The New York Times reports that US officials are planning to propose an "armistice" for Ukraine allegedly similar to how the Korean war ended in 1953.
There will be no Korean-type armistice, there will be no German-type division or any other thing that does not address Ukraine not going into NATO and the EU. There will also be no deployment of European 'Peacekeepers' in Ukraine, which is NATO by default, unless we want WW III. The only issue is what Russia wants, because Russia has the troops on the ground and they are quiet happy to continue the war if need be to get what they want. All they will do is keep advancing putting more pressure on the other players as what leverage they have gets less and less.
Unfortunately I think Stephen simplifies the negotiations without looking at the various players in this. I wrote this for someone last week as we discussed what might happen under Trump and not considered in this article - but that might add to it.
This is a five-way negotiation. Trump and his MAGA supporters, the Liberal NeoCons, the EU and UK and Zelensky, even before you get to Russia.
The Russians
The Russians are the easiest, having already set out their stall and its position is well known:
Ukraine outside NATO and neutral, and probably now outside the EU (the Russians say that the EU has a military element linked to NATO within the EU).
Ukraine forces reduced to 85,000 men,
Recognition of the five oblasts (Crimea, Luhansk, Dontez, Zaporizhya, Kherson) as Russian,
Restoration of equal rights for Russian speakers in Ukraine, and
Restoration of the Russian Church in the Ukraine.
Putin might negotiate on the margins for this but he will stick to the baseline for domestic political reasons. He also holds the biggest card on the table in that the Russian Army is in the Ukraine and NATO is not. Should the minimum demands of the Russians not be met they will keep fighting. A continued advance may also lead to more demands.
The Russians have refused to freeze the contact line, as has been suggested, until negotiations are complete. The danger is that if they gain something substantial, like Russian speaking Odessa Oblast for example, then they might add that to their demands.
Trump and MAGA
To do his Presidential agenda (build up against China, pursue his domestic opponents and reform the US/North America) Trump and his MAGA supporters need to shut down both the Ukraine and Middle East wars. They know that the 1990s Pentagon goal of being able to fight two major wars at the same time is unobtainable and will derail Trump's agenda. Trump has some instinct that the Ukraine War has weakened the US, a situation which goes against the MAGA agenda. He has made the right noises, stating very recently that Putin warned him in Trump 1.0 that bringing Ukraine into NATO would provoke war - and that he understands the Russian rationale. He has blamed Biden, calling Ukraine Biden's war (ignoring his own role in continuing Obama's policy of training and arming Ukraine in his first administration), and he is open to talking to Putin - something Biden refused to do.
He is more experienced than in his first administration, is better prepared, has supporters in position (subject to ratification) and is not willing to have the state institutions flimflam him as it did last time. He has won the election outright and may not get the pushback from the Legislature (at least for the first two years) and no lawfare that could stymie his administration as it did in Trump 1.0 with Russsiagate. He also has the backing of much of the electorate who want the money being spent in Ukraine spent on them and their defence - they are tired of the Liberal Wars that gained the US nothing, while things are broken at home.
Economically Trump wants to reduce the cost of living and removing sanctions on Russian trade will do this in the long run. Strategically he needs to move the Russians away from the Chinese and this will be his opening gambit - perhaps this will succeed but perhaps not. The Russians do not trust Trump or the Americans in general - and any agreements with Trump could be overturned by the next President. The Russians will negotiate hard, and they will put measures in place to lock the US and Europe into their promises.
But will Trump be able or be allowed to accede to Russian baseline demands? Will the Liberal NeoCons, Europeans and Zelensky let him? The problem is that the longer the US is involved in the war, the less time he has to complete his agenda, and there are a lot of people who want the war to continue.
Then there is the possibility that Trump will get bored and move on to something else. How much political capital does he want to expend - and Trump does not do nuisance well.
Trump also has a weak hand here as he has no troops on the ground, and all the sanctions in the world imposed on Russia have not worked. The military equipment cupboard is also almost bare - as admitted on CNN last night by the Pentagon Spokesperson - so giving extra equipment over and above what Biden gave to Ukraine would prove hollow. Should Trump become entangled in Ukraine, he will own the War and alienate his voter base.
The Liberal NeoCons
The NeoCons believe that the US can fight in Ukraine and the Middle East as well as build up against China, all at the same time despite evidence to the contrary. They are in the current Biden Administration (where the Bidens have been trying to do their best to sabotage Trump before he is inaugurated), some within the incoming Trump Administration, within the professional civil service and outside the organs of Government in think tanks, etc.
