light of America’s declared intention to first weaken Russia by means of a debilitating protracted war and then ‘contain’ China. In this sense, the security and commercial interests of Moscow and Beijing are indivisible, which is why China is the elephant in the room. Negotiating peace in Ukraine will doubtless get very complicated and acrimonious. And go in directions not currently envisaged.
I'm reading now the last book of Emanuel Tod - The defeat of the West. Staggering. Haven't reached the middle of it and I'm back rereading the introduction. Get it, you'll be amazed.
Hit the like button at the top or bottom of this 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.
And don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Good summary, but I am skeptical as to whether the Kremlin will make major concessions, even if you are right about the blood and treasure.
I tend to read their statements plainly, and my take is that since the start of the Kursk incursion, they have given up on the idea of a settlement anywhere east of the Dnipro.
I go back and forth on this, and I brought this up on the Russians With Attitude podcast as well. Based on recent history, I think that it is never safe to discount the possibility that the Russians do accept a bit less than expected for the sake of the deal.
Putin will take anything which does allow him to hold currently taken territory. He was willing to sign away Crimea in Instanbul ( while keeping it occupied) and surrender Donbas .
So the whole problem is Zelensky and the insistence on 1991 borders. Putin cannot make this concession.
If I'm the Russians I ask who's the legit government of Ukraine. I assume also the Russians hate Zelensky on a deep, personal level and won't deal with him in power. His lucrative retirement funded by a consortium of US arms manufacturers is probably being negotiated now.
zelensky will be lucky to get out alive, between the Russians and all he knows about the American regime. His utility is probably short lived for the Americans now.
It's not that simple. 2022 was a clever blitzkrieg that failed, Putin likely did see the bloodshed and wanted to prevent it. But West and Ukraine became greedy and wanted to press this war, so Putin had no other choice but to go full war. And now West and Ukraine have really angry Russians ...
In Soviet Russia, NATO enters Ukraine. I don't see any other way.
Because the only two realistic outcomes (forget "peace talks" - they will barely amount to anything more than Minsk) are either a capitulaton of Kyiv (with terrible consequences for the rest of Europe) or NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine. There is nothing in between, medium or long-term.
I don't think anybody has written a comparison about Croatia's Ustachi movement and its influence in the 1990s Yugoslavian wars, and Ukraine's far-right, Ustachi-like Nazi nostalgics. I was in Croatia in 1994 and was shocked by the extent to which people would openly refer to Serbs as subhuman Orcs to be exterminated for the sake of mankind, much like Russians are openly derided in the West now. Seems to me that West has the same plan for the Azov morons as they did for the likewise dim Croatian nostalgics: let them get themselves killed for the better good, and later forced into swallowing everything that membership of the Western bloc entails.
Croatians never used the term "orcs" to refer to Serbs. As for the Ustasha types, they were quickly purged.
And the biggest difference is that Croatia won its war and is doing much better now than it was while in Yugoslavia, when compared to Ukraine and its post-Soviet existence.
Furthermore, the remnants of pro-Ustasha groupings (few in number), have a more positive attitude towards President Tudjman than they did during the war. I doubt that this will be the case with Azov types vis a vis Zelensky et. al.
Sure, we'll see. The future is, as we know, hard to predict. My point is that the blueprint for using the hard-core Ustacha as tip of the anti-Serb spear, hiding their obvious deplorable leanings, has been applied to the T in the Ukraine against the Russians, with the Azov now been given a leeway that they will lose after, as you write, they are quickly purged when they are no longer needed. I'm not really surprised that Azov et al didn't notice, because they are morons; but somebody else should have, and I haven never seen this pointed out by anybody before.
Serious states purge themselves of liabilities one way or another. They have no choice. It is one of the great points of contrast between trash-heaps and places that prosper.
This is a point to keep in mind as Hizbollah gets thinned out.
They did quell them effectively. It's less about getting them killed, and more about giving them a more or less satisfying ending.
I don't know where you have been in Croatia, but in and around Split Ante Gotovina still has quite a large following. Saw multiple places his face framed. Still, that was that...he is still a hero, but those times have passed. With the croatians, the Oluja was a satisfying ending enough.
