A great and pithy analysis. I do wonder though whether the various "agencies" of the West do actually believe that the framing of the war between Russia and Ukraine [aka NATO] is as you describe? Certainly in public, and the information war [at least with western publics] has been won comprehensively. It is very difficult to find anyone who does not believe the approved narrative.
Though it does seem that western leaders are now buying into their own propaganda, and ignoring the fact that the root cause of this conflict was a USA/NATO/EU/UK plan to regime change Russia via economic collapse and sanctions, triggered by a war with Ukraine. This (possibly Rand) inspired project is maybe the latest iteration of a historical trend of the West versus Russia. Hybrid war, not Barbarossa. And Russia knows this.
It is possible therefore that Western decision makers keep doubling down because their "cunning plan" has failed, and there is mass cognitive dissonence [panic?] regarding this state of affairs. Easier to maybe believe that Russia is sufferring so badly from its "unprovoked full scale invasion" that it will negotiate? However as the old saying goes, "if you are trying to get there, I would not start from here".
It is quite easy to start a conflict, and as you say, it can prove difficult to finish one - at least on acceptable terms. That is where the West is now. Having poked the bear, they now want it to go peacefully back into its lair without eating them. Methinks the bear has other ideas.
As Talleyrand, the famous French diplomat, said about 200 years ago : "I know a thousand ways to get the Russian bear out of its den, but not a single one to get it back in."
Too bad our 21st century European leaders have no memory...
Right at the beginning of the article you claim that the Minsk (II) Agreements were not legally binding, due to not being written in a "treaty like" language. However, you fail to mention that they have been unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2202, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/787968?v=pdf) and thus indeed gained a legally binding character (if that word means anything in international affairs at all). Interestingly, the english wikipedia page on the Minsk agreements makes the same (glaring) omission.
It’s interesting to see too many Westerners fail to understand that there are things besides money that people base their lives on. Neoliberalism, an ideology based on the worship of money and the supposed interchangeability of the individual as widgets, might be a reason for this.
"In Palestine, for example, either I can live in your house or you can live in my house, but we can’t both live in my house, and one of us will have to be disappointed."
I think this is a gross miss-representation of facts. Palestinians live in open prisons, not in houses, on land that Israel considers it rightully owns by divine intervention. I guess the "dissapointed" palestinians have to die.
I don't think it is just "liberalism" that has addled the mind of Western/European politicians when it comes to Ukraine/Russian war. Where the truth comes to the fore is when analyzing actions of governments within their own territories. There is nothing "liberal" in militarizing the police force and crushing any civil protest and forcing legislation that suppresses workers' rights, civil liberties, electoral choice, you name it. The state has monopoly of power and they use it and abuse it. There is no negotiation. And any dissenting political or intelectual figure or party is dealt with via the justice system on trumped up charges...
Thus any "negotiation" is conducted only from a position of superior force as to lead to victory. This is the dialogue that we hear about Ukraine, that Ukraine has to be in a better position in order to negotiate for a "just peace". A just peace means Russia loses and Ukraine wins.
If US wouldn't be a hollowed superpower, with diminished capabilities, and confronting more than capable forces, Trump would not even consider negotiating, but just press ahead, as it allows Israel to do in Gaza.
"Liberalism" has always rested on having an iron hand covered by a velvet glove. As such, it is hard for me to accept these arguments as valid. The western leadership knows exactly what it wants. And Russia too. And the "negotiating" is taking place on the battlefield, in Ukraine. War is an extension of politics by other means. And all of Trump's talk about "negotiations" is about sequencing Russia, China, Iran, because there is realization that the US could barely face one such adversary at a time, nevermind two, or three at the same time.
I think it's good as a theoretical, abstract problem--if you could assume away all the advantages that Israel enjoys that permit them to dictate the situation at the point of the gun. Just converting the actual situation to the theoretical will require destruction of Israeli state power that makes the "negotiations" a farce--its military, its nuclear weapons, its close relationship to the governments of the West, etc. But that's not going to happen, and if it does, then the parties won't negotiate unless somebody manages to move mountains and oceans. With all due respect to Aurelien, it is too easy to fall to the abstract rather than the reality that stands in the way.
