These posts are sounding more and more neo-con. No one in the administration is taking serious thought for Russia's stated objectives. The goal is to somehow get Russia to agree to a freeze (capitulate) in such a way as to preserve the illusion of western dominance.
It isn't going to happen.
Thought experiment: what if Russia provided a few anti-ship cruise missiles to Venezuela? Would the powers that be accept that? Ha.
The Russians are going to insist on hard terms. Chucking a narrative sop to the neocons isn't going to influence critical thinkers. So far, J. Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern and others have provided more convincing arguments supported by evidence.
Rhetorical question. Of course, given the inputs necessary, which Bryen has already acknowledged, the US cannot claim it is not operating and firing the missiles. We are currently far from a true settlement and I find it difficult to believe the author doesn't also believe that, in which case floating hogwash like leasehold in the Donbass only makes sense in terms of supporting a deep state narrative shift. Sad. Contrast with what he wrote during the Biden administration consideration about supplying JASSMs to Ukraine: https://asiatimes.com/2024/06/wider-european-war-on-the-horizon/
Simplicius writes a substack that deals almost exclusively with the Ukrainian war. He provides numerous maps that show the daily gains in territory by Russian forces which are accelerating. I tend to agree with his assessments that Ukraine is running out of the manpower to stop the grinding Russian advance.
Russia will end up controlling the Donbas soon and will then let Trump negotiate a peace as long as there is no NATO presence in Ukraine. Trump's lever with NATO is to threaten leaving which would make NATO toothless. Statistically the Russians built more modern battle tanks in the last 2 years than NATO owns combined.
I see Russia as stronger and more capable than when the war started. NATO has no equivalent to and no defense for Russia's new hyper sonic medium range ballistic missle. I see no compelling reason for Putin to stop until he gets what he wants, the entire Donbas Russian speaking part of eastern Ukraine.
The point of view expressed by Simplicius is shared by many other competent commentators. I think some of your recent posts on this subject are far too optimistic about Ukraine's chances.
Jeez. Get over yourself. Saying that Russia captured only a small amount of territory is like saying an enemy capturing the Eastern Seaboard including Florida, of the U.S. (assuming the capital was somewhere else). Taking Louisiana with hundreds of thousands of troops positioned near Texas. Even worse they are moving toward the Mississippi with the Midwest totally unprotected and then saying ........gee, it took a couple of years for the enemy to accomplish it, Are they totally defeated or what because we still have the West Coast?...........
If you are an analyst try to stop thinking like an American for once and imagine that for the Russians, it was never about territory. It is about wiping Ukraine's military capability for a generation. And forcing NATO to back off. Killing all the military age men in Ukraine seems to be the only way to force Ukraine to demilitarize. Draining NATO of it's equipment and the will to fight (respective NATO nations' citizens) because NATO won't back off any other way.
The Pied Piper in the White House calls the tune - but I think Stephen is taking him too literally and seriously on unlaunchable Tomahawks. Does he believe, like his C-in-C as he threatens to walk away from the conflict, that 'Ukraine can retake all lost territory' (23 September) if bankupt Europe keeps buying lots of US weapons?
No, that's just Kremlin-style tongue-in-cheek window-dressing, as Trump prepares to send his own little green men into his own sphere of influence in South America.
Most commentators evaluating Trump fail to grasp his fundamentally different way of thinking from the foggy bottom career diplomats. Gaza should be an eye-opener. Trump talked about a Palestinian resort on the Mediterranean and people laughed at him. He quietly convinced the Arab states funding Hamas to stop and support that Palestinian resort idea instead. He then dropped a few bunker busters on Iran to give them something to rebuild and strong armed Israel.
Wars are incredibly expensive and when the United Arab front told Hamas no more money they folded....as did Netanyahu when told to take it or the purse shuts. When he has his t's crossed he will inform the EU that it's over. Putin wants better relations and financial deals with the west. When he has his buffer from NATO, he and Trump will implement the deal they probably already agreed to in Alaska. They money will continue to flow, but to rebuild what the previous money destroyed and the bankers will be happy, while the military industrial complex will look longingly towards Taiwan.
Some Americans have a default setting on insult and verbal abuse. Britain did not cave in to China for commercial reasons and get out of Hong Kong early. The lease on the New Territories for 99 years began in 1898 and ran out in 1997. The Lease covered 92% of the territory of Hong Kong. Britain could legally (but unacceptably to China) have kept Hong Kong Island forever, but it made no sense to attempt to hang onto 8% of the territory.