I guess something like this might have worked with the ukrainians in a longer term. After the initial counteroffensives, they might have jumped out of the conflict with the myth, that they did effectively protected their neutrality. Most of the militant far-right groupings are fed by only a context. I don't see the context where they can effectively be unarmed right now.
They sacrificed too much for basically nothing. Meanwhile the framing in the west is just giving the horse under them. They are here to stay for a long time(or the russians will crush them indefinitely).
There are a lot of parallels with the conflict in Ukraine. The West supported and trained and provided intelligence to the Croat military for Operation Storm in 1995. I suspect something like that was planned for the Donbas residence. In a case of Croatian war, Serbia's (Rump Yugoslavia) Miosevic, unlike Putin, not only didn't intervene on behalf of the Serb minority, but he had an oil and arms embargo on the Krajina Serbs. Also, the International volunteers, headed by the French extremist Gaston Besson, could be called the earliest "Azov" regiment. They brutalized the Serbs, either civilians or captured soldiers. Incidentally, Besson was killed in Ukraine at the end of 2022. Serbs were and still are called Chetniks, and in some instances during the war the Smurfs (mockingly to emphasize their inemptness).
I had forgotten about the Smurfs thing, thanks. Generally speaking, the level of dehumanization the Serbs were subjected too in the 1990s was unparalleled until the West found out that it's legal to steal property from people, if they are Russians (or Iranians, etc.)
Yes, these petty inter-ethnic conflicts will keep us down probably forever. Nobody is better "better" now, regardless of their economic status. The GDP alone doesn't provide the accurate picture of human flourishing. Each of the states have less sovereignty now, than when they were Yugoslav republics. Best wishes.
A good piece, yet again very balanced. FbF practically alone in commenting on Russia without hysteria or wishful thinking.
NATO's problem is that security guarantees are meaningless because the US lacks both capacity and good faith.
The US cannot defend Ukraine's borders. It can barely support Ukraine's defence of its own borders. Moreover, the US lacks the will to go to war for Ukraine. The Biden Administration is already operating at the extreme limits of what it can achieve politically. Any promise now would be a sick joke.
Furthermore, the US is simply incapable of negotiating with Moscow. It lacks the political capital or the diplomatic resources. The most senior US officials make fools of themselves in Moscow. Their personal conduct towards their Russian peers has been ludicrous, overbearing and provocative. This has been the case under successive presidents. It makes communication difficult, trust impossible.
Finally, we all know that the US lacks good faith towards all parties, including its allies, without exception. Before he died a senior Hizbolllah figure recently admitted to the BBC Arabic service that the Obama Administration had leaked advance knowledge of Israeli military operations to Lebanon. This was confirmed by Lebanese officials.
This speaks for itself. The Ukrainians cannot trust their masters in Washington anymore than Moscow could. The US is not just incapable of functioning diplomatically, it cannot function as an ally.
TurboAmerica has made gains from the war, especially in gouging Europe on energy and weapons and further deindustrialiasing a once formidable rival.
For now the task for the US is to take whatever measures can be taken to reduce the exposure of the US to counter-party risk from Ukrainian securities, prepare another Operation Paperclip for the US fifth column and identify appropriate talent in the ranks of the US diplomatic corps to succeed the current generation. There is not much point in doing anything else.
Yes...time to wind it down
The great unexamined issue (worthy of your attention, Niccolo) are the likely effects of the Ukraine war on Europe. TurboAmerica can process any humiliation simply by managing the narrative and waiting for the next celebrity scandal. Europe is in a different position.
No matter who occupies the White House in January, the pressure will be immense to ramp up military spending in Europe, and put Ukraine on its plate.
It goes without saying that industry policy across Europe will now be done to meet expectations in Washington. The great indistrial exodus from Germany will continue, with downstream effects from Texas to Latin America and China.
The European governments and banks, however, quite likely own the bulk of the Ukraine's debts. The effects of this on politics could be wild. Imagine the inter-war years seen via beer goggles laced with horse tranquillisers. Weimar cabaret with a cast of troons and cripples performing for a near-vegetative audience.
descriptive, but sounds about right
Clear headed & concise. 👍🏻
Thanks bro
Best play for Russia is to let 2025 play out before engaging in any sort of negotiations.