I will become unpopular by saying that the situation does have an analogue in the situation between Russia and Europe (and not Ukraine per se--it's only a symptom.) It's the modern version of the old "German Problem" (and the versions of the "Russian Problem" existed since 1815--ironically, before the "German Problem" became the thing.) First, Russia's power by far outstrips that of "Europe." Europe cannot, even if it is actually united (it's not--and the hamhanded authoritarian manner of rule by the EU isn't helping), match Russia. Nothing can change this short of defeating it militarily and dismembering it like Germany was cut into 3 pieces after 1945. Second in the short term, Russians in the near abroad take up the same niche as the German minorities in various parts of Central and Eastern Europe where they became subjects of many small and ethnocentric new states carved out from old Empires that fell--and these were really what lay behind the Czech and Polish crises, let's be honest, not Hitler or the Nazis (in the sense that, without their issues, their cause would not have been motivating politics in interwar Germany.) In the end, it is the vastness of Russian power and the grievances of "their" peoples (justified or not) that lie at the root of the "Russian Problem." Given the imbalance of resources and the widespread sense of grievance, there is nothing that can be "negotiated"--Russians will dictate the terms and we can get there the easy way or the hard way. The imbalance of power and the sense of "grievance" (even if we find the latter petulant, hypocritical, and insane troll logic) are even stronger on the part of the Israelis vis a vis Palestinians. So there is nothing to negotiate: in the end, Israel will be dictating terms, in the short to medium term. Unfortunately, Israelis are doing this in most barbaric way imaginable--although, in a way, that too seemingly can be explained: unlike Russians, who seek fairly definable (whether one likes it or not) security for themselves, Israelis don't have and don't even know what they really want in the medium term or longer. So they are hoping that, if they can smash and grab any and every thing, they don't have to worry about deciding what they really want. But smashi9ng and grabbing any and every thing is neither cheap nor easy.
In general terms, the West is still high on its unipolar hegemonic meds: this is the way we see things and it's our way or the highway.
Your analysis towards the end of the essay is great, although I got a bit lost in the details in the middle third (apologies for being critical, but maybe sections?)
Again, in general terms, every conflict only ends when there's a clear winner, and the side willing to endure can eventually flip the results on a longer time frame. There's quite a number of conflicts globally simmering under the surface; war and violence doesn't emerge in a vacuum, although when it does, it captures the headlines and is slotted into narratives (us/them).
In terms of NI, for instance, it's not clear to me that it's a settled issue. The violence ended and the conflict has shifted firmly back into the political sphere (thankfully), but given the emergent chatter from time to time, it's clear a reunification with the rest of Ireland is a question of when and not what.
Similarly in Ukraine, the West's gambit of poking the bear to make it crumble has, to date, backfired spectacularly. If anything, the bear is going from strength to strength, and more importantly, having consolidated a partnership with the dragon, this will upend the West's global dominance.
The failure of the "negotiations" is analogous to the failure of the conflict. As you rightly point out, the Russians are firm in their demands (root causes), and these are intrinsically at odds with the carefully crafted self image of the West. This is the real stumbling block. In general terms, the West has gone "all in" with the progressive-neoliberal view, which was easy to mask during the cold war, and later abetted by financialization. But 70+ years of doublespeak and incongruity between narrative and reality have now given us a calcified political pyramid with mediocre retards at the top (they're easier to corrupt and control; it's not a coincidence that the only voices of internal change in Western countries are ever more extreme political parties).
In this sense Ukraine is the hubris and Russia the harbinger of reality.
The negotiations will fail. We all knew from May/June 2022 how this might end, and Russia today is just letting the inevitable win play out while trying to steer clear of the worst outcomes (nuclear Armageddon or total war). In posterity historians will say Russia saw the writing on the wall in 2007, confirmed in 2014, and Johnson in Kiev in '22 was the end of the prologue phase.
Agree this is not over until the fat lady cries uncle. The EU is that lady. If it can’t achieve its aim of weakening Russia via control of Ukraine, there is another advantage to war: the chaos provides cover for the financial reset they so desperately need. I expect the three European managers, Macron, Starmer, and Merz to make a last stand on behalf of the money men behind them.
The Ukrainian strategy is simple enough - offer no real concessions, negotiate as little as possible, and then run screaming to NATO that Russia does not want an end to the war. The plan ever always only was for NATO to come to the rescue, once the number of Ukrainians to soak up Russian munitions started to run low, and that the United States would get roped in, rather than leave their poodles hanging out to dry.
The entire point was to present Putin with a "peace deal" that he could not possibly, accept, then to pillory him for not accepting that peace deal.
Zelenskii and his handlers are quite clever at presenting outcomes that they win, either way.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
- Will Rogers
There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception. When an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished.
"Can you imagine 30 NATO members around a table trying to agree on a list of political parties and individuals whose presence in government has to be maintained at all costs, or otherwise the war will continue?"
Yes.
Some American snaps his fingers, 29 pairs of european knees hit the floor with a resounding thud.
I am no fan of Trump but in comparison to the likes of Blinken & Sullivan & whoever was in charge of the auto-pen. there is at least some jaw jaw escalation as opposed to the constant war war that preceded him - although those who sit at the top tables in Europe appear to have totally lost their minds.