Some NeoCons spin their line because they believe what they say, they might receive monetary remuneration from taking that position, or it benefits them in some other way. They are positing various positions that would either gain victory in negotiations that had been lost on the battlefield, or that limit Russian gains which are seen as temporary and that can be retrieved latter. They will be the first to blame Trump should Ukraine fall (after 20th January) or negotiations meet Russian baseline demands.
And Trump only has four years. Can the NeoCons wait him out and keep the war going or will they attempt to sabotage his negotiation efforts?
The Europeans
The Ukrainian War, in combination with other factors, has improvised Europe, weakened their militaries and undermined many long-cherished assumptions about NATO and the EU, caused disunity within NATO and the EU, given a voice to what the European political elite consider extremist elements - closer to Trumpian MAGA elements - both right and left, caused political upheaval within European countries, continued the deindustrialization of Europe and generally caused instability. One would think that the European political mainstream would welcome an end to the war - but the opposite is true.
The countervailing argument is that the Europeans see the war as keeping the Americans in Europe. They are scared that American, in concentrating on the Chinese will leave Europe to its own devices (Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down - as one commentator put it). Therefore, the political elite are ready to sacrifice their wellbeing and subordinate themselves to US whims, but also in encouraging the US to move against European interests to benefit themselves. The Governments of Europe - with a few notable exceptions, had been egging Biden on and feared the coming of the Trump Administration who is ambivalent at best about NATO, wants to concentrate against China and close down Ukraine.
Watch for the Europeans to make things difficult in the negotiations and place barriers to Trump's efforts.
Zelensky
Lastly, Zelensky has a number of psychological and legal barriers to negotiation.
- The first is the legal law forbidding Ukraine, on pain of death, from negotiating with Russia.
The law will have to be overturned legally. How will the Ukrainian Nationalists feel about
that?
- Secondly, Zelensky has promised the return of the conquored oblasts to Ukraine - either
by force or diplomatically (no plan has been presented how this is going to be achieved)
and will not accept the permanent loss of territory.
- Third, the Nationalists are likely to launch a coup or at least attempt to kill Zelensky to halt
or delay negotiations. Most of the population are calling for negotiations, the Nationalists
are not.
- Lastly, the Russians will not negotiate with Zelensky as they regard him as illegitimate.
Zelensky was supposed to have held an election by 17 May 2024 or hand over the
Presidency to the Rada Speaker - none of which happened. An election will have to be held,
and assuming - a big assumption - that Zelensky wins, while all under Russian pressure all
along the front.
As the negotiations go on, expect Zelensky to be difficult and not accept any unwelcome compromises made by Trump. Expect the Ukrainians to mount provocations and expect the Russians to keep advancing.
Overall, I am betting that in 2025 the war will be in on the battlefield and not at the negotiating table. The issue is, Will Trump still be trying to negotiate when the defeat occurs. If so, then the Europeans and NeoCons will make sure Trump owns that defeat.
"Restoration of the Russian Church in the Ukraine" - Ukraine has the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, traditionally connected with the Russian Orthodox Church, and it's the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians who are currently being forced (including the elderly nuns in the convents!) by Zelensky's goons to renounce their faith and convert into Uniate or Catholicism. Many nuns left the convents in protest, churches are being robbed, priceless church artifacts gone, priests are being beaten. I wrote 2 Dem Senators of my state as early as in the Spring of 2022 about the prosecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians in Kyiv, asked for a meeting - crickets, no even a pro-forma reply, and just "more money to Ukraine."
Very good summary. The danger here is that there aren't many options to escalate the conflict for Trump except putting troops on active combat if Russia doesn't acquiesce to his suggestions.
Quite correct - but that leads to WW III and nuclear war.
Unfortunately, and I hate to say this as an ex-soldier, but the kind of war being fought in Ukraine/Russia is the type the West is unprepared for. During the Cold War - and I was in the Army in the 1980s - we trained for high intensity Conventional Warfare. But in the last thirty years all we have prepared for is Insurgent Warfare with a small occasional low intensity conventional surge (ie the first month of the Iraq war) if needed. And of course modern Conventional War has moved on so much from the Conventionl Warfare we trained for since then.
Not only that, I don't think we can supply large numbers of troops over 4,500 miles or so from the US in the face of Russian opposition. And especially not with the Woke leadership we currently have in place. The temptation to use just a small nuke to turn the tide would be overwhelming. All we would accomplish is to get a lot of American men and women killed and start WWIII.
Based on the many factors you mentioned, I agree that on balance it seems likely the war will continue through 2025. There is one factor that may intervene however, and that's the situation on the battlefield. If Russian advances are very slow, then there will be more impetus to negotiate. However, if as seems likely, Russian advances continue to accelerate and begin to threaten territories on the west bank of the Dniepr, we perhaps could see negotiations in 2025.