Russian advantages are compounding and the situation is only getting worse for the ukraine.
Biggest danger is a possible Putin zrada, knowing how much he likes to make deals with his cherished western partners.
In any scenario, the control of the 4 new oblasts in their entirety and a neutral, non NATO, non EU ukraine should be the minimal terms Russia is willing to accept, yet obviously a commitment problem remains as there's no feasible scenario where they could trust GAE not to deceive them as they're wont to do.
If I was advising the Russians, I would be telling them much the same thing....not that they don't already know it, especially re: "agreement incapable" USA.
"Security guarantees" mean NATO membership without calling it so. Russia will never agree to that as long it has any say. Alternatively it might want territorial concessions that put the border at the Dnieper or further west.
Waging war to achieve security guarantees is a rather dumb. The whole aim of security guarantees is to prevent war.
Key clause of any agreement, one no doubt now supported by a wide swathe across the Russia-Ukraine polity, is that all the chickenhawk thinktank NGO types and talking heads and opinion columnists and retired generals and bloodthirsty NAFO keyboard warriors, who’ve promised and demanded such unrealistic nonsense for so long, be taken out back and shot as one might a rabid animal.
haha...i think we're stuck with them forever
surely everyone can agree on that
As I was saying right from the start, the being of buffer state was the best for Ukraine's geopolitical realities. Nuland might be gone, but her lifework will haunt the world for a good while. I don't think Russia would accept any less than a nominal overlordship over Ukraine and they can do it.
In retrospect, there were so many times when this could have been stopped with a much better results but the western man is too much up in their asses.
In the Franco-Prussian war Moltke and Bismarck knew this. They might have been able to crush France even more, but the french were almost instantly able to refill the ranks so it would have resulted in a slugfest with diminishing results(at the battlefield...the damage for the hinterlands would have been immesurable).
I think after the initial Kherson and Kharkov counteroffensives, Ukraine might have been still able to negotiate a quite good deal. Zelensky's biggest misstep was priming the population for a Nato membership and in a moment of weakness(and from the high of the recent victories) they believed that they can actually win this war.
Then the switch happened from the cabinet war with the Bakhmut campaign which could have been another exit point, with admittedly much worse prospects. Nobody needed this war, the russians doesn't have a good time either, except they have the means to keep on fighting.
As I mentioned, I don't think they can avoid being under Moscow control at this point. A buffer state resolution would have worked, so that both sides prop them up, making any transgressor having a really hard time when acting up.
I'm from Hungary, and actually of Rusyn ancestry(Ukraine only recognize them as part of the larger ukrainian volk). What I mean with this is, that Ukraine was always right protecting itself...anybody is right doing that. But even if I hate Orbán a LOT, he did have a key sentence. I'm paraphrasing but it's something like this.
We would rather have a country between us and the russians.
The status quo was the best for all of us, because we sure don't have the means (the US neither). Lee Kuan Yew knew this too. Much of the posturing is just that...posturing. You don't want to out your weakness by getting into unnecessary conflicts.
Interesting post. Thank you!
Interesting, but unlike France in 1871, Ukraine is a disposable proxy. Nobody cares how many Ukrainians die, not in Washington, not in Brussels, not in Kiev.
In fact, take away Russia, and Ukraine would go from The Beacon Of Freedom Amd Democracy to a nazi-infested pariah state.
Only the people are disposable. The land itself is invaluable. Fertile farmland available on a scale that enables considerable economies of scale. The helots for the latifundia are available in India if too many locals are dead or exiled. Kiev an essential outpost of Western values available for either crisis or sex tourism...think Bangkok for travellers who prefer blondes. If the locals are not available blondes can be shipped in from the Baltic or the Rumanians can use bleach.
And the Nazis won't hang around in number. Too many jobs in law enforcement or Deep State related enterprises in US for that. Nightclubs in London or Toronto need bouncers too. Deutchestan could also use Dynamo Dnieperpetrovsk fans to balance the Syrian and Afghan entrepreneurs.
The world is awash in ag commodities.
True but Ukraine has an outstanding comparative advantage in Frankenstein foods. The agreement for the eventual acession to the EU was drafted to include a clause enabling close cooperation between Kiev and Brussels on food regulation etc. The lobbyists for Monsanto and Cargill think long term.
