Absolutely incorrect assessment. Russia may not have wanted a war but they (Putin since 2000) have always wanted to control Ukraine. Putin has always dreamed of restoring the USSR empire. He leaned in Ossetia and Georgia, and the again in Syria, just how weak was the US and NATO will. The invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 was successful with minimal cost. In 2021, the US surrender in Afghanistan, the removal of the US fleet from the Black Sea, the cancelling of routine ICBM testing convinced him the West would roll over again. So, maybe Russia “did not want war” but were certainly prepared to start a war to invade a sovereign independent country. The Russian approach is still : “What is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.” Putin is a relentless thus now and will be until he dies.
So even when the OSCE, no friend of Russia, concluded that Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that was just Russian aggression? And when the UN-recognized government of Syria invited Russian troops, that was also aggression because they didn't invite Americans? And Russia then aggressively entered into the Minsk Accord, which Ukrainian immediately broke, then Minsk-2, and the aggressively spent the next eight years trying to get Ukraine to comply with what everyone knew was a sham from the outset intended to buy Ukraine time, as confirmed by Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel? And tell us more about the "US fleet in the Black Sea"!
How many more facts not in evidence need you assume? And when will you look to the lumber yard in your own eye.
Very simple: Is Ukraine an independent nation or not and do the Russian-defined Ukraine borders (1953) hold any significance? Do the Russian promises to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for the surrendering of 6000 nuclear weapons mean anything? The answers are pretty obvious.
Cuba was an Independent Nation when it invited the Soviets to deploy it's missiles in Cuba after the failed CIA Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. Additionally, the US just deployed it's missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Russians.
While those Cuban-Soviet responses were Legal according to International Law, the US was so freaked out about Soviet Missiles that close to the US, the US responded by the 1st ACT OF WAR of the whole ordeal with the ILLEGAL blockade of Cuba violating International Law.
The US is not that Exceptional. If the US was ready to go to WAR with Russia in 1962, Russia feels the same way about the US wanting Ukraine in NATO so the US can deploy US boots on the ground and missiles right on Russia's border, Russia rightly sees as an EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
We can discuss all of human history if that is your point. Please read original post. Is it true that Russia did not want to fight 2022 war? Yes, if they could get what they wanted without fighting a war. Perhaps since Kyiv was the capital of “all Russia” in 800 AD then they should invade and get back their lost sheep. It never ends.
All of which is irrelevant to your original screed, but whatever.
Ukraine also promised to remain neutral. For that matter, NATO also promised not to expand eastwards. None of which pertains to Minsk or Minsk-2, or the 2014 coup in Ukraine.
The US pulled the last ship from the Black Sea in Dec 2021 and cancelled the ICBM tests earlier that year to “not be provocative”. If you want to justify the Russian invasion and indiscriminate murder of many civilians then feel free to do so. Russia has no right to tell Ukraine to join NATO or not. There is nothing new in Russian approaches to warfare or international relations. When weak they retreat and we, for example, restore their oil and gas industry. When strong they feel they can invade INDEPENDENT neighbors. NATO has no interest in invading Russia. The Russians are who they are and pretending otherwise is dangerous.
Good thing that the United States never ever tells INDEPENDENT countries whom they can ally with or make security arrangements with, as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the invasion of Grenada and others never happened.
The idea that NATO is not intended to threaten Russia is a joke.
If the US dominated NATO has no interest in dismembering Russia, why did it advance to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Military Pact opposite NATO? Americans may not see that as an aggressive move, but Russia rightly sees it as US NATO AGGRESSION!
The US deployed missiles in Poland and Roumania within striking distance of Moscow within minutes.
That provoked Russia to develop hyper-sonic missiles against there is no effective defence.
The US definitely wants to wear down the capability of the Russian military. However, that doesn't seem to be working right now. And, for the record, Ukraine is now murdering civilians with their ATACMS strikes.
What were all those CIA bases on the Ukrainian border with Russia if not provocation? I believe that it's pretty clear that there's more to this conflict than Zelensky was just minding his own business when all of a sudden Russia fell out of the sky on him. I liken this one to Bill Burr's piece on Chris Brown and Rihanna...
Ukraine has never had nuclear weapons. It was a Russian nuclear weapon deployed in Ukraine. If they had tried to capture him, the war would have started much earlier.
Yes they were Russian weapons in Ukraine and operational control could have become quite contested had the various megaton to megawatt agreements not taken place. However, the Russians knew in the early ‘90s how weak their position was and surrender, retreat, and have Americans in Siberia rebuilding the oil and as industry was a pragmatic recognition of realpolitik.
The Russian Emperor Alexander the First once told Napoleon: "I will retreat even to Kamchatka." Remember this - the Russians know how to retreat when necessary. But they will never give up and will always get back what they have lost.
It's fake US-NATO WAR Porn Propaganda Putin dreams of restoring the USSR empire. That's simply not True.
US/NATO claiming Russia wants to re-constitute the Soviet Union is US hype to sell more Weapons of Death & Destruction preparing Americans for the FINAL WAR to End ALL WARS, WWIII/Armageddon.
Vladimir Putin, "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."