You are correct - if the Russian advances slow there maybe increased pressure for the Russians to negotiate. At present the advances, as you acknowledge, are excellerating. The Ukrainian Army is being worn down by attritional tactics and the the advance will only speed up. The impetious for negotiation will mostly be on the side of the West, as the more hardline elements of Russian society see little need to negotiate at this time - and this also puts pressure on Putin to hold off. Those that do favour negotiation in the West will be forced increasingly to concede points in order to save as much of Ukraine's territorial entity as possible. Already there is talk in some quarters in Russia of an advance to the Dneiper and acquisition of the entire east bank. This does not take into account the current positions that Russia would acquire on the west bank in Kherson and Zaparozhya from recognition of these oblasts as Russian.
In an ideal world - Yes, but we are not in an ideal world. All I was doing was pointing out some other obstacles not mentioned in the article to any negotiations - those who have a need to keep the war going and the US involved. These actors will have to be considered by Trump and his MAGA acholytes, and over come if negotitations are to be successful.
"The US view is that Russia is hurting enough economically and its losses in the Ukraine war serious enough to incentivize the Russians to accept an Armistice..."
That seems highly unlikely to this observer. The U.S. [government] view has been highly unrealistic for this entire conflict, driven more by desired outcomes than a realistic appraisal of actual conditions, and this seems no different.
I did not say it was realistic or unrealistic. I reported for what it is, and that argument is what is put forth by the intelligence agencies and is being banged into the heads of the Trump advisors.
Though Russia's economic hurt and losses in personnel are significant, relief on those issues alone are insufficient to bring Russia to an agreement. As has been said many times, Ukraine is an *existential* matter for Russia. They will not bargain for an existence with a threatening Ukraine on their border.
Demilitarization, denazification and no NATO in Ukraine - ever! - are fundamental Russian points and have been since the war began. If those items are agreed upon, then Russia would probably be willing to talk about the economic issues around US sanctions and borders.
A proposal from the US that doesn't include the points above, that doesn't recognize the new Russian territories (Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk as part of Russia and that doesn't return Russia's sovereign assets frozen in the west, is unlikely to generate any interest in the Kremlin.
The weak link is Zelensky -- the former President of the Ukraine, term now expired. All President Trump has to do is to insist that there be immediate free & fair democratic elections in the Ukraine -- the US has been supporting the Ukraine because of "democracy", after all. Zelensky will of course refuse, and the US will have the perfect rationale for walking away. (Remember -- "Joe Biden" paid no price for walking away from the much larger & longer US involvement in Afghanistan). Then the Ukrainian issues will be resolved on the battlefield, and not in the Ukraine's favor.
A prompt abandonment of "Joe Biden's" war in the Ukraine would leave President Trump free to focus on the domestic issues which matter much more to him & the American people. After Russia has resolved the situation in the Ukraine to its satisfaction, there could be direct US/Russia negotiations to return NATO to a defensive alliance, instead of the aggressive force it has unfortunately become.
"Russia is not looking for an armistice but for a comprehensive deal with the US and NATO." That indeed is, as far as I understand it, the crux of the matter. The Russians proposed such a deal on the eve of the war. It was brushed away by the Americans, and the war began. I wonder whether Trump and his team are aware that this is where the rub is lying? Until now I haven't seen signs of this. Maybe Putin can make this clear to Trump when they meet. The Russians will not be so foolish as to agree with an armistice that brings Western soldiers in Ukraine and gives Kiev the time to recover and start all over again later.
When America agrees to 100% withdrawl from Ukraine, NATO 100% withdrawl from Ukraine and both America & NATO withdraw from central Europe & the Baltics- Russia will be interested- but won't stop advancing west in Ukraine until the last American & NATO puppet cross into Poland or some other EU country west of Ukraine.
Trump & America have no cards beyond the 2 outlined above.
Russia does not care at all about sanctions relief. Sanctions have been great for Russia.
They were compelled to dedollarize. This has been a blessing for them AND many other countries.
Russia has ZERO interest in friendly relations with America or the west.
Armistice would be contraproductive from a natcon US point of view as it would let sanctions stay in place as well as cement the Sino-Russian alliance and the dedollarization. Not that the Russians would take it either.
At the moment, Donald has none of his people in place in the State, Defence, Intelligence or National Security. So it's just the Biden-Obama Security apparatus working from beyond the grave. My guess is that Trump will do a continuing resolution until his personnel is installed (Apr 2025?) and only THEN do a brain storm. So nothing to be gained by rushing in the first 3 months.