Credit to you Stephen for at least trying to think concretely about how a deal could work. Sadly I don’t think Kellogg or anyone working for Trump is thinking in this pragmatic way. And the Ukrainians and Europeans are totally delusional.
There might be a few people willing to listen, such as Witkoff and perhaps Kushner, but they are out-shouted by the neocons. Trump also isn't reflective at all, and the vast majority of Boomers in the US political elite, Trump included, are stuck in the unipolar moment. Failing to face that reality is making the ultimate reckoning far far worse. 37 trillion in debt, no plan to reverse, out of control immigration and no real plan for that either, just more kickbacks to the already-wealthy.
To top it off, there are reports that Trump is headed into cognitive decline.
It all makes me sick. I thought things were bad when I served in the Army and WMD turned out to be a hoax; these idiots seem quite happy to flirt with nuclear war.
So much thinking but Stephen misses the most important point. The WEST, and in particular the US, have00 demonstrated again and again that they don't honor agreements. Minsk 1 + 2, Iran, nuclear treaties. How on earth is someone supposed to believe and trust anything Trump or anyone else from the US administration is saying? Especially since the Western leaders openly stated they want to destroy the Russian economy and regime change, OPENLY!
Overall, Stephen doesn't seem to know Russia and Russians. The war is a existential threat to Russia and they are willing to go all the way. A few Tomahawks won't scare them. Perhaps they may be willing to absorb a few of them but then they will take it out on Ukraine. That's another aspect most Western politicians don't understand (and Stephen appears to be share this sentiment), the more Russia suffers the less of Ukraine will remain.
One more important factor in any kind of cease fire is the fact that both Macron and Merkel admitted that the previous cease fire deal (Minsk 2) was in fact just a ruse to resupply the Ukraine.
Trump has momentum from the Israel Middle East deal. The euro weenies showed up and were pretty much relegated to the sidelines. I believe they know where they stand. If Trump can get Putin to make a deal, the Europeans will have to agree. Besides they’re still buying the Russian energy. They’ll want that to continue.
"While no formal, public, quantitative poll of intelligence experts exists to accurately determine a precise proportion, a qualitative analysis of expert commentary suggests that a significant majority of non-partisan, career intelligence, national security, and Russia specialists would assess the likelihood of Russian kompromat or significant covert leverage over Donald Trump as high or significant.
"A rough, qualitative estimate based on the tenor of expert commentary, particularly from former high-ranking intelligence and counterintelligence officials, would place the proportion of those assessing the likelihood as significant in the range of 60% to 85%.
This does not imply proof of the specific, salacious allegations from the Steele Dossier, but rather a high confidence in the existence of some form of long-term strategic leverage, built on a combination of financial, personal, or political compromise."
The idea of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is to my mind oversimplified. The suggestion that Trump and Putin could negotiate terms quickly, but in reality, any ceasefire would require Ukraine’s full cooperation, along with approval from European allies. Pivotal is, how without trust or strong enforcement mechanisms, a ceasefire could simply give both sides time to regroup and rearm. The concept of a buffer zone and limits on long-range weapons is a lucrative take, but the issue of deep political mistrust or past ceasefire failures that make such proposals hard to implement needs to be addressed.
It seems that our leaders have reached a point where their degradation and incompetence (if not worse) are visible to the naked eye. Of course, I'm expressing myself in a confusing and disjointed manner, but their actions (both Putin's and Trump's) seem to be a game for the public. They periodically provide hope for an "imminent" peace, but then everything returns to zero. History shows that economic and financial crises, as well as global theft and fraud, are resolved during wars. How much of the "investment" that was wasted during the distribution phase was spent on the "development" of Ukraine or Gaza (a tiny percentage of an even larger amount of waste)? It seems that the number of people interested in such destruction is much higher than it appears at the moment...
These posts are sounding more and more neo-con. No one in the administration is taking serious thought for Russia's stated objectives. The goal is to somehow get Russia to agree to a freeze (capitulate) in such a way as to preserve the illusion of western dominance.
It isn't going to happen.
Thought experiment: what if Russia provided a few anti-ship cruise missiles to Venezuela? Would the powers that be accept that? Ha.
The Russians are going to insist on hard terms. Chucking a narrative sop to the neocons isn't going to influence critical thinkers. So far, J. Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern and others have provided more convincing arguments supported by evidence.
What if Russia puts missiles in Cuba? What would be the US reaction?