They can do that, anywhere, if and to the extent backed by American muscle.
As I said, though, it doesn't matter, as the world is awash in ag commodities.
You win. Just tried to make a point. Where I live people still regard Ulraine as victim of Russia, rather than NATO. An acquaintance just published a poem on Ukraine. Needed to vent.
"The helots for the latifundia are available in India if too many locals are dead or exiled. Kiev an essential outpost of Western values available for either crisis or sex tourism...think Bangkok for travellers who prefer blondes. If the locals are not available blondes can be shipped in from the Baltic or the Rumanians can use bleach."
OUCH! i have seen the future and it stings...
The future is Old Sicily with digital surveillance but without the manners and much worse food. The covert alliance between a tiny refined elite and organised crime, generational poverty, extractive foreigners and resignation...it is all forming. The promise of mass prosperity, leisure and dignity is no longer necessary when labour is cheap and the Reds advocate for endless migration. And no place for a 'leopard' of course.
Back to the future for this Sicilian!
All I need is my shotgun, my Lampedusa, my mama and her macaroni and I'll feel right at home. (And maybe a Sophia Loren to make a bambina with—a man can dream!)
The shotgun reference reminds me of a character in Merimmee's COLOMBA. an ex-seminarian turned bandit brandishes his rifle and says: 'with this I am king, settle disputes and give orders' or words to tbat effect.
You didn't mention all the energy pipeline assets.
A major omission on my part. The Europeans will pay for the gas at globally competitive prices especially so they will have to work harder, take fewer holidays. Fashions will incorporate heavier fabrics.
For the ukrainians it is not disposable. Just as France was not disposable for the french. Then question is, do the germans or the russians have the resource to spare. The germans decided (rightly) that any further gains would result in diminishing gains, while weakening themselves. Russia wanted to avoid this, hence the initial talks.
So it is not about how many ukrainians(french) die, but how many capabilities we spend on solving the situation. That is a deterrence on which they could have built on. But they overstayed that...they can't really effect the russians by making them suffer casualties.
Of course Ukrainians are disposable. The elite will bugger off to London or Miami (which is where they'd rather be and they will end up, regardless) and nobody will ask the poor dumb scrotes left to hold the bag.
The French elites in 1871 didn't really have this option. They certainly didn't see exile in Portugal as a desirable end-goal.
Well, that's an entirely different subject then. Yes, my starting point is/was that the elite itself is interested in the countries future. Maybe because I didn't wanted to be too long (and boring) I omitted that part, that they were obviously acting in other interests, otherwise they would have taken the exits.
And with the french elites...yes. I mean...they could have done it, but why do it, when they could keep their country. But it is surely a good example for showing how irrational the "ukrainian" elite acts. "Ukrainian" because their loyalties are obviously elsewhere.
Actually everyone around the world should make this thought experiment about their leaders. Would they stay if shit goes down? If the answer is no, then probably you are getting colonised.
To amplify your concluding point - the first thing any Ukrainian oligarch does, the minute they become an oligarch, is to get a foreign passport and squirrel away offshore as many assets as they can.
Admittedly, Ukraine is not exactly a country known for stable institutions, but Ukrainian oligarchs spend as much time as they can outside the country, even though they can be a law unto themselves, back home. And foreign holdings are what make status symbols in Ukraine.
You tell me. After shit hit the fan the Budapest Hilton's parking places got full of cars with ukrainian license plates. Refugees...riiiiiight.
Even now, around 8 out of 10 will be ukrainian. And the real estate market go fucked up even more. (Sorry...the real estate market SOARED, making big profits for someone...somewhere)
I should add, the ukrainian elite are not irrational at all.
They simply see Ukraine and Ukrainians as a resource to be exploited, with less concern than a farmer has for the well-being of cattle to be milked or slaughtered.
They are not. My assumptions were only true Ukraine is not in a state capture and acting in its own interests. It is probably the most shining example of one. And it also explains why they are not called out on their undemocratic/authoritarian tendencies.(The ones trying to sell the "democratic" Ukraine narrative are for the same group as the "ukrainian" elite)
Probably every government is in some degree of state capture, true democracy doesn't exist.