More drilling in the US will lead to oil&gas getting cheaper, though. In addition to the effect of a world-wide recession on the horizon if the US attempts to reduce the budget deficit.
There was a lot of nonsense going on with the vaccines in 2020, including Trump’s giving tons of money to minuscular biotechs with no credible history in drug development, proved infrastructure for large vaccine trials.
I would say, given the economics, that was OK. Of course, it should have been followed by rigorous phase 3 and phase 4 trials after allowing vaccines on experimental basis. For example, we still have no good overall lethality data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Instead, people with cognitive impairment came into office, made vaccinations mandatory and the rest is history.
Russia did not annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces in September, 2022 and Crimea in 2014. All five areas held internationally-monitored elections, attended by large majorities, that voted in large majorities to secede from the Ukraine. After those elections, the Duma accepted their applications to become part of the Russian Federation, again in the case of Crimea.
I can't help you with whatever perverted definition you want to use for annexation, which is routinely a hostile takeover rather than a lawful self-determination, as the secessions were.
It's just a realistic definition. Just as Germany did annex Saarland in 1936 and Austria in 1938 even though threre were vast majorities in these regions who voted in favor of such an annexation.
Why are you repeating this nonsense - "...Crimea annexed in 2014?" - USAID (US gov!) polled the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (note again, Autonomous, not Ukraine) extensively in 2009-2013 and year after year, the majority voted that Ukraine was "taking the wrong direction). So why are you surprised that after the bloody Maidan coup in Feb 2014 in Kyiv, Crimea just had enough and voted to join Russia?
Or the referenda results are legit only if they support the "designated outcome?"
To make it easier for you to understand, the word "annexation" is viewed as humiliating/degrading term in both; Russian and Ukrainian languages. Treat this word with the same caution you use for the words "black person," when you are not using another historic option, dictionary available but a social taboo.
That we are 3 years into this war, but here, in the US, even seemingly bright and educated people are clueless on the above. You don't notice that the word "annexation" triggers basically anyone who comes from these part of the woods Please don't lecture on how acceptable the word "annexation," is, citing the legal jargon. It's not.
I read all your blogs. The one about Korea type armistice, didn't not connect. It lacked the depth that all your other blogs have. Just a nitpick, don't mind please
Russia will impose the terms of Ukrainian capitulation. Trump will be given a face-saving out. Zelenski will move to London to "operate" the government-in-exile.
Minsk agreements showed Russia how devious the West will be. I listened to Tump and the information they handed him is more the same - Mediazona has close to 89k dead a far cry from 1,000,000 Trump mentioned.
Drump would be wise to walk away from Ukraine the way Biden walked away from Afghanistan. Russia holds all the cards and after taking 400,000 casualties, the Kremlin is not in a mood to negotiate or sign worthless agreements with cut throat, double-crossing weasels in Washington.
Ukraine will be reduced to a neutral, demilitarized rump state. Russian military bases in Western Ukraine near the Belarus and Transnistria borders will enforce these terms as needed. Any NATO sponsored guerilla terror bases will be annihilated as well.
There's not a damn thing the US and NATO poodles can do about it.
As in everyhing else, Trump wants 'a deal' he can brag about.
So it's all about carrots and sticks: what he has to offer and threaten each side.
Is there is in fact a coherent Ukrainian 'side'? Playing with divisions in Ukraine and among other interested parties beside Moscow and Kiev is of course part of forcing a deal.
The bottom line is that the most powerful factions in most of the parties directly and indirectly involved now *want* a deal.
The details are complex, but maybe the biggest challenge is parties that for mainly commercial rather than ideological reasons - notably Big Defense and their political clients in America *do not want* a deal. After all, they kept the Afghan War going for 20 years and many trillions before moving on to Ukraine.
I guess Trump could offer big new contracts for military buildup against China, since Ukraine is for many players in the US military-industrial-political complex just a warm-up for Taiwan.
There will be no Korean-type armistice, there will be no German-type division or any other thing that does not address Ukraine not going into NATO and the EU. There will also be no deployment of European 'Peacekeepers' in Ukraine, which is NATO by default, unless we want WW III. The only issue is what Russia wants, because Russia has the troops on the ground and they are quiet happy to continue the war if need be to get what they want. All they will do is keep advancing putting more pressure on the other players as what leverage they have gets less and less.
Unfortunately I think Stephen simplifies the negotiations without looking at the various players in this. I wrote this for someone last week as we discussed what might happen under Trump and not considered in this article - but that might add to it.
This is a five-way negotiation. Trump and his MAGA supporters, the Liberal NeoCons, the EU and UK and Zelensky, even before you get to Russia.