New York Times 20 February 2000;
In 2014 the US-CIA orchestrated the regime change of the Democratically Elected Russian friendly government the majority Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East bordering Russia VOTED FOR, installing a vehement anti-Russian government. That preceded Russia reclaiming Crimea that was part of Russia since 1783 until Ukraine born Khrushchev turned it over to Ukraine to Administer as an Autonomous Region in 1954 when it was part of the Soviet Union.
The Kansas City Times was quoting me in 1976 publishing these controversial words and projections, " “He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the World, from Kansas City, this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church dome. “The gold dome is the symbol of BABYLON,” he said.” [...] He wanted to bring to the Public’s attention an “idea being put out subtly and deceptively” by the government that we have to get prepared for a War with Russia.”
That 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter.
Because of that part of my 1976 Curriculum Vitae, in the Week BEFORE the Russian SMO, I went to the OSCE Website charged by the Minsk Accords 1 & II to monitor all TRUCE VIOLATIONS between the US installed anti-Russian government and the Russian speaking majority Ukrainians rejecting the 2014 US Coup/Regime change, there were up to 2000 TRUCE VIOLATIONS a Day with the Ukraine government shelling the Russian speaking Civilians in the East. US NATO WAR Propaganda didn't report on that because it would undermine the US position the Russian SMO to stop the Ukraine government shelling was UNPROVOKED when it was totally PROVOKED.
Those 2000 Truce Violations in the week BEFORE the Russian SMO of February 24 started the Ukraine War, and I saw them with my own eyes.
You are right pointing at those rather overlooked but very telling few days before the invasion when the Russians concentrated troops near the Donbas and UA seemed to do everything to invite them in, upping the shelling (I wonder if that increase was a 'local' initiative, or came from the military high command. Anyway, I can't imagine Zelensky giving such orders at that moment).
That a substantial segment of (west) UA (high) society and its nationalist footfolk believed that a war was not only inevitable (Arestovych 2019) but also necessary to forge a new UA identity is clear.
And originally Zelensky was in the way of that war as he trashed the pro west Poroshenko with his moderate programme focusing on both dominant ethnicities (right up to 2022 the majority of Ukrainians were dismisseve of joining NATO, it has always been a Kiev / west UA project, while the US never was serious about it but knew it would bait the Russians who couldn't wait forever as the UA army was built out.
UA high society i.e. Kiev also secured its own safe position (safe space? They're pretty westernized...) on the sidelines, allowing them their unsavory technocratic language about the west's 'investment' in the war i.e. in ordinary Ukrainians dying: Zelensky ended UA conscription in nov 22', while there was no recruitment amongst Kiev's elites, protected by an age limit and the exclusion of high(er) tax brackets 'because we need them to finance the war' (sic).
Arestovych, now out of gov, in late 23' blames the West's and its unkept promises for UA's demise. And he literally says that UA missed the opportunity to lock in its territorial and political wins at the 2022 Istanbul negotiations. I.e. he critiques the US and UK for preventing the Istanbul solution...
'Former Ukrainian adviser accuses West of not providing support promised to Kyiv'
No doubt UA American republican supporters will frame this as (another) Biden failure while democrats will repeat their maximalist objective (the only thing they can do).
This is the correct historical analogy: It’s as if Russia supported Mexico in orchestrating a pro-Mexico government in Texas, then seceded from the US (Texas was an independent country from the 1800s!) Then it propped up a coup to bring a Mexican, murdered and oppressed Anglo-American Texans, placed a Mexican pro-Russian government in Texas, putting Russian bio labs in Huston and Dallas, and worked with the KGB to track US radar and naval installations in New Orleans. How would we respond?
We took it from the tyrannical Mexicans fair and square. We’re keeping it. Similarly the Ukrainians are taking their territory back from the tyrannical Russians.
They sure seem to be doing a piss-poor job of it. Russia outnumbers Ukraine 3-to-1, but can’t seem to get the job done. They figured that they’d roll over the Ukrainians in 2022. Lost their butt. Making progress by losing thousand of troops a day, not sustainable.
Have you seen the faces of the "new" recruits? They're all in their 40's and 50's. The only thing they'll be getting is last rites. And that's sad because it didn't have to be that way.
It seems axiomatic that pre-negotiation "offers" are "initial positions" rather than detailed proposals with a significant chance of acceptance by the opposing side. They are not offers outlining an endpoint (normally) but an offer sufficiently ambiguous to give the other side to come to the table... at least that seems to be the case.
The Zelensky "Peace Plan", supported by its NATO paymasters, is obviously something that they do not expect Russia to accept, but it does articulate what they want for Christmas: Russia to withdraw to 1990 boundaries and depose President Putin. This is the NATO/UKR Golden Fleece "negotiation endpoint". NATOstan is certainly aware that this is an unrealistic incentive for Russia to come to the table to negotiate details of a settlement.
OTOH Russia is NOT offering their maximum demand as an incentive.
They offer to talk, based upon the framework establish and partly agreed upon in the initial (and only) REAL Peace Conference held to date.
Russia did not offer the TERMS contained in the Peace Conference. Russia offers to talk about the details of the TOPICS, in a Peace conference where each side would respect the other and negotiate the details..