Mostly, I would love to have people go into the wayback machine and try and remember the negotiations that led to the Paris Peace Accords that was used to wallpaper over the fact that the Americans lost.
That was in my salad days, but I remember my father bitterly complaining on how LBJ was selling us down the river by talking to the North, he was even more upset when Nixon "turned traitor". I do remember how stupid the whole thing was in terms of the "Shape of the Table" arguments.
What folks need to remember is that the process took five years to sign and then two years after that until the fall of Saigon. Everybody is squealing because they feel the process should be faster. I think that it is important to remember that wars are measured in a time frame very unsuited for short attention spans. The same goes for "peace talks"
I take the apotheosis of Aurelien’s point about Western fantasy thinking in this regard to be the endless demands for, and prattling on about in western corporate media organs about, chimerical “security guarantees.” There is no such thing, has never been such a thing, nor can such a thing ever exist in this world of Knightian uncertainty … 🤨
If the West , or more exactly some elite components of the West ,did not desire for regime change in Moscow with aim of pillaging of natural resources to support the failing financialisation of societies there would be no conflict. Russophobia is deliberately stirred up to support this. The 'undesirable' elements of the Ukrainian government were also deliberately encouraged and supported to ensure the proxy would fight to the last Ukrainian.
The win win for these people is that the secondary aim to kill as many Slavs as possible is not a bad outcome on its own. This is just the personification of evil, no rationalization based on any other logic is valid.
The only outcome possible is a defeat for one side or the other on the battlefield.
Wake me up when that happens. I look forward to seeing your projection for when Russia might hope to seize (let alone occupy and pacify) the remaining 80% of Ukraine it doesn’t already control.
Or are we back to “Ukraine will collapse by June?” (or some variation on this?). Or are you, in a variation on this, fudging definitions of “defeats”? High time for some precision on these things, in any discussion of Ukraine.
It isn't about territory, or did you miss that bit?
It will be over when Russia dictates when its over which means its confident that it has protected its national integrity for at least a couple of decades.
It is perfectly clear. Obviously you did miss that bit. This is a war of attrition. The objective is not to take territory - it is to destroy the enemy army so completely that surrender is the only option. Aquired territory is only a welcome but unnecessary bonus. In the case of the Ukraine this destruction would have happened a long time ago, but for the influx of US armaments. This era is now almost over, as the US is unable (or possibly now also unwilling?) to supply armaments at anything near to the rate required, and the EU has practically little or no ability to substitute for the US.
I disagree with the framing of this as purely a war of attrition aimed at destroying Ukraine's army. The conflict involves complex strategic, political, and territorial goals, with both sides adapting to shifting realities. While U.S. and EU support has been critical for Ukraine's defense, reports indicate continued Western commitment, with aid packages still flowing despite logistical challenges. Ukraine's resilience and adaptability, alongside international support, suggest the situation is far from a foregone conclusion.
The original comment I responded to met the definition for vagueposting. Vagueposting is the act of posting ambiguous, indirect, or cryptic messages on the internet, often hinting at uncertainties, dramatic conclusions or hazily-described events without providing specific details. My reply above was, by the standards of comments I prefer to make, also somewhat vague. As was your comment. Timeframes, landmasses, methods, actions, risks and uncertainties were all omitted.
This is why vagueposting is so frowned on in internet etiquette. Everything from the vaguepost onwards just descends into ever-more waffle and aspirational outcomes, devoid of any description of how we get from here to there.
Well, I've never heard of 'vague-posting' before. I suspect that you have made it up. The posts you refer to above are not 'vague' at all - your 'vague-posting' is just a convenient way of not having to deal with the points made. As for 'waffle' - you appear to be an expert exponent of that yourself, has you seem to admit, and as I have found below.
One might say much the same reason why USSR felt it necessary to occupy it in 1939, or, for that matter, Poland and East Germany in 1945 and later.
The value to Russia is minimal in "positive" terms, but, as long as they have enemies who are interested in taking advantage of these territories as the means of subverting their security, they need to ensure that a friendly regime is in charge. But, under some conditions, finding a friendly regime with local roots can be difficult. I expect that something cna be found in Kiev--it has, after all, been a "Russian" city until recently. But in Ternopol or Lemberg? The only way to secure them is either to have another friendly power take them over (Poland isn't it, though) or place them under Russian control even if it is costly.
I have suggested (not especially seriously, admittedly) in the past that the war may well continue until Russians return to Paris as they did in 1815. If they can establish an acceptable political situation in the West, they won't stay--they won't need to. But even taking Paris would not suffice to establish an acceptable political situation where they can leave things be. Politics has to fundamentally change in the West--such that Russian fear for their security is no longer necessary. But not with the current crop of murderous clowns still in charge.