The Russians
The Russians are the easiest, having already set out their stall and its position is well known:
Ukraine outside NATO and neutral, and probably now outside the EU (the Russians say that the EU has a military element linked to NATO within the EU).
Ukraine forces reduced to 85,000 men,
Recognition of the five oblasts (Crimea, Luhansk, Dontez, Zaporizhya, Kherson) as Russian,
Restoration of equal rights for Russian speakers in Ukraine, and
Restoration of the Russian Church in the Ukraine.
Putin might negotiate on the margins for this but he will stick to the baseline for domestic political reasons. He also holds the biggest card on the table in that the Russian Army is in the Ukraine and NATO is not. Should the minimum demands of the Russians not be met they will keep fighting. A continued advance may also lead to more demands.
The Russians have refused to freeze the contact line, as has been suggested, until negotiations are complete. The danger is that if they gain something substantial, like Russian speaking Odessa Oblast for example, then they might add that to their demands.
Trump and MAGA
To do his Presidential agenda (build up against China, pursue his domestic opponents and reform the US/North America) Trump and his MAGA supporters need to shut down both the Ukraine and Middle East wars. They know that the 1990s Pentagon goal of being able to fight two major wars at the same time is unobtainable and will derail Trump's agenda. Trump has some instinct that the Ukraine War has weakened the US, a situation which goes against the MAGA agenda. He has made the right noises, stating very recently that Putin warned him in Trump 1.0 that bringing Ukraine into NATO would provoke war - and that he understands the Russian rationale. He has blamed Biden, calling Ukraine Biden's war (ignoring his own role in continuing Obama's policy of training and arming Ukraine in his first administration), and he is open to talking to Putin - something Biden refused to do.
He is more experienced than in his first administration, is better prepared, has supporters in position (subject to ratification) and is not willing to have the state institutions flimflam him as it did last time. He has won the election outright and may not get the pushback from the Legislature (at least for the first two years) and no lawfare that could stymie his administration as it did in Trump 1.0 with Russsiagate. He also has the backing of much of the electorate who want the money being spent in Ukraine spent on them and their defence - they are tired of the Liberal Wars that gained the US nothing, while things are broken at home.
Economically Trump wants to reduce the cost of living and removing sanctions on Russian trade will do this in the long run. Strategically he needs to move the Russians away from the Chinese and this will be his opening gambit - perhaps this will succeed but perhaps not. The Russians do not trust Trump or the Americans in general - and any agreements with Trump could be overturned by the next President. The Russians will negotiate hard, and they will put measures in place to lock the US and Europe into their promises.
But will Trump be able or be allowed to accede to Russian baseline demands? Will the Liberal NeoCons, Europeans and Zelensky let him? The problem is that the longer the US is involved in the war, the less time he has to complete his agenda, and there are a lot of people who want the war to continue.
Then there is the possibility that Trump will get bored and move on to something else. How much political capital does he want to expend - and Trump does not do nuisance well.
Trump also has a weak hand here as he has no troops on the ground, and all the sanctions in the world imposed on Russia have not worked. The military equipment cupboard is also almost bare - as admitted on CNN last night by the Pentagon Spokesperson - so giving extra equipment over and above what Biden gave to Ukraine would prove hollow. Should Trump become entangled in Ukraine, he will own the War and alienate his voter base.
The Liberal NeoCons
The NeoCons believe that the US can fight in Ukraine and the Middle East as well as build up against China, all at the same time despite evidence to the contrary. They are in the current Biden Administration (where the Bidens have been trying to do their best to sabotage Trump before he is inaugurated), some within the incoming Trump Administration, within the professional civil service and outside the organs of Government in think tanks, etc.
Some NeoCons spin their line because they believe what they say, they might receive monetary remuneration from taking that position, or it benefits them in some other way. They are positing various positions that would either gain victory in negotiations that had been lost on the battlefield, or that limit Russian gains which are seen as temporary and that can be retrieved latter. They will be the first to blame Trump should Ukraine fall (after 20th January) or negotiations meet Russian baseline demands.
And Trump only has four years. Can the NeoCons wait him out and keep the war going or will they attempt to sabotage his negotiation efforts?
The Europeans
The Ukrainian War, in combination with other factors, has improvised Europe, weakened their militaries and undermined many long-cherished assumptions about NATO and the EU, caused disunity within NATO and the EU, given a voice to what the European political elite consider extremist elements - closer to Trumpian MAGA elements - both right and left, caused political upheaval within European countries, continued the deindustrialization of Europe and generally caused instability. One would think that the European political mainstream would welcome an end to the war - but the opposite is true.