Zelensky "is not serious about a deal" and certainly is delusional, if he thinks that Russia would bother to talk about the demands in Zelensky's "Peace Plan" (sic). The Plan is obviously a PR stunt; something the Ukrainians are good at and do frequently.
Putin, confident given the current military situation, is seriously offering the Hegemon a chance to start Peace talks, if the White House decides that over-ruling Zelensky and entering Peace Talks appears to be to Biden's electoral (or other) advantage.
Apparently, if I understand your view, you think the Biden White House to be so obviously unwilling to be seen to make Peace, that Russia is certain that offering to talk has a zero probability of a positive response.
Does that mean the American public is more likely to support a President that manages to get the country into (or maintain) multiple wars, rather than one who promises to leave no stone unturned in seeking Peaceful settlements in the various ongoing conflicts. The rhetoric in respect to Israel seems to suggest that the Biden White House wants to be seen as Peace makers, even while it supplied money, troops and weapons.
But Russia is not serious to expect the Administration to also do this in Ukraine?
I think you're spot on with your point about each side respecting the other. Can you imagine a spat with your neighbor and they are only willing to talk about the issue as long as you aren't there and you also have to move to another town?
How can Putin be serious about a deal when he can't trust the Americans and Europeans to keep one? He's practically said that, and he has every reason to think so.
European leaders themselves said that the Minsk Accords were just to buy time to arm Ukraine, and the Americans flatout lied to Gorbachev when they promised NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of Germany.
This war will end on Russia's terms because it's a war of attrition and NATO can't win a war of attrition against Russia, much less Ukraine.
Exactly. Few outside of the beltway bubble waste time on scenarios which posit the US government keeping a promise made to another country.
It's a gesture for the audience of neutral countries, made knowing the US would reject even the possibility of negotiation. One should note that Ukraine wasn't even allowed to answer, NATO's Stoltenberg had to make the statement rejecting the offer.
How and when the war ends is an open question, that depends on a other factors. Later when Kiev's fighting ability becomes exhausted. At that time, will the US have other life-and-death priorities (e.g. Gaza or Lebanon), or matters of pride (e.g. USN's astonishing impotence vs Yemen - which makes a mockery of past and future posturing around Taiwan)? The path of least resistance may be to simply continue in an indecisive manner.
Putin's game is simple : he propose a winning (for Russia) peace. If accepted it's victory. If not (most likely outcome as you clearly demonstrated) he's not responsible for the continuation of the war. It's for "rest of the world" opinion, critically important in a prolonged confrontation West vs Russia (and China). In this regard, his plan is certainly more convincing than the opposite Ukrainian one, as the Swiss peace summit debacle shows.
Whether Putin is honest about deal or not is secondary. What matters is that he is, yet again, on the record expressing his readiness to negotiate as long as realities on the ground are taken into consideration. It seems reasonable to me.
The best way to check if he’s honest is calling his bluff, which neither Kiev nor western allies are willing to risk, and instead insist on their maximalist objectives.
Thanks, Stephen, for your comprehensive, masterful, and entirely credible, analysis. It is the best, most persuasive, that I have seen of the current situation.
The longer the war drags on, the likelier Turkey will crash out of NATO. Somehow NATO officials have convinced themselves that they can just complete ignore the national interests of the alliance's second most powerful member. Instead, midget nations like Estonia are allowed to set the agenda. I imagine the Turks must be thinking: WTF? Why in the world would we want to be in this club? The communist threat is long gone. Friendlier relations with Russia would help them stamp out the PKK and gain influence in Syria.
Turkish officials have recently said on the record that the country is interested in joining BRICS. Flipping Turkey would represent in a way a bigger victory for Russia compared to what they can achieve in Ukraine. For nearly two centuries we've managed to keep Russian naval power bottled up in the Black Sea. That can all come to an end in the near future.
It is interesting speculation, but do you have any empirically-based indicators of Turkey's views on NATO? I have so far seen nothing to support your view on this, but I don't follow Turkey all that carefully (I should) so if you have some information, please share it.
You're probably aware that the Turks chose to purchase the S-400 air defense system from Russia despite strong US objection. That was a few years ago. I can't imagine the Turks are happier with NATO now, given the strong likelihood that US intelligence assets were employed in assisting the Ukrainians' attempts to sabotage TurkStream.
The Russians have been trying to lure Turkey away with promises of a major gas hub there. What does our side have to offer? EU membership is supposed to be a carrot but no one can seriously believe that's happening.
Turkey's desired to join BRICS is reported in the main-stream media. It's not my speculation:
Brics is an economic arrangement not a security one. The S-400 was a number of years ago because the US would not sell them Patriot. I am not convinced Turkey will leave NATO as there is no strong incentive.
Your response calls to me that scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise's character asks Colin Farrell why he caught the ball. "Because it was going to fall." "But it didn't--you caught it." Things tend to not happen when we're convinced that they will.
Turkey in not ready to leave NATO, but are repositioning themselves between NATO and Russia-Iran-China alliance.
Turkiye is a big, strong country that is getting a lot from cooperation with US and the West, but will not give up on its own interests. The key point being a Kurdish state.