The Americans incite conflicts around the world, offer temporary financial backing knowing at some point the side they backed is up shits creek and can't pay given its war time footing, then comes in to cede territory under a default/bankruptcy sale framing. It's rather genius
Especially when you get the post-war reconstruction contracts, and buy up their national assets during the conflict at fire sale prices.
I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
Thanks Niccolo.
Only one point:
government' --> government
Excellent post
Glad you enjoyed it.
The rest of the sane world knows that Russia did not want this war. The US neocons and their low IQ sycophants led the Ukrainians to believe they could defeat Russia. Instead, Russia has defeated the Ukrainians, NATO, and the Americans. This will reverberate around the world. Think Russo-Japanese conflict of 1905 and its repercussions.
Much as I'd like to believe this, we've seen premature announcements of victory before.
Germany was beaten prior to the Battle of the Bulge. Everyone knew it. The Bulge interrupted the defeat for a few months. Same with Ukraine. No miracles are in the offing.
The difference is there was no chance of NATO riding to the reacue.
And there is none now. NATO minus the USA is nothing. And since Russia has destroyed every weapons system NATO has thrown against them, including the vaunted American technology, Ukraine's chances are about the same as that of a late stage-four cancer patient. Our side wanted to fight WW2 over again using the same tactics. The Russians knew better. Modern SRI systems make that sort of warfare obsolete. The sooner our generals figure this out, the sooner peace will return to Europe.
If you really think that the United States has nothing left..
...then the sooner NATO will disappear and peace will return to Europe.
How the hell did Russia defeat Ukraine let alone NATO? All of ther maximalist goals of having a border with Hungary and controlling Kyiv is not going to happen. You think having a militarized, russophobic Ukraine that still controls 80% of its 1991 territory a win?
You must be one of those sycophants I referred to above. I have no idea how much of Ukraine Russia will keep. They for sure don't want areas where non-Russian speaking people live. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland can figure out what to do with the leftover rump of Ukraine. Historically, it has belonged to all the aforementioned at one time or another. Russia wants a secure buffer against the vassal states of America (known as NATO). Otherwise Russians don't give a shit what happens to the rest of "Ukraine".
Your comment is grounded in ignorance. Russia officially ANNEXED 4 regions of Ukraine, it didn't create any kind of buffer. Russia definitely did not go into this war thinking it will only get 4 regions and still have a militarised country of 30 million russophobes on its doorstep. Russian speaking parts? Buddy, in 10 years you won't have any Russian speaking parts in Ukraine because of the consolidation of Ukrainian culture and language.
Also, do not use history as an argument for territorial gains, Europeans should know this kind of thinking only leads to bloodshed.
If you are a European, then join the Ukrainians in their stupid war. If you are an American, what business of yours is this? Either way, you're the ignorant one.
Read Clash of Civilizations, there is a picture where the border between the West and the East is. Russia is returning to its historical borders, it's really that simple.
The elephant in the room throughout this entire discussion is the role that China will inevitably play in negotiating a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine…whether the US, the West or NATO likes it or not. China has laid too much on the line to be left as a mere spectator to talks which bear directly or indirectly upon it’s continued existence as a modern-day superpower:
Which means inter alia: 1) It is agreed that China’s access to Russia’s Far East is, or will remain unimpaired. This includes access to all of Russia’s Arctic coastline up to and including Siberia and the Baring Strait. 2) This will necessarily require the lifting of all sanctions designed to stymie Russia’s trade with China relating to energy, other commodities, military material and so called dual use products. 3) The lifting of all sanctions which impair Russia’s trade or broader engagement with all members of BRICS or other partners of its choice.
I suspect that such strong demands will be made in light of America’s declared intention to first weaken Russia by means of a debilitating protracted war and then ‘contain’ China. In this sense, the security and commercial interests of Moscow and Beijing are indivisible, which is why China is the elephant in the room. Negotiating peace in Ukraine will doubtless get very complicated and acrimonious. And go in directions not currently envisaged.
I'm reading now the last book of Emanuel Tod - The defeat of the West. Staggering. Haven't reached the middle of it and I'm back rereading the introduction. Get it, you'll be amazed.