The countervailing argument is that the Europeans see the war as keeping the Americans in Europe. They are scared that American, in concentrating on the Chinese will leave Europe to its own devices (Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down - as one commentator put it). Therefore, the political elite are ready to sacrifice their wellbeing and subordinate themselves to US whims, but also in encouraging the US to move against European interests to benefit themselves. The Governments of Europe - with a few notable exceptions, had been egging Biden on and feared the coming of the Trump Administration who is ambivalent at best about NATO, wants to concentrate against China and close down Ukraine.
Watch for the Europeans to make things difficult in the negotiations and place barriers to Trump's efforts.
Zelensky
Lastly, Zelensky has a number of psychological and legal barriers to negotiation.
- The first is the legal law forbidding Ukraine, on pain of death, from negotiating with Russia.
The law will have to be overturned legally. How will the Ukrainian Nationalists feel about
that?
- Secondly, Zelensky has promised the return of the conquored oblasts to Ukraine - either
by force or diplomatically (no plan has been presented how this is going to be achieved)
and will not accept the permanent loss of territory.
- Third, the Nationalists are likely to launch a coup or at least attempt to kill Zelensky to halt
or delay negotiations. Most of the population are calling for negotiations, the Nationalists
are not.
- Lastly, the Russians will not negotiate with Zelensky as they regard him as illegitimate.
Zelensky was supposed to have held an election by 17 May 2024 or hand over the
Presidency to the Rada Speaker - none of which happened. An election will have to be held,
and assuming - a big assumption - that Zelensky wins, while all under Russian pressure all
along the front.
As the negotiations go on, expect Zelensky to be difficult and not accept any unwelcome compromises made by Trump. Expect the Ukrainians to mount provocations and expect the Russians to keep advancing.
Overall, I am betting that in 2025 the war will be in on the battlefield and not at the negotiating table. The issue is, Will Trump still be trying to negotiate when the defeat occurs. If so, then the Europeans and NeoCons will make sure Trump owns that defeat.
"Restoration of the Russian Church in the Ukraine" - Ukraine has the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, traditionally connected with the Russian Orthodox Church, and it's the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians who are currently being forced (including the elderly nuns in the convents!) by Zelensky's goons to renounce their faith and convert into Uniate or Catholicism. Many nuns left the convents in protest, churches are being robbed, priceless church artifacts gone, priests are being beaten. I wrote 2 Dem Senators of my state as early as in the Spring of 2022 about the prosecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians in Kyiv, asked for a meeting - crickets, no even a pro-forma reply, and just "more money to Ukraine."
Very good summary. The danger here is that there aren't many options to escalate the conflict for Trump except putting troops on active combat if Russia doesn't acquiesce to his suggestions.
Quite correct - but that leads to WW III and nuclear war.
Unfortunately, and I hate to say this as an ex-soldier, but the kind of war being fought in Ukraine/Russia is the type the West is unprepared for. During the Cold War - and I was in the Army in the 1980s - we trained for high intensity Conventional Warfare. But in the last thirty years all we have prepared for is Insurgent Warfare with a small occasional low intensity conventional surge (ie the first month of the Iraq war) if needed. And of course modern Conventional War has moved on so much from the Conventionl Warfare we trained for since then.
Not only that, I don't think we can supply large numbers of troops over 4,500 miles or so from the US in the face of Russian opposition. And especially not with the Woke leadership we currently have in place. The temptation to use just a small nuke to turn the tide would be overwhelming. All we would accomplish is to get a lot of American men and women killed and start WWIII.
There is ZERO chance of Russia "acquiesing" to Trump/America.
American troops in Ukraine would be an unmitigated disaster for Trump & America.
More likely, we'll just see open piracy against Russian shipping.
A very good summary. Thank you!
Based on the many factors you mentioned, I agree that on balance it seems likely the war will continue through 2025. There is one factor that may intervene however, and that's the situation on the battlefield. If Russian advances are very slow, then there will be more impetus to negotiate. However, if as seems likely, Russian advances continue to accelerate and begin to threaten territories on the west bank of the Dniepr, we perhaps could see negotiations in 2025.
Thanks Richard,
You are correct - if the Russian advances slow there maybe increased pressure for the Russians to negotiate. At present the advances, as you acknowledge, are excellerating. The Ukrainian Army is being worn down by attritional tactics and the the advance will only speed up. The impetious for negotiation will mostly be on the side of the West, as the more hardline elements of Russian society see little need to negotiate at this time - and this also puts pressure on Putin to hold off. Those that do favour negotiation in the West will be forced increasingly to concede points in order to save as much of Ukraine's territorial entity as possible. Already there is talk in some quarters in Russia of an advance to the Dneiper and acquisition of the entire east bank. This does not take into account the current positions that Russia would acquire on the west bank in Kherson and Zaparozhya from recognition of these oblasts as Russian.