Turkiye entering BRICS will expose EU as a fraud. Meaning an open door EU policy is a lie. Still it would help if EU defined the borders of Europe, for better EU internal cohesion, and better understanding with neighbours, Turkiye, Russia, Maghreb countries.
As a country with the guts to implement a de facto neutrality, and the main trade route between EU and Asia which is still functioning - Turkey is one of the few winners here already.
The threat of Turkiye joining BRICS+ will get Erdogan yet more concessions. One of those situations when he has the cards, and everyone knows it.
The West pushed Ukraine into fighting as a proxy and has made its intentions clear, regime change in Russia.
Whether Putin wants to negotiate or not doesn't matter. Ukraine's faith has been sealed, because there is nobody in the West who would want to negotiate. The West made that crystal clear.
Thus, the killing continues till the last Ukrainian. Just don't pretend to be shocked once the Ukrainian casualty numbers become official.
In my opinion, the big open question that would inform any analysis of Russia's willingness to wrap the war up is the extent to which Russia is coordinating with China and Iran (and potentially elsewhere) to force the US to overextend itself. Forcing the US into multiple crisis in multiple regions, and then perhaps dropping a wildcard or two, might be a behind the scenes strategy. This strategy could extend over years. Though I have no idea.
Russia stated what their goals are and will achieve them. Through diplomacy or war. We always talk about Russias economy but how long can NATO economies sustain this war and keep Ukraine afloat? Or how long can Ukraine sustain such casualties? NATO countries are all running decifits, economic decline and it won't go better in the near future. Ukraine is running out of people.
Lindsey Graham spilled the beans, it's about those minerals worth trillions. Russia doesn't need them, they have enough already. Ukrainians should realize this by now and revolt. Polling indicate that they didn't even want to join NATO.
And a peace deal so Ukraine can rebuild its army is not going to happen. Only admitting defeat or going to war are the options for NATO.
I don't think Biden's going to do any type of a peace deal in Ukraine. After the Afghanistan loss, he and his handlers more than likely feel that there is a great need to put one in the "W" column and the massive loss of Ukrainian soldiers is, to them, a fair trade for that win. Even though the chances of there being a win is fading fast they still can't bring themselves to let go. Stephen, was it like this with Johnson and Vietnam? He just couldn't let it go?
Steven, Putin is present on the stage for more than 20 years. One can look his talk on NATO enlargement on YouTube. All he ever said publicly can be read, or listened to. He has been remarkably consistent. He can be trusted on his word, he is willing to negotiate.
US has had two years to prove Russia is not a great power and US doesn't have to negotiate, and time is running out.
US can either negotiate or escalate, knowing escalation of a conventional proxy war on Russian border leads inevitably to nuclear war.
Exactly. It was easy to predict that NATO would reject even the possibility of a negotiation. The intended audience here is the large majority of the world who would prefer to be neutral. To them, rejection of substantive discussions is an unreasonable position. Unfortunately, due to other current events outside the scope of this discussion, the West no longer has ground to stand on for the usual moralizing and appeal to principles.
True, but if the US and Ukraine agreed to ceasefire, reduce the army, remove long range weapons, renounce NATO, and give up territory, I think Putin would take the deal. Do you think he would?
There can be no sign of revolt because expressing it is too dangerous. If it ever happens it will be by stealth. But conscription problems show that Ukrainian society is exhausted and striving for peace. And Putin fuels it.
There is unlikely to be a big riot in Ukraine right now. Everyone who could have rebelled either died or will die, either in captivity or will be captured. The rest of the people with weak wills - they just run away as far as possible.
Good analysis, you understand everything correctly. At the moment, this is just diplomatic rhetoric. At the same time, Putin clearly said that Zelensky had lost his legitimacy and no agreements could be concluded with him.
In any case, we have to wait for the beginning of winter. Russian forces will be advancing all summer and autumn, and the United States will have clarity with the next president.
Please moderate your language. If you don't agree with something that is fine, but it is not permitted to say someone else's comments are idiotic.
It is abundantly obvious that Russia really does not want this war and never did, seeking at every opportunity a way to avoid fighting.
The West, by contrast, is absolutely itching for conflict.
Absolutely incorrect assessment. Russia may not have wanted a war but they (Putin since 2000) have always wanted to control Ukraine. Putin has always dreamed of restoring the USSR empire. He leaned in Ossetia and Georgia, and the again in Syria, just how weak was the US and NATO will. The invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014 was successful with minimal cost. In 2021, the US surrender in Afghanistan, the removal of the US fleet from the Black Sea, the cancelling of routine ICBM testing convinced him the West would roll over again. So, maybe Russia “did not want war” but were certainly prepared to start a war to invade a sovereign independent country. The Russian approach is still : “What is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.” Putin is a relentless thus now and will be until he dies.
So even when the OSCE, no friend of Russia, concluded that Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that was just Russian aggression? And when the UN-recognized government of Syria invited Russian troops, that was also aggression because they didn't invite Americans? And Russia then aggressively entered into the Minsk Accord, which Ukrainian immediately broke, then Minsk-2, and the aggressively spent the next eight years trying to get Ukraine to comply with what everyone knew was a sham from the outset intended to buy Ukraine time, as confirmed by Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel? And tell us more about the "US fleet in the Black Sea"!
