Thank you for another cogent but troubling analysis. The logical outcome of it is that, as a Russian commentator might say, the Special Military Operation will continue until its aims are achieved. This will mean the conflict grinding on for many more months, hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian casualties until their military collapses and maybe, as a few have speculated, the Russians occupying up to another 4 oblasts as well as the 4 they claim as Russian territory.
I see in the last few hours Trump has issued a call to Putin to stop the war, or he will impose more sanctions etc. I think this can only go badly for Trump as the Russians will do whatever it takes to achieve their aims, he will then be perceived by many to have been defeated and relations between the West and Russia will be terrible for a long time. It may also be that more EU and NATO nations will "peel off" from the policy in the way that Hungary has done. Trump would do better to say that Ukraine is Europe's problem and wash his hands of it. Knowing how fickle he is, he might well find an excuse to do that anyway, maybe by making Zelensky take the blame.
The more Trump engages the worse it will be, for everyone involved.
If I were Russia (and I'm a nobody posting a comment on substack), I'd make sure I would take Odessa and Kiev. For many reasons, including historical. https://sites.tufts.edu/ukraine/the-kyiv-pechersk-lavra/ is a great example, 11th century.
"In Ukraine, a plausible Russian objective would be to make any residual resistance a Ukrainian problem as far as possible, putting it into the hands of a government that realised that its best interests would be served by not antagonising Moscow."
I think this is exactly what Russia unsuccessfully tried to do at the very beginning of it's 'Special Military Operation,' i.e. to quickly get rid of Zelensky's government and have someone pro-Russian instead. This is still the most reasonable way for Russia to achieve its goals of Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization and denazification. I doubt there would be much will to resist such a government left in Ukraine if the AFU and Zelensky's regime collapse one day. Russia doesn't need to occupy most of Ukraine, what it needs is a friendly regime in Kiev. The two countries co-existed just fine until 2014 when the US installed its rabidly anti-Russian puppet regime in Ukraine and the civil war broke out.
A good article, thank you. It highlights the complex nature of bringing the Ukraine conflict to an end. However, I believe that the Russians have had fairly clear strategic goals throughout the past three years, although they have changed as the war has progressed. In early 2022 their aim was to force Ukraine to accept ethnic Russians' rights to their culture and language, and for the two Oblasts in the Donbas to be permitted some autonomy but also relief from Ukrainian aggression.
They nearly secured these aims during the negotiations in Turkey, but they were scuppered by the Biden Administration and Boris Johnson's intervention. Since that time the, Russian military forces have progessively destroyed the AFU on the battlefield, and the ability of Ukraine to maintain its air defence, generate electricity, or manufacture military equipment. The situation on the battlefields as of January 2025 is one of an AFU that is nearing total collapse, and a Ukrainian economy that is essentially on life support from the US.
Recent statements from Putin and other senior Russian officials makes it clear that Russians will settle for nothing less than a demilitarisation of Ukraine, not NATO membership, and a de-nazification of the Ukrainian government. This will be resisted by NATO, and other western nations. It may be challenging for Trump to agree to this too for political reasons. However, the bottom line is that Russia's leaders cannot expect to cut a deal that allows Ukraine to keep Zelenskyy and the Banderite's in power, with the prospect of their rearming and/or waging a terrorist campaign agains the Russians (or continuing to do so).
I therefore think that the end of the conflict will be decided on the battlefields and on Russia's terms. From what I can see, Moscow has effectively written off any chance of a meaningful rapproachement with the EU and NATO. It most likely will seek an end of latent hostility with the USA, which Tump might accept, but Moscow is ready for a long-term "Cold War" with the NATO/EU states. It think Russia calculates that if Trump pulls US support from both Ukraine and NATO (which is essentially a hollow and useless organisation), it can handle whatever nonsense the Europeans might want to throw at it.
Neither NATO nor the EU are united and cohesive organisations. A US withdrawl from NATO, even in a modest manner, will see both these ungainly bureaucracies fall apart. A new world order is rising and it is not centred on either Europe or North America.
Mike...Ukraine threatened Russia by ( see 4 in my earlier post )
Mike ... you say brexit long time brewing , USA threat to Russia even longer , for USA trade power to continue they had to get UK to brexit and EU to stop buying gas from Russia both acheived.
Mike...China and EU no longer trade as they did because USA threatened that if they continued to trade with China the USA would impose tariffs on EU.
Mike...assads gov didnt collapse on its own the USA fed arms to al quieda to fight and distract assad in the north near turkey border whilst israel moven in south and took golan heights assad fled.
I appreciate your effort and consider you an excellent writer. In case you are curious, I found you via recommendations and links from Dave Pollard (another excellent writer).
"The Global West has the majority of the world’s capable militaries, with the capability to deploy overseas.."
Capable of what in 2025? I think not anymore or not without some serious changes that are counter to neo liberal economic thinking.
Since the combined west could not produce enough relatively simple artillery shells so Ukraine could pound the Russians back, how could they put boots on the ground in numbers needed to matter? If you go diving into US military stats and reports it's almost all bad and full of incompetence and corruption - it's rotten and past the point where the rot can be cut out.
I think the US empire's military is a shadow of what it was for the 2003 Iraq invasion. I do not believe they could reproduce such a force in personal (mostly shit, but a lot of them) or material. Time will tell. If the US empire continues to mirror the long trail of dead empires in the rear view mirror, we have a good chance of witnessing an, empire ending, nail in the coffin, military misadventure by them and one or more vassals. They just elected the man to do it.
*Nearly 70% of active service members are overweight, report finds*
"Defense Department data shows that the obesity rate, calculated using a person’s age, height and weight, has more than doubled over the past decade, from 10% to roughly 21%. At the same time, more than half of young Americans now qualify as obese, and it’s the no. 1 disqualifier for recruiting prospects.
“At a time when we are struggling to recruit an adequate labor force for the military, the growing rates of obesity are especially alarming,” said Matthew Wallin, chief operating officer of the American Security Project. “No person defending our country should find themselves unsupported and unequipped to fight a personal battle against obesity.”
“The growing prevalence of obesity in service members reduces the readiness of the all-volunteer military, but it isn’t a moral failing; it’s a health crisis,” the report reads. “Framing obesity as an issue of insufficient willpower or discipline prevents soldiers from seeking and receiving treatment, makes commanders and healthcare workers less inclined to intervene, and worsens health outcomes across the services.”
*77% of young Americans too fat, mentally ill, on drugs and more to join military, Pentagon study finds *
"A Pentagon study revealed that 77 percent of young Americans do not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, drug use, or mental or physical problems.
“When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11 percent), drug and alcohol abuse (8 percent), and medical/physical health (7 percent),” the Pentagon’s 2020 Qualified Military Available Study of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 read.
Several key findings were noted in the summary of the report. For example, most ineligible youth (44 percent) are disqualified for multiple reasons rather than in only one area."
"The largest increases in disqualification estimates observed between 2013 and 2020 were for mental health and overweight conditions. ,"
I think they have enough to continue to help start and support proxy wars for years. The eastern Roman empire [Byzantium] and the Ottoman empire stirred up and funded a number of proxy wars. Collapse is unavoidable and there's parts of the US (N Carolina, LA) that look like heavily bombed war zones and those are self inflicted and will continue to happen and the level of destruction will increase.
~~
Below I share 2 different photo essays of 2 different war zones that look similar:
Consider this quote from an American education expert:
“The US has never been first in the world, nor even near the top, on any international tests. Consistently over the past half century, American students have typically scored near the median at best, but most often being in the bottom quartile. The historical record indicates that American elementary students are only average at best, their performance degrading year by year until high school seniors perform last in almost all international tests. The International Science Studies that began in high schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s found that 14-year-olds were below average and seniors scored last of all countries. In the International Mathematics tests that began in the 1960s, American high school seniors scored last of all nations. In the 1982 International Mathematics Study, high school seniors placed at the bottom on almost every test. In terms of the PISA tests, American students – placing last – are simply following the pattern that has been consistent for the past 50 years or more.”
And a quote from one news report: “In October of 2013 a new global report issued by the OECD found that Americans ranked well below the worldwide average in just about every measure of skill. In math, reading, and technology-driven problem-solving , the United States performed worse than nearly every other country… The US would have looked even worse if China had been included in this study. In basic literacy – the ability to understand and use basic written text – 80% of Americans reached only a level 2 out of 5. And in math and numerical proficiency, using numbers in daily life, they are worse … and 10% scored below level 1. Technological literacy and ability were worse too. In problem-solving in a technological environment and the use of “cognitive skills required to solve problems”, the Americans were at the bottom.” And that bottom is in math, vocabulary, language usage and technology, with Chinese students far surpassing the Americans even when using a language that is not their own.
China is estimated to spend around $6bn a year on its space programme. Although that is almost $1bn more than Russia, it is still a fraction of the American space budget, which is around $40bn a year. Despite its large budget, the US made only 19 successful space launches in 2013, compared with China’s 14 and Russia’s 31.
The only thing the US manufactures now is arms, and they are designed not for use, but for optimum profit. Hence the expensive but inefficient and next to useless F-35, the expensive F-22 which can only operate for one day per week and is now being scrapped, the useless ‘Littoral Combat’ ships which are literally falling apart and now being scrapped, the very expensive new ‘Gerald Ford’ class carrier which has unending problems, and the Zumwalt’ destroyers, cancelled after two expensive and dis-functional examples. These latter sport two humps on the foredeck, which were supposed to be large calibre guns for shelling land targets. Gun technology is now around 1000 years old - still, these guns were never made to work and are now abandoned!
Actually, this whole idea of "peace keepers" looks much more like Zelensky's dream than anything else, as coaxing NATO forces in Ukraine seems to be his only hope to prolong the war.
Some Western leaders seems to play with the idea from time to time. Notoriously, Macron. Probably to see what the French people would think of him as warlord (not much, obviously).
But