There are 2 parties to the negotiation. Russia & America. The others are non-entities.
America must withdraw from Ukraine, central Europe & the Baltics.
America must compel NATO to do the same or cut NATO loose.
If any Ukraine exists at all, it will be maximum 40% of what it is now.
Just as likely it disappears completely, as there is of some rump remaining.
In an ideal world - Yes, but we are not in an ideal world. All I was doing was pointing out some other obstacles not mentioned in the article to any negotiations - those who have a need to keep the war going and the US involved. These actors will have to be considered by Trump and his MAGA acholytes, and over come if negotitations are to be successful.
"The US view is that Russia is hurting enough economically and its losses in the Ukraine war serious enough to incentivize the Russians to accept an Armistice..."
That seems highly unlikely to this observer. The U.S. [government] view has been highly unrealistic for this entire conflict, driven more by desired outcomes than a realistic appraisal of actual conditions, and this seems no different.
I did not say it was realistic or unrealistic. I reported for what it is, and that argument is what is put forth by the intelligence agencies and is being banged into the heads of the Trump advisors.
ME didn't say that you said it was unrealistic. He said that it appears unrealistic to him.
Though Russia's economic hurt and losses in personnel are significant, relief on those issues alone are insufficient to bring Russia to an agreement. As has been said many times, Ukraine is an *existential* matter for Russia. They will not bargain for an existence with a threatening Ukraine on their border.
Demilitarization, denazification and no NATO in Ukraine - ever! - are fundamental Russian points and have been since the war began. If those items are agreed upon, then Russia would probably be willing to talk about the economic issues around US sanctions and borders.
A proposal from the US that doesn't include the points above, that doesn't recognize the new Russian territories (Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Lugansk as part of Russia and that doesn't return Russia's sovereign assets frozen in the west, is unlikely to generate any interest in the Kremlin.
The weak link is Zelensky -- the former President of the Ukraine, term now expired. All President Trump has to do is to insist that there be immediate free & fair democratic elections in the Ukraine -- the US has been supporting the Ukraine because of "democracy", after all. Zelensky will of course refuse, and the US will have the perfect rationale for walking away. (Remember -- "Joe Biden" paid no price for walking away from the much larger & longer US involvement in Afghanistan). Then the Ukrainian issues will be resolved on the battlefield, and not in the Ukraine's favor.
A prompt abandonment of "Joe Biden's" war in the Ukraine would leave President Trump free to focus on the domestic issues which matter much more to him & the American people. After Russia has resolved the situation in the Ukraine to its satisfaction, there could be direct US/Russia negotiations to return NATO to a defensive alliance, instead of the aggressive force it has unfortunately become.
Not a chance in hell.
"Russia is not looking for an armistice but for a comprehensive deal with the US and NATO." That indeed is, as far as I understand it, the crux of the matter. The Russians proposed such a deal on the eve of the war. It was brushed away by the Americans, and the war began. I wonder whether Trump and his team are aware that this is where the rub is lying? Until now I haven't seen signs of this. Maybe Putin can make this clear to Trump when they meet. The Russians will not be so foolish as to agree with an armistice that brings Western soldiers in Ukraine and gives Kiev the time to recover and start all over again later.
When America agrees to 100% withdrawl from Ukraine, NATO 100% withdrawl from Ukraine and both America & NATO withdraw from central Europe & the Baltics- Russia will be interested- but won't stop advancing west in Ukraine until the last American & NATO puppet cross into Poland or some other EU country west of Ukraine.
Trump & America have no cards beyond the 2 outlined above.
Russia does not care at all about sanctions relief. Sanctions have been great for Russia.
They were compelled to dedollarize. This has been a blessing for them AND many other countries.
Russia has ZERO interest in friendly relations with America or the west.
Peaceful, respectful relations- yes.
Friendship, "welcome into the western club"- ZERO
Armistice would be contraproductive from a natcon US point of view as it would let sanctions stay in place as well as cement the Sino-Russian alliance and the dedollarization. Not that the Russians would take it either.
At the moment, Donald has none of his people in place in the State, Defence, Intelligence or National Security. So it's just the Biden-Obama Security apparatus working from beyond the grave. My guess is that Trump will do a continuing resolution until his personnel is installed (Apr 2025?) and only THEN do a brain storm. So nothing to be gained by rushing in the first 3 months.
More drilling in the US will lead to oil&gas getting cheaper, though. In addition to the effect of a world-wide recession on the horizon if the US attempts to reduce the budget deficit.
we will see what he actually does as he is mostly his own captain
Yep, every day is a suprize :D
Anyway, I was impressed by the speed he developed to get the vaccines off the ground in 2020.