How many more facts not in evidence need you assume? And when will you look to the lumber yard in your own eye.
Very simple: Is Ukraine an independent nation or not and do the Russian-defined Ukraine borders (1953) hold any significance? Do the Russian promises to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for the surrendering of 6000 nuclear weapons mean anything? The answers are pretty obvious.
Cuba was an Independent Nation when it invited the Soviets to deploy it's missiles in Cuba after the failed CIA Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. Additionally, the US just deployed it's missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Russians.
While those Cuban-Soviet responses were Legal according to International Law, the US was so freaked out about Soviet Missiles that close to the US, the US responded by the 1st ACT OF WAR of the whole ordeal with the ILLEGAL blockade of Cuba violating International Law.
The US is not that Exceptional. If the US was ready to go to WAR with Russia in 1962, Russia feels the same way about the US wanting Ukraine in NATO so the US can deploy US boots on the ground and missiles right on Russia's border, Russia rightly sees as an EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
We can discuss all of human history if that is your point. Please read original post. Is it true that Russia did not want to fight 2022 war? Yes, if they could get what they wanted without fighting a war. Perhaps since Kyiv was the capital of “all Russia” in 800 AD then they should invade and get back their lost sheep. It never ends.
All of which is irrelevant to your original screed, but whatever.
Ukraine also promised to remain neutral. For that matter, NATO also promised not to expand eastwards. None of which pertains to Minsk or Minsk-2, or the 2014 coup in Ukraine.
The US pulled the last ship from the Black Sea in Dec 2021 and cancelled the ICBM tests earlier that year to “not be provocative”. If you want to justify the Russian invasion and indiscriminate murder of many civilians then feel free to do so. Russia has no right to tell Ukraine to join NATO or not. There is nothing new in Russian approaches to warfare or international relations. When weak they retreat and we, for example, restore their oil and gas industry. When strong they feel they can invade INDEPENDENT neighbors. NATO has no interest in invading Russia. The Russians are who they are and pretending otherwise is dangerous.
You keep trying to change the subject.
Good thing that the United States never ever tells INDEPENDENT countries whom they can ally with or make security arrangements with, as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the invasion of Grenada and others never happened.
The idea that NATO is not intended to threaten Russia is a joke.
If the US dominated NATO has no interest in dismembering Russia, why did it advance to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Military Pact opposite NATO? Americans may not see that as an aggressive move, but Russia rightly sees it as US NATO AGGRESSION!
The US deployed missiles in Poland and Roumania within striking distance of Moscow within minutes.
That provoked Russia to develop hyper-sonic missiles against there is no effective defence.
You William, and https://rayjc.com/2022/04/13/us-politicians-are-sleepwalking-toward-the-nuclear-abyss/
That's because Turkey barred all WARSHIPS from entering the Black Sea.
The US definitely wants to wear down the capability of the Russian military. However, that doesn't seem to be working right now. And, for the record, Ukraine is now murdering civilians with their ATACMS strikes.
What were all those CIA bases on the Ukrainian border with Russia if not provocation? I believe that it's pretty clear that there's more to this conflict than Zelensky was just minding his own business when all of a sudden Russia fell out of the sky on him. I liken this one to Bill Burr's piece on Chris Brown and Rihanna...
Ukraine has never had nuclear weapons. It was a Russian nuclear weapon deployed in Ukraine. If they had tried to capture him, the war would have started much earlier.
Yes they were Russian weapons in Ukraine and operational control could have become quite contested had the various megaton to megawatt agreements not taken place. However, the Russians knew in the early ‘90s how weak their position was and surrender, retreat, and have Americans in Siberia rebuilding the oil and as industry was a pragmatic recognition of realpolitik.
The Russian Emperor Alexander the First once told Napoleon: "I will retreat even to Kamchatka." Remember this - the Russians know how to retreat when necessary. But they will never give up and will always get back what they have lost.
Yours is the incorrect assessment, William!
It's fake US-NATO WAR Porn Propaganda Putin dreams of restoring the USSR empire. That's simply not True.
US/NATO claiming Russia wants to re-constitute the Soviet Union is US hype to sell more Weapons of Death & Destruction preparing Americans for the FINAL WAR to End ALL WARS, WWIII/Armageddon.
Vladimir Putin, "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains."
New York Times 20 February 2000;
In 2014 the US-CIA orchestrated the regime change of the Democratically Elected Russian friendly government the majority Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East bordering Russia VOTED FOR, installing a vehement anti-Russian government. That preceded Russia reclaiming Crimea that was part of Russia since 1783 until Ukraine born Khrushchev turned it over to Ukraine to Administer as an Autonomous Region in 1954 when it was part of the Soviet Union.
The Kansas City Times was quoting me in 1976 publishing these controversial words and projections, " “He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the World, from Kansas City, this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church dome. “The gold dome is the symbol of BABYLON,” he said.” [...] He wanted to bring to the Public’s attention an “idea being put out subtly and deceptively” by the government that we have to get prepared for a War with Russia.”
That 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter.