Rhetorical question. Of course, given the inputs necessary, which Bryen has already acknowledged, the US cannot claim it is not operating and firing the missiles. We are currently far from a true settlement and I find it difficult to believe the author doesn't also believe that, in which case floating hogwash like leasehold in the Donbass only makes sense in terms of supporting a deep state narrative shift. Sad. Contrast with what he wrote during the Biden administration consideration about supplying JASSMs to Ukraine: https://asiatimes.com/2024/06/wider-european-war-on-the-horizon/
What if the US put missiles in Turkey first ?
They are putting missiles into Ukraine which is far more threatening than Turkey.
The VLS installations in Poland & Romania are provocation enough.
Indeed.
Simplicius writes a substack that deals almost exclusively with the Ukrainian war. He provides numerous maps that show the daily gains in territory by Russian forces which are accelerating. I tend to agree with his assessments that Ukraine is running out of the manpower to stop the grinding Russian advance.
Russia will end up controlling the Donbas soon and will then let Trump negotiate a peace as long as there is no NATO presence in Ukraine. Trump's lever with NATO is to threaten leaving which would make NATO toothless. Statistically the Russians built more modern battle tanks in the last 2 years than NATO owns combined.
I see Russia as stronger and more capable than when the war started. NATO has no equivalent to and no defense for Russia's new hyper sonic medium range ballistic missle. I see no compelling reason for Putin to stop until he gets what he wants, the entire Donbas Russian speaking part of eastern Ukraine.
Simplicius says what the Russians tell him (or them)
The point of view expressed by Simplicius is shared by many other competent commentators. I think some of your recent posts on this subject are far too optimistic about Ukraine's chances.
Maybe, but where has he been wrong?
Jeez. Get over yourself. Saying that Russia captured only a small amount of territory is like saying an enemy capturing the Eastern Seaboard including Florida, of the U.S. (assuming the capital was somewhere else). Taking Louisiana with hundreds of thousands of troops positioned near Texas. Even worse they are moving toward the Mississippi with the Midwest totally unprotected and then saying ........gee, it took a couple of years for the enemy to accomplish it, Are they totally defeated or what because we still have the West Coast?...........
If you are an analyst try to stop thinking like an American for once and imagine that for the Russians, it was never about territory. It is about wiping Ukraine's military capability for a generation. And forcing NATO to back off. Killing all the military age men in Ukraine seems to be the only way to force Ukraine to demilitarize. Draining NATO of it's equipment and the will to fight (respective NATO nations' citizens) because NATO won't back off any other way.
Your tune has changed too: https://asiatimes.com/2024/06/wider-european-war-on-the-horizon/
The Pied Piper in the White House calls the tune - but I think Stephen is taking him too literally and seriously on unlaunchable Tomahawks. Does he believe, like his C-in-C as he threatens to walk away from the conflict, that 'Ukraine can retake all lost territory' (23 September) if bankupt Europe keeps buying lots of US weapons?
No, that's just Kremlin-style tongue-in-cheek window-dressing, as Trump prepares to send his own little green men into his own sphere of influence in South America.
Stephen very professional here...
Most commentators evaluating Trump fail to grasp his fundamentally different way of thinking from the foggy bottom career diplomats. Gaza should be an eye-opener. Trump talked about a Palestinian resort on the Mediterranean and people laughed at him. He quietly convinced the Arab states funding Hamas to stop and support that Palestinian resort idea instead. He then dropped a few bunker busters on Iran to give them something to rebuild and strong armed Israel.
Wars are incredibly expensive and when the United Arab front told Hamas no more money they folded....as did Netanyahu when told to take it or the purse shuts. When he has his t's crossed he will inform the EU that it's over. Putin wants better relations and financial deals with the west. When he has his buffer from NATO, he and Trump will implement the deal they probably already agreed to in Alaska. They money will continue to flow, but to rebuild what the previous money destroyed and the bankers will be happy, while the military industrial complex will look longingly towards Taiwan.
Some Americans have a default setting on insult and verbal abuse. Britain did not cave in to China for commercial reasons and get out of Hong Kong early. The lease on the New Territories for 99 years began in 1898 and ran out in 1997. The Lease covered 92% of the territory of Hong Kong. Britain could legally (but unacceptably to China) have kept Hong Kong Island forever, but it made no sense to attempt to hang onto 8% of the territory.
Britain did not have the means to hold Hong Kong, and wisely left vice being humiliated.
So you think that when you pay a months rent on a house you get to stay in it forever?
You don't think Britain would have kept the New Territories if they could?
So you think if you pay a months rent and then keep the house forever by force, that’s all good?
And we’ll skip over the part where the first month’s rent was “negotiated” at gunpoint.