There was a lot of nonsense going on with the vaccines in 2020, including Trump’s giving tons of money to minuscular biotechs with no credible history in drug development, proved infrastructure for large vaccine trials.
I would say, given the economics, that was OK. Of course, it should have been followed by rigorous phase 3 and phase 4 trials after allowing vaccines on experimental basis. For example, we still have no good overall lethality data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Instead, people with cognitive impairment came into office, made vaccinations mandatory and the rest is history.
How much exactly do you know about clinical trials?
is that an ironic question?
Any terms that Russia could accept will simply cause Trump’s domestic enemies to scream "Putin puppet!"
The ghost of St. Winston will be duly invoked, as will assurances that Russia was on the verge of collapse.
Russia did not annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces in September, 2022 and Crimea in 2014. All five areas held internationally-monitored elections, attended by large majorities, that voted in large majorities to secede from the Ukraine. After those elections, the Duma accepted their applications to become part of the Russian Federation, again in the case of Crimea.
the result was they were annexed by Russia, so what are you trying to say?
I can't help you with whatever perverted definition you want to use for annexation, which is routinely a hostile takeover rather than a lawful self-determination, as the secessions were.
It's just a realistic definition. Just as Germany did annex Saarland in 1936 and Austria in 1938 even though threre were vast majorities in these regions who voted in favor of such an annexation.
Why are you repeating this nonsense - "...Crimea annexed in 2014?" - USAID (US gov!) polled the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (note again, Autonomous, not Ukraine) extensively in 2009-2013 and year after year, the majority voted that Ukraine was "taking the wrong direction). So why are you surprised that after the bloody Maidan coup in Feb 2014 in Kyiv, Crimea just had enough and voted to join Russia?
Or the referenda results are legit only if they support the "designated outcome?"
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaec705.pdf
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PBAAJ072.pdf
To make it easier for you to understand, the word "annexation" is viewed as humiliating/degrading term in both; Russian and Ukrainian languages. Treat this word with the same caution you use for the words "black person," when you are not using another historic option, dictionary available but a social taboo.
That we are 3 years into this war, but here, in the US, even seemingly bright and educated people are clueless on the above. You don't notice that the word "annexation" triggers basically anyone who comes from these part of the woods Please don't lecture on how acceptable the word "annexation," is, citing the legal jargon. It's not.
I read all your blogs. The one about Korea type armistice, didn't not connect. It lacked the depth that all your other blogs have. Just a nitpick, don't mind please
I am quite happy to predict where this will go:
Russia will impose the terms of Ukrainian capitulation. Trump will be given a face-saving out. Zelenski will move to London to "operate" the government-in-exile.
Minsk agreements showed Russia how devious the West will be. I listened to Tump and the information they handed him is more the same - Mediazona has close to 89k dead a far cry from 1,000,000 Trump mentioned.
Drump would be wise to walk away from Ukraine the way Biden walked away from Afghanistan. Russia holds all the cards and after taking 400,000 casualties, the Kremlin is not in a mood to negotiate or sign worthless agreements with cut throat, double-crossing weasels in Washington.
Ukraine will be reduced to a neutral, demilitarized rump state. Russian military bases in Western Ukraine near the Belarus and Transnistria borders will enforce these terms as needed. Any NATO sponsored guerilla terror bases will be annihilated as well.
There's not a damn thing the US and NATO poodles can do about it.
Russia is going for victory and that’s the only sane choice from their perspective. And they will achieve it. As for Kursk - I assume that’s a joke…
The one thing that Trump must do is to forbid any deep strikes.
The one thing that Trump cannot do is to add anything to the support for the Ukraine that is not already firmly in place.
Failure to comply wit the above points will immediately make Trump the owner of the conflict and make any negotiations wit the Russians impossible.
As in everyhing else, Trump wants 'a deal' he can brag about.
So it's all about carrots and sticks: what he has to offer and threaten each side.
Is there is in fact a coherent Ukrainian 'side'? Playing with divisions in Ukraine and among other interested parties beside Moscow and Kiev is of course part of forcing a deal.
The bottom line is that the most powerful factions in most of the parties directly and indirectly involved now *want* a deal.
The details are complex, but maybe the biggest challenge is parties that for mainly commercial rather than ideological reasons - notably Big Defense and their political clients in America *do not want* a deal. After all, they kept the Afghan War going for 20 years and many trillions before moving on to Ukraine.
I guess Trump could offer big new contracts for military buildup against China, since Ukraine is for many players in the US military-industrial-political complex just a warm-up for Taiwan.