Because of that part of my 1976 Curriculum Vitae, in the Week BEFORE the Russian SMO, I went to the OSCE Website charged by the Minsk Accords 1 & II to monitor all TRUCE VIOLATIONS between the US installed anti-Russian government and the Russian speaking majority Ukrainians rejecting the 2014 US Coup/Regime change, there were up to 2000 TRUCE VIOLATIONS a Day with the Ukraine government shelling the Russian speaking Civilians in the East. US NATO WAR Propaganda didn't report on that because it would undermine the US position the Russian SMO to stop the Ukraine government shelling was UNPROVOKED when it was totally PROVOKED.
Those 2000 Truce Violations in the week BEFORE the Russian SMO of February 24 started the Ukraine War, and I saw them with my own eyes.
You are right pointing at those rather overlooked but very telling few days before the invasion when the Russians concentrated troops near the Donbas and UA seemed to do everything to invite them in, upping the shelling (I wonder if that increase was a 'local' initiative, or came from the military high command. Anyway, I can't imagine Zelensky giving such orders at that moment).
That a substantial segment of (west) UA (high) society and its nationalist footfolk believed that a war was not only inevitable (Arestovych 2019) but also necessary to forge a new UA identity is clear.
And originally Zelensky was in the way of that war as he trashed the pro west Poroshenko with his moderate programme focusing on both dominant ethnicities (right up to 2022 the majority of Ukrainians were dismisseve of joining NATO, it has always been a Kiev / west UA project, while the US never was serious about it but knew it would bait the Russians who couldn't wait forever as the UA army was built out.
UA high society i.e. Kiev also secured its own safe position (safe space? They're pretty westernized...) on the sidelines, allowing them their unsavory technocratic language about the west's 'investment' in the war i.e. in ordinary Ukrainians dying: Zelensky ended UA conscription in nov 22', while there was no recruitment amongst Kiev's elites, protected by an age limit and the exclusion of high(er) tax brackets 'because we need them to finance the war' (sic).
Arestovych, now out of gov, in late 23' blames the West's and its unkept promises for UA's demise. And he literally says that UA missed the opportunity to lock in its territorial and political wins at the 2022 Istanbul negotiations. I.e. he critiques the US and UK for preventing the Istanbul solution...
'Former Ukrainian adviser accuses West of not providing support promised to Kyiv'
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/former-ukrainian-adviser-accuses-west-of-not-providing-support-promised-to-kyiv/3065931#
No doubt UA American republican supporters will frame this as (another) Biden failure while democrats will repeat their maximalist objective (the only thing they can do).
Give Texas to Mexico, and then tell the Russians where their country's borders are. Lol
This is the correct historical analogy: It’s as if Russia supported Mexico in orchestrating a pro-Mexico government in Texas, then seceded from the US (Texas was an independent country from the 1800s!) Then it propped up a coup to bring a Mexican, murdered and oppressed Anglo-American Texans, placed a Mexican pro-Russian government in Texas, putting Russian bio labs in Huston and Dallas, and worked with the KGB to track US radar and naval installations in New Orleans. How would we respond?
Blame it on Trump....
We took it from the tyrannical Mexicans fair and square. We’re keeping it. Similarly the Ukrainians are taking their territory back from the tyrannical Russians.
Look at the map. While the whole world sees that the Russians are taking back their territories and cities.
They sure seem to be doing a piss-poor job of it. Russia outnumbers Ukraine 3-to-1, but can’t seem to get the job done. They figured that they’d roll over the Ukrainians in 2022. Lost their butt. Making progress by losing thousand of troops a day, not sustainable.
Well Ukraine at that time was the biggest army in Europe after Russia.
Russia was hoping they could overwhelm it and force Kiev into negotiations, which almost worked.
If it had worked out, you Americans would be in awe of such an approach.
But them you are an American and don't understand what Russia is doing. They are just smarter than you guys are when it comes to war.
The Russians will do without your idiotic comments. That's for sure
And if they can't take it back from Russia?
TBD
Have you seen the faces of the "new" recruits? They're all in their 40's and 50's. The only thing they'll be getting is last rites. And that's sad because it didn't have to be that way.
That could be a great unrelated discussion but irrelevant to the original post. Please keep up.
Don't want to give up Texas? So Russia will not return Donbass.
Are you the William Saylor that works in the Defense Industry?
Narrative not supported by anything that actually happened. It’s good to know though that there are people who can read dreams remotely.
It seems axiomatic that pre-negotiation "offers" are "initial positions" rather than detailed proposals with a significant chance of acceptance by the opposing side. They are not offers outlining an endpoint (normally) but an offer sufficiently ambiguous to give the other side to come to the table... at least that seems to be the case.
The Zelensky "Peace Plan", supported by its NATO paymasters, is obviously something that they do not expect Russia to accept, but it does articulate what they want for Christmas: Russia to withdraw to 1990 boundaries and depose President Putin. This is the NATO/UKR Golden Fleece "negotiation endpoint". NATOstan is certainly aware that this is an unrealistic incentive for Russia to come to the table to negotiate details of a settlement.
OTOH Russia is NOT offering their maximum demand as an incentive.
They offer to talk, based upon the framework establish and partly agreed upon in the initial (and only) REAL Peace Conference held to date.