"(in Britain) liberalism became a major political force early on, and, once the threat from Napoleon was defeated, British policy was to avoid wars whenever possible."
I think you are confusing the liberal /ideology/ with its practical realization. While the former indeed claims that wars are "bad for business", the latter clearly shows this isn't the case at all, as long as these wars are fought "elsewhere". Indeed, the "business model" of the british empire was based to a large extent on extracting profits from overseas colonies. To maintain and extend that dominance was thus essential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom has an impressive list, you have to scroll down quite a bit to come to the period after 1815. It clearly shows that what they tried to avoid were the kind of wars where you face a country with a comparable amount of military resources (i.e. wars against european continental powers), resulting in large scale destruction for /both/ sides. This never dissuaded them from waging (mostly) one-sided colonial conquest wars against (mostly) inferior powers all over the world. They did loose a few of them, but while loosing a war over control of some distant colony may make a dent in your profits, it never put their global dominance in danger, much less pose the home country at risk of being conquered or even the ruling elite to displaced from power. This has been the role model for the succeeding US empire ever since it took over.
It's quite funny (if not tragic) to see how pundits on French TV keep saying that Putin is trying to buy time. Like, sooner or later he would be forced to accept an end of the fighting (if not the war in itself) on the European terms.
Or else !
Else what ? We don't know exactly. Maybe European leaders getting really angry ? Trump changing his mind ?
As to Kiev US pulled off a coup, Trump pushed offensive weapons, the CIA/MI5 continued on, Nazis banned Russia n language and set up new church banning Russian Orthodox.
Russia will do what it must to break up Stalin/Trump’s nazi satellite.
Best case U.S. wastes a lot of war toys arming Stalin’s revenge on Russia.
India can do what is in its self interest.
My issue with PNAC imperialists is false regard for Stalin’s de jure socialist republic
Such claims undermine the your credibility, especially when discussing complex geopolitical events like the 2014 Euromaidan protests or Ukraine’s language laws.
For example, Ukraine’s 2019 language law prioritised Ukrainian but did not ban Russian outright, and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine’s split from Moscow was a religious and political move, not a "ban" on Russian Orthodoxy.
Your references to Stalin, Trump, and "PNAC imperialists" are confusing and misleading (I am certainly confused by them and given you’ve got all the time in the world to formulate better explanations, it makes you wonder if you’re just trying to mislead)
- Stalin’s legacy (e.g., Soviet borders) was invoked without explaining how it relates to modern Ukraine or Russia’s actions.
- Linking Trump to a "Nazi satellite" is incoherent, given Trump’s foreign policy is not by any means aligned with Ukraine’s government.
- The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a defunct think tank and its relevance to current American policy or the Ukraine conflict is unclear.
Followed up, perhaps, by treating yourself to watching The Wizard of Oz.
Now more than ever we have an opportunity to explore the theme of small men pretending to be all-powerful. The Wizard, initially presented as a grand, omnipotent figure, is revealed to be an ordinary man from Kansas using tricks and illusions to project authority.
The Wizard’s grandeur is a facade, relying on smoke, mirrors, and a booming voice to intimidate and control. This reflects how some individuals or leaders inflate their image to gain influence, despite lacking true power or substance.
Behind the curtain, the Wizard is a frail, insecure man, driven by a desire to be respected. I myself never want to try to project omnipotence but then again, I probably have no need to be compensating for personal inadequacies or fears.
The Wizard’s deception manipulates Oz’s citizens and the friends of Dorothy. It’s never been easier, has it, for false personas to exploit others’ naivety? The story contrasts the Wizard’s fake power with the real growth of characters like Dorothy and the Scarecrow, who find strength through their journey. This underscores that genuine capability and courage outshine hollow displays of authority.
But ultimately, the Wizard’s eventual honesty redeems him, implying that authenticity matters more than fabricated power. I often consider who was playing the role of the Wizard and was playing the role of Dorothy in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Wither then Russian Athenian aspirations in the face Japan’s Melian resolve?
A great and pithy analysis. I do wonder though whether the various "agencies" of the West do actually believe that the framing of the war between Russia and Ukraine [aka NATO] is as you describe? Certainly in public, and the information war [at least with western publics] has been won comprehensively. It is very difficult to find anyone who does not believe the approved narrative.
Though it does seem that western leaders are now buying into their own propaganda, and ignoring the fact that the root cause of this conflict was a USA/NATO/EU/UK plan to regime change Russia via economic collapse and sanctions, triggered by a war with Ukraine. This (possibly Rand) inspired project is maybe the latest iteration of a historical trend of the West versus Russia. Hybrid war, not Barbarossa. And Russia knows this.