Good or bad, don't get distracted by that. It will just confuse you.
You don't seem familiar with the British Empire's history.
Credit to you Stephen for at least trying to think concretely about how a deal could work. Sadly I don’t think Kellogg or anyone working for Trump is thinking in this pragmatic way. And the Ukrainians and Europeans are totally delusional.
There might be a few people willing to listen, such as Witkoff and perhaps Kushner, but they are out-shouted by the neocons. Trump also isn't reflective at all, and the vast majority of Boomers in the US political elite, Trump included, are stuck in the unipolar moment. Failing to face that reality is making the ultimate reckoning far far worse. 37 trillion in debt, no plan to reverse, out of control immigration and no real plan for that either, just more kickbacks to the already-wealthy.
To top it off, there are reports that Trump is headed into cognitive decline.
It all makes me sick. I thought things were bad when I served in the Army and WMD turned out to be a hoax; these idiots seem quite happy to flirt with nuclear war.
You didn't mention the substantial - and growing - Russian presence in Kharkiv province (and a small presence in Sumy).
So much thinking but Stephen misses the most important point. The WEST, and in particular the US, have00 demonstrated again and again that they don't honor agreements. Minsk 1 + 2, Iran, nuclear treaties. How on earth is someone supposed to believe and trust anything Trump or anyone else from the US administration is saying? Especially since the Western leaders openly stated they want to destroy the Russian economy and regime change, OPENLY!
Overall, Stephen doesn't seem to know Russia and Russians. The war is a existential threat to Russia and they are willing to go all the way. A few Tomahawks won't scare them. Perhaps they may be willing to absorb a few of them but then they will take it out on Ukraine. That's another aspect most Western politicians don't understand (and Stephen appears to be share this sentiment), the more Russia suffers the less of Ukraine will remain.
The Russian response to any cease fire is easy to foretell: Nyet.
One more important factor in any kind of cease fire is the fact that both Macron and Merkel admitted that the previous cease fire deal (Minsk 2) was in fact just a ruse to resupply the Ukraine.
Zelensky arriving in Washington greeted by co-conspirator Yermak but *no American official*...
The Dear Leader is keeping Stephen on his toes.. he may have to now pivot back or forward another 180º and may get rather dizzy.
Trump has momentum from the Israel Middle East deal. The euro weenies showed up and were pretty much relegated to the sidelines. I believe they know where they stand. If Trump can get Putin to make a deal, the Europeans will have to agree. Besides they’re still buying the Russian energy. They’ll want that to continue.
AI assessment:
"While no formal, public, quantitative poll of intelligence experts exists to accurately determine a precise proportion, a qualitative analysis of expert commentary suggests that a significant majority of non-partisan, career intelligence, national security, and Russia specialists would assess the likelihood of Russian kompromat or significant covert leverage over Donald Trump as high or significant.
"A rough, qualitative estimate based on the tenor of expert commentary, particularly from former high-ranking intelligence and counterintelligence officials, would place the proportion of those assessing the likelihood as significant in the range of 60% to 85%.
This does not imply proof of the specific, salacious allegations from the Steele Dossier, but rather a high confidence in the existence of some form of long-term strategic leverage, built on a combination of financial, personal, or political compromise."
The idea of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is to my mind oversimplified. The suggestion that Trump and Putin could negotiate terms quickly, but in reality, any ceasefire would require Ukraine’s full cooperation, along with approval from European allies. Pivotal is, how without trust or strong enforcement mechanisms, a ceasefire could simply give both sides time to regroup and rearm. The concept of a buffer zone and limits on long-range weapons is a lucrative take, but the issue of deep political mistrust or past ceasefire failures that make such proposals hard to implement needs to be addressed.
The default Postsoviet model is frozen conflict.
And these can last a very long time, as in Kashmir.
Why should the madman in Ukraine agree to any of this?
Because he's just a puppet and he will do anything his boss tells him.
It seems that our leaders have reached a point where their degradation and incompetence (if not worse) are visible to the naked eye. Of course, I'm expressing myself in a confusing and disjointed manner, but their actions (both Putin's and Trump's) seem to be a game for the public. They periodically provide hope for an "imminent" peace, but then everything returns to zero. History shows that economic and financial crises, as well as global theft and fraud, are resolved during wars. How much of the "investment" that was wasted during the distribution phase was spent on the "development" of Ukraine or Gaza (a tiny percentage of an even larger amount of waste)? It seems that the number of people interested in such destruction is much higher than it appears at the moment...
Trump's eyes look VERY weird in that photo.