Russia did not offer the TERMS contained in the Peace Conference. Russia offers to talk about the details of the TOPICS, in a Peace conference where each side would respect the other and negotiate the details..
Zelensky "is not serious about a deal" and certainly is delusional, if he thinks that Russia would bother to talk about the demands in Zelensky's "Peace Plan" (sic). The Plan is obviously a PR stunt; something the Ukrainians are good at and do frequently.
Putin, confident given the current military situation, is seriously offering the Hegemon a chance to start Peace talks, if the White House decides that over-ruling Zelensky and entering Peace Talks appears to be to Biden's electoral (or other) advantage.
Apparently, if I understand your view, you think the Biden White House to be so obviously unwilling to be seen to make Peace, that Russia is certain that offering to talk has a zero probability of a positive response.
Does that mean the American public is more likely to support a President that manages to get the country into (or maintain) multiple wars, rather than one who promises to leave no stone unturned in seeking Peaceful settlements in the various ongoing conflicts. The rhetoric in respect to Israel seems to suggest that the Biden White House wants to be seen as Peace makers, even while it supplied money, troops and weapons.
But Russia is not serious to expect the Administration to also do this in Ukraine?
I think you're spot on with your point about each side respecting the other. Can you imagine a spat with your neighbor and they are only willing to talk about the issue as long as you aren't there and you also have to move to another town?
The need to respect the other Party in a negotiation was Putin's point (altho I agree). I can take no credit for it.
The Zelensky "Peace Plan" is aspirational, without regard for the current reality on the ground or even in Ukraine governance....
The Zelenskii peace plan is simply another excuse to shake down western countries for more weapons, cash and commitments.
How can Putin be serious about a deal when he can't trust the Americans and Europeans to keep one? He's practically said that, and he has every reason to think so.
European leaders themselves said that the Minsk Accords were just to buy time to arm Ukraine, and the Americans flatout lied to Gorbachev when they promised NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of Germany.
This war will end on Russia's terms because it's a war of attrition and NATO can't win a war of attrition against Russia, much less Ukraine.
Exactly. Few outside of the beltway bubble waste time on scenarios which posit the US government keeping a promise made to another country.
It's a gesture for the audience of neutral countries, made knowing the US would reject even the possibility of negotiation. One should note that Ukraine wasn't even allowed to answer, NATO's Stoltenberg had to make the statement rejecting the offer.
How and when the war ends is an open question, that depends on a other factors. Later when Kiev's fighting ability becomes exhausted. At that time, will the US have other life-and-death priorities (e.g. Gaza or Lebanon), or matters of pride (e.g. USN's astonishing impotence vs Yemen - which makes a mockery of past and future posturing around Taiwan)? The path of least resistance may be to simply continue in an indecisive manner.
Putin's game is simple : he propose a winning (for Russia) peace. If accepted it's victory. If not (most likely outcome as you clearly demonstrated) he's not responsible for the continuation of the war. It's for "rest of the world" opinion, critically important in a prolonged confrontation West vs Russia (and China). In this regard, his plan is certainly more convincing than the opposite Ukrainian one, as the Swiss peace summit debacle shows.
Whether Putin is honest about deal or not is secondary. What matters is that he is, yet again, on the record expressing his readiness to negotiate as long as realities on the ground are taken into consideration. It seems reasonable to me.
The best way to check if he’s honest is calling his bluff, which neither Kiev nor western allies are willing to risk, and instead insist on their maximalist objectives.
Thanks, Stephen, for your comprehensive, masterful, and entirely credible, analysis. It is the best, most persuasive, that I have seen of the current situation.
Thank you for your kind words.
The longer the war drags on, the likelier Turkey will crash out of NATO. Somehow NATO officials have convinced themselves that they can just complete ignore the national interests of the alliance's second most powerful member. Instead, midget nations like Estonia are allowed to set the agenda. I imagine the Turks must be thinking: WTF? Why in the world would we want to be in this club? The communist threat is long gone. Friendlier relations with Russia would help them stamp out the PKK and gain influence in Syria.
Turkish officials have recently said on the record that the country is interested in joining BRICS. Flipping Turkey would represent in a way a bigger victory for Russia compared to what they can achieve in Ukraine. For nearly two centuries we've managed to keep Russian naval power bottled up in the Black Sea. That can all come to an end in the near future.
It is interesting speculation, but do you have any empirically-based indicators of Turkey's views on NATO? I have so far seen nothing to support your view on this, but I don't follow Turkey all that carefully (I should) so if you have some information, please share it.
You're probably aware that the Turks chose to purchase the S-400 air defense system from Russia despite strong US objection. That was a few years ago. I can't imagine the Turks are happier with NATO now, given the strong likelihood that US intelligence assets were employed in assisting the Ukrainians' attempts to sabotage TurkStream.
The Russians have been trying to lure Turkey away with promises of a major gas hub there. What does our side have to offer? EU membership is supposed to be a carrot but no one can seriously believe that's happening.
Turkey's desired to join BRICS is reported in the main-stream media. It's not my speculation:
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-welcomes-turkeys-reported-desire-join-brics-2024-06-04/
Brics is an economic arrangement not a security one. The S-400 was a number of years ago because the US would not sell them Patriot. I am not convinced Turkey will leave NATO as there is no strong incentive.