It is possible therefore that Western decision makers keep doubling down because their "cunning plan" has failed, and there is mass cognitive dissonence [panic?] regarding this state of affairs. Easier to maybe believe that Russia is sufferring so badly from its "unprovoked full scale invasion" that it will negotiate? However as the old saying goes, "if you are trying to get there, I would not start from here".
It is quite easy to start a conflict, and as you say, it can prove difficult to finish one - at least on acceptable terms. That is where the West is now. Having poked the bear, they now want it to go peacefully back into its lair without eating them. Methinks the bear has other ideas.
As Talleyrand, the famous French diplomat, said about 200 years ago : "I know a thousand ways to get the Russian bear out of its den, but not a single one to get it back in."
Too bad our 21st century European leaders have no memory...
Right at the beginning of the article you claim that the Minsk (II) Agreements were not legally binding, due to not being written in a "treaty like" language. However, you fail to mention that they have been unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2202, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/787968?v=pdf) and thus indeed gained a legally binding character (if that word means anything in international affairs at all). Interestingly, the english wikipedia page on the Minsk agreements makes the same (glaring) omission.
Law is meaningless. Enforcement is the only thing that matters.
FYI, Korybko blocked me and deleted all of the incriminating posts that he wrote that led to this decision. The young man lives to much in his head.
I was going to marvel in a PM at how he flew off the handle.
It’s interesting to see too many Westerners fail to understand that there are things besides money that people base their lives on. Neoliberalism, an ideology based on the worship of money and the supposed interchangeability of the individual as widgets, might be a reason for this.
In my opinion a brilliant analysis and to the point as always. I really enjoy reading your musings.
"In Palestine, for example, either I can live in your house or you can live in my house, but we can’t both live in my house, and one of us will have to be disappointed."
I think this is a gross miss-representation of facts. Palestinians live in open prisons, not in houses, on land that Israel considers it rightully owns by divine intervention. I guess the "dissapointed" palestinians have to die.
I don't think it is just "liberalism" that has addled the mind of Western/European politicians when it comes to Ukraine/Russian war. Where the truth comes to the fore is when analyzing actions of governments within their own territories. There is nothing "liberal" in militarizing the police force and crushing any civil protest and forcing legislation that suppresses workers' rights, civil liberties, electoral choice, you name it. The state has monopoly of power and they use it and abuse it. There is no negotiation. And any dissenting political or intelectual figure or party is dealt with via the justice system on trumped up charges...
Thus any "negotiation" is conducted only from a position of superior force as to lead to victory. This is the dialogue that we hear about Ukraine, that Ukraine has to be in a better position in order to negotiate for a "just peace". A just peace means Russia loses and Ukraine wins.
If US wouldn't be a hollowed superpower, with diminished capabilities, and confronting more than capable forces, Trump would not even consider negotiating, but just press ahead, as it allows Israel to do in Gaza.
"Liberalism" has always rested on having an iron hand covered by a velvet glove. As such, it is hard for me to accept these arguments as valid. The western leadership knows exactly what it wants. And Russia too. And the "negotiating" is taking place on the battlefield, in Ukraine. War is an extension of politics by other means. And all of Trump's talk about "negotiations" is about sequencing Russia, China, Iran, because there is realization that the US could barely face one such adversary at a time, nevermind two, or three at the same time.
I think it's good as a theoretical, abstract problem--if you could assume away all the advantages that Israel enjoys that permit them to dictate the situation at the point of the gun. Just converting the actual situation to the theoretical will require destruction of Israeli state power that makes the "negotiations" a farce--its military, its nuclear weapons, its close relationship to the governments of the West, etc. But that's not going to happen, and if it does, then the parties won't negotiate unless somebody manages to move mountains and oceans. With all due respect to Aurelien, it is too easy to fall to the abstract rather than the reality that stands in the way.
I will become unpopular by saying that the situation does have an analogue in the situation between Russia and Europe (and not Ukraine per se--it's only a symptom.) It's the modern version of the old "German Problem" (and the versions of the "Russian Problem" existed since 1815--ironically, before the "German Problem" became the thing.) First, Russia's power by far outstrips that of "Europe." Europe cannot, even if it is actually united (it's not--and the hamhanded authoritarian manner of rule by the EU isn't helping), match Russia. Nothing can change this short of defeating it militarily and dismembering it like Germany was cut into 3 pieces after 1945. Second in the short term, Russians in the near abroad take up the same niche as the German minorities in various parts of Central and Eastern Europe where they became subjects of many small and ethnocentric new states carved out from old Empires that fell--and these were really what lay behind the Czech and Polish crises, let's be honest, not Hitler or the Nazis (in the sense that, without their issues, their cause would not have been motivating politics in interwar Germany.) In the end, it is the vastness of Russian power and the grievances of "their" peoples (justified or not) that lie at the root of the "Russian Problem." Given the imbalance of resources and the widespread sense of grievance, there is nothing that can be "negotiated"--Russians will dictate the terms and we can get there the easy way or the hard way. The imbalance of power and the sense of "grievance" (even if we find the latter petulant, hypocritical, and insane troll logic) are even stronger on the part of the Israelis vis a vis Palestinians. So there is nothing to negotiate: in the end, Israel will be dictating terms, in the short to medium term. Unfortunately, Israelis are doing this in most barbaric way imaginable--although, in a way, that too seemingly can be explained: unlike Russians, who seek fairly definable (whether one likes it or not) security for themselves, Israelis don't have and don't even know what they really want in the medium term or longer. So they are hoping that, if they can smash and grab any and every thing, they don't have to worry about deciding what they really want. But smashi9ng and grabbing any and every thing is neither cheap nor easy.
In general terms, the West is still high on its unipolar hegemonic meds: this is the way we see things and it's our way or the highway.
Your analysis towards the end of the essay is great, although I got a bit lost in the details in the middle third (apologies for being critical, but maybe sections?)
Again, in general terms, every conflict only ends when there's a clear winner, and the side willing to endure can eventually flip the results on a longer time frame. There's quite a number of conflicts globally simmering under the surface; war and violence doesn't emerge in a vacuum, although when it does, it captures the headlines and is slotted into narratives (us/them).
In terms of NI, for instance, it's not clear to me that it's a settled issue. The violence ended and the conflict has shifted firmly back into the political sphere (thankfully), but given the emergent chatter from time to time, it's clear a reunification with the rest of Ireland is a question of when and not what.
Similarly in Ukraine, the West's gambit of poking the bear to make it crumble has, to date, backfired spectacularly. If anything, the bear is going from strength to strength, and more importantly, having consolidated a partnership with the dragon, this will upend the West's global dominance.
The failure of the "negotiations" is analogous to the failure of the conflict. As you rightly point out, the Russians are firm in their demands (root causes), and these are intrinsically at odds with the carefully crafted self image of the West. This is the real stumbling block. In general terms, the West has gone "all in" with the progressive-neoliberal view, which was easy to mask during the cold war, and later abetted by financialization. But 70+ years of doublespeak and incongruity between narrative and reality have now given us a calcified political pyramid with mediocre retards at the top (they're easier to corrupt and control; it's not a coincidence that the only voices of internal change in Western countries are ever more extreme political parties).
In this sense Ukraine is the hubris and Russia the harbinger of reality.
The negotiations will fail. We all knew from May/June 2022 how this might end, and Russia today is just letting the inevitable win play out while trying to steer clear of the worst outcomes (nuclear Armageddon or total war). In posterity historians will say Russia saw the writing on the wall in 2007, confirmed in 2014, and Johnson in Kiev in '22 was the end of the prologue phase.
Agree this is not over until the fat lady cries uncle. The EU is that lady. If it can’t achieve its aim of weakening Russia via control of Ukraine, there is another advantage to war: the chaos provides cover for the financial reset they so desperately need. I expect the three European managers, Macron, Starmer, and Merz to make a last stand on behalf of the money men behind them.
I also expect them to fail spectacularly since they are themselves personally mediocre.
The Ukrainian strategy is simple enough - offer no real concessions, negotiate as little as possible, and then run screaming to NATO that Russia does not want an end to the war. The plan ever always only was for NATO to come to the rescue, once the number of Ukrainians to soak up Russian munitions started to run low, and that the United States would get roped in, rather than leave their poodles hanging out to dry.
The entire point was to present Putin with a "peace deal" that he could not possibly, accept, then to pillory him for not accepting that peace deal.
Zelenskii and his handlers are quite clever at presenting outcomes that they win, either way.
Spare me and mine any Zelenskyy style “winning” then, thank you very much.
Doesn't matter what we like. The only question is whether the War On Russia or the War On Iran will take priority for now.
Lol you are truly in a fantasy land
Not meaning to be flip (OK maybe a little)
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
- Will Rogers
There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception. When an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
"Can you imagine 30 NATO members around a table trying to agree on a list of political parties and individuals whose presence in government has to be maintained at all costs, or otherwise the war will continue?"
Yes.
Some American snaps his fingers, 29 pairs of european knees hit the floor with a resounding thud.
I am no fan of Trump but in comparison to the likes of Blinken & Sullivan & whoever was in charge of the auto-pen. there is at least some jaw jaw escalation as opposed to the constant war war that preceded him - although those who sit at the top tables in Europe appear to have totally lost their minds.
Mostly, I would love to have people go into the wayback machine and try and remember the negotiations that led to the Paris Peace Accords that was used to wallpaper over the fact that the Americans lost.
That was in my salad days, but I remember my father bitterly complaining on how LBJ was selling us down the river by talking to the North, he was even more upset when Nixon "turned traitor". I do remember how stupid the whole thing was in terms of the "Shape of the Table" arguments.
What folks need to remember is that the process took five years to sign and then two years after that until the fall of Saigon. Everybody is squealing because they feel the process should be faster. I think that it is important to remember that wars are measured in a time frame very unsuited for short attention spans. The same goes for "peace talks"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
I take the apotheosis of Aurelien’s point about Western fantasy thinking in this regard to be the endless demands for, and prattling on about in western corporate media organs about, chimerical “security guarantees.” There is no such thing, has never been such a thing, nor can such a thing ever exist in this world of Knightian uncertainty … 🤨
If the West , or more exactly some elite components of the West ,did not desire for regime change in Moscow with aim of pillaging of natural resources to support the failing financialisation of societies there would be no conflict. Russophobia is deliberately stirred up to support this. The 'undesirable' elements of the Ukrainian government were also deliberately encouraged and supported to ensure the proxy would fight to the last Ukrainian.
The win win for these people is that the secondary aim to kill as many Slavs as possible is not a bad outcome on its own. This is just the personification of evil, no rationalization based on any other logic is valid.
The only outcome possible is a defeat for one side or the other on the battlefield.
Wake me up when that happens. I look forward to seeing your projection for when Russia might hope to seize (let alone occupy and pacify) the remaining 80% of Ukraine it doesn’t already control.
Or are we back to “Ukraine will collapse by June?” (or some variation on this?). Or are you, in a variation on this, fudging definitions of “defeats”? High time for some precision on these things, in any discussion of Ukraine.
It isn't about territory, or did you miss that bit?
It will be over when Russia dictates when its over which means its confident that it has protected its national integrity for at least a couple of decades.
This, I am going to have to call out as vagueposting. It can mean anything, to anyone, at any time.
It is perfectly clear. Obviously you did miss that bit. This is a war of attrition. The objective is not to take territory - it is to destroy the enemy army so completely that surrender is the only option. Aquired territory is only a welcome but unnecessary bonus. In the case of the Ukraine this destruction would have happened a long time ago, but for the influx of US armaments. This era is now almost over, as the US is unable (or possibly now also unwilling?) to supply armaments at anything near to the rate required, and the EU has practically little or no ability to substitute for the US.
I disagree with the framing of this as purely a war of attrition aimed at destroying Ukraine's army. The conflict involves complex strategic, political, and territorial goals, with both sides adapting to shifting realities. While U.S. and EU support has been critical for Ukraine's defense, reports indicate continued Western commitment, with aid packages still flowing despite logistical challenges. Ukraine's resilience and adaptability, alongside international support, suggest the situation is far from a foregone conclusion.
The original comment I responded to met the definition for vagueposting. Vagueposting is the act of posting ambiguous, indirect, or cryptic messages on the internet, often hinting at uncertainties, dramatic conclusions or hazily-described events without providing specific details. My reply above was, by the standards of comments I prefer to make, also somewhat vague. As was your comment. Timeframes, landmasses, methods, actions, risks and uncertainties were all omitted.
This is why vagueposting is so frowned on in internet etiquette. Everything from the vaguepost onwards just descends into ever-more waffle and aspirational outcomes, devoid of any description of how we get from here to there.
Well, I've never heard of 'vague-posting' before. I suspect that you have made it up. The posts you refer to above are not 'vague' at all - your 'vague-posting' is just a convenient way of not having to deal with the points made. As for 'waffle' - you appear to be an expert exponent of that yourself, has you seem to admit, and as I have found below.
Why would Russia want to occupy the useless western rump of Ukraine? What is there that has any value?
One might say much the same reason why USSR felt it necessary to occupy it in 1939, or, for that matter, Poland and East Germany in 1945 and later.
The value to Russia is minimal in "positive" terms, but, as long as they have enemies who are interested in taking advantage of these territories as the means of subverting their security, they need to ensure that a friendly regime is in charge. But, under some conditions, finding a friendly regime with local roots can be difficult. I expect that something cna be found in Kiev--it has, after all, been a "Russian" city until recently. But in Ternopol or Lemberg? The only way to secure them is either to have another friendly power take them over (Poland isn't it, though) or place them under Russian control even if it is costly.
I have suggested (not especially seriously, admittedly) in the past that the war may well continue until Russians return to Paris as they did in 1815. If they can establish an acceptable political situation in the West, they won't stay--they won't need to. But even taking Paris would not suffice to establish an acceptable political situation where they can leave things be. Politics has to fundamentally change in the West--such that Russian fear for their security is no longer necessary. But not with the current crop of murderous clowns still in charge.
"(in Britain) liberalism became a major political force early on, and, once the threat from Napoleon was defeated, British policy was to avoid wars whenever possible."
I think you are confusing the liberal /ideology/ with its practical realization. While the former indeed claims that wars are "bad for business", the latter clearly shows this isn't the case at all, as long as these wars are fought "elsewhere". Indeed, the "business model" of the british empire was based to a large extent on extracting profits from overseas colonies. To maintain and extend that dominance was thus essential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom has an impressive list, you have to scroll down quite a bit to come to the period after 1815. It clearly shows that what they tried to avoid were the kind of wars where you face a country with a comparable amount of military resources (i.e. wars against european continental powers), resulting in large scale destruction for /both/ sides. This never dissuaded them from waging (mostly) one-sided colonial conquest wars against (mostly) inferior powers all over the world. They did loose a few of them, but while loosing a war over control of some distant colony may make a dent in your profits, it never put their global dominance in danger, much less pose the home country at risk of being conquered or even the ruling elite to displaced from power. This has been the role model for the succeeding US empire ever since it took over.
It's quite funny (if not tragic) to see how pundits on French TV keep saying that Putin is trying to buy time. Like, sooner or later he would be forced to accept an end of the fighting (if not the war in itself) on the European terms.
Or else !
Else what ? We don't know exactly. Maybe European leaders getting really angry ? Trump changing his mind ?
Seriously flawed analogy.
Of course India can do what it can enforce.
As to Kiev US pulled off a coup, Trump pushed offensive weapons, the CIA/MI5 continued on, Nazis banned Russia n language and set up new church banning Russian Orthodox.
Russia will do what it must to break up Stalin/Trump’s nazi satellite.
Best case U.S. wastes a lot of war toys arming Stalin’s revenge on Russia.
India can do what is in its self interest.
My issue with PNAC imperialists is false regard for Stalin’s de jure socialist republic
Such claims undermine the your credibility, especially when discussing complex geopolitical events like the 2014 Euromaidan protests or Ukraine’s language laws.
For example, Ukraine’s 2019 language law prioritised Ukrainian but did not ban Russian outright, and the Orthodox Church of Ukraine’s split from Moscow was a religious and political move, not a "ban" on Russian Orthodoxy.
Your references to Stalin, Trump, and "PNAC imperialists" are confusing and misleading (I am certainly confused by them and given you’ve got all the time in the world to formulate better explanations, it makes you wonder if you’re just trying to mislead)
- Stalin’s legacy (e.g., Soviet borders) was invoked without explaining how it relates to modern Ukraine or Russia’s actions.
- Linking Trump to a "Nazi satellite" is incoherent, given Trump’s foreign policy is not by any means aligned with Ukraine’s government.
- The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a defunct think tank and its relevance to current American policy or the Ukraine conflict is unclear.
Interesting! Nits
I suggest you read Thucydides on the wars between the demos of Athens and the Spartans.
Shorter go to Melian dialogues
Followed up, perhaps, by treating yourself to watching The Wizard of Oz.
Now more than ever we have an opportunity to explore the theme of small men pretending to be all-powerful. The Wizard, initially presented as a grand, omnipotent figure, is revealed to be an ordinary man from Kansas using tricks and illusions to project authority.
The Wizard’s grandeur is a facade, relying on smoke, mirrors, and a booming voice to intimidate and control. This reflects how some individuals or leaders inflate their image to gain influence, despite lacking true power or substance.
Behind the curtain, the Wizard is a frail, insecure man, driven by a desire to be respected. I myself never want to try to project omnipotence but then again, I probably have no need to be compensating for personal inadequacies or fears.
The Wizard’s deception manipulates Oz’s citizens and the friends of Dorothy. It’s never been easier, has it, for false personas to exploit others’ naivety? The story contrasts the Wizard’s fake power with the real growth of characters like Dorothy and the Scarecrow, who find strength through their journey. This underscores that genuine capability and courage outshine hollow displays of authority.
But ultimately, the Wizard’s eventual honesty redeems him, implying that authenticity matters more than fabricated power. I often consider who was playing the role of the Wizard and was playing the role of Dorothy in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Wither then Russian Athenian aspirations in the face Japan’s Melian resolve?