Your response calls to me that scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise's character asks Colin Farrell why he caught the ball. "Because it was going to fall." "But it didn't--you caught it." Things tend to not happen when we're convinced that they will.
Turkey in not ready to leave NATO, but are repositioning themselves between NATO and Russia-Iran-China alliance.
Turkiye is a big, strong country that is getting a lot from cooperation with US and the West, but will not give up on its own interests. The key point being a Kurdish state.
Turkiye entering BRICS will expose EU as a fraud. Meaning an open door EU policy is a lie. Still it would help if EU defined the borders of Europe, for better EU internal cohesion, and better understanding with neighbours, Turkiye, Russia, Maghreb countries.
As a country with the guts to implement a de facto neutrality, and the main trade route between EU and Asia which is still functioning - Turkey is one of the few winners here already.
The threat of Turkiye joining BRICS+ will get Erdogan yet more concessions. One of those situations when he has the cards, and everyone knows it.
Does it even matter?
The West pushed Ukraine into fighting as a proxy and has made its intentions clear, regime change in Russia.
Whether Putin wants to negotiate or not doesn't matter. Ukraine's faith has been sealed, because there is nobody in the West who would want to negotiate. The West made that crystal clear.
Thus, the killing continues till the last Ukrainian. Just don't pretend to be shocked once the Ukrainian casualty numbers become official.
In my opinion, the big open question that would inform any analysis of Russia's willingness to wrap the war up is the extent to which Russia is coordinating with China and Iran (and potentially elsewhere) to force the US to overextend itself. Forcing the US into multiple crisis in multiple regions, and then perhaps dropping a wildcard or two, might be a behind the scenes strategy. This strategy could extend over years. Though I have no idea.
One passing mention of US elections at the close of the article.
I saw no reference to it in the many comments.
Warning: Elephant in Room!
Russia stated what their goals are and will achieve them. Through diplomacy or war. We always talk about Russias economy but how long can NATO economies sustain this war and keep Ukraine afloat? Or how long can Ukraine sustain such casualties? NATO countries are all running decifits, economic decline and it won't go better in the near future. Ukraine is running out of people.
Lindsey Graham spilled the beans, it's about those minerals worth trillions. Russia doesn't need them, they have enough already. Ukrainians should realize this by now and revolt. Polling indicate that they didn't even want to join NATO.
And a peace deal so Ukraine can rebuild its army is not going to happen. Only admitting defeat or going to war are the options for NATO.
I don't think Biden's going to do any type of a peace deal in Ukraine. After the Afghanistan loss, he and his handlers more than likely feel that there is a great need to put one in the "W" column and the massive loss of Ukrainian soldiers is, to them, a fair trade for that win. Even though the chances of there being a win is fading fast they still can't bring themselves to let go. Stephen, was it like this with Johnson and Vietnam? He just couldn't let it go?
Maybe the negotiation talk has a different purpose? Like trying to incite a revolt in the Ukraine?
There is, so far, no sign of a revolt. I think Putin just wants to look diplomatic.
Steven, Putin is present on the stage for more than 20 years. One can look his talk on NATO enlargement on YouTube. All he ever said publicly can be read, or listened to. He has been remarkably consistent. He can be trusted on his word, he is willing to negotiate.
US has had two years to prove Russia is not a great power and US doesn't have to negotiate, and time is running out.
US can either negotiate or escalate, knowing escalation of a conventional proxy war on Russian border leads inevitably to nuclear war.
Putin want to do a deal with the weak Biden before Trump takes over.
Exactly. It was easy to predict that NATO would reject even the possibility of a negotiation. The intended audience here is the large majority of the world who would prefer to be neutral. To them, rejection of substantive discussions is an unreasonable position. Unfortunately, due to other current events outside the scope of this discussion, the West no longer has ground to stand on for the usual moralizing and appeal to principles.
True, but if the US and Ukraine agreed to ceasefire, reduce the army, remove long range weapons, renounce NATO, and give up territory, I think Putin would take the deal. Do you think he would?
There can be no sign of revolt because expressing it is too dangerous. If it ever happens it will be by stealth. But conscription problems show that Ukrainian society is exhausted and striving for peace. And Putin fuels it.
There is unlikely to be a big riot in Ukraine right now. Everyone who could have rebelled either died or will die, either in captivity or will be captured. The rest of the people with weak wills - they just run away as far as possible.
Could be. A good conspiracy though does not advertise itself.
If you mean the so-called palace coup, then that's another matter. A palace coup can always happen
The Ukrainian secret police have previously shown that they will deal with dissenters.
I am inclined to think that this is mostly said for BRICS members and other partners/
possibly true
Good analysis, you understand everything correctly. At the moment, this is just diplomatic rhetoric. At the same time, Putin clearly said that Zelensky had lost his legitimacy and no agreements could be concluded with him.
In any case, we have to wait for the beginning of winter. Russian forces will be advancing all summer and autumn, and the United States will have clarity with the next president.
Well done, Stephen. Yeah it is probably smoke and mirror, but there are some brownies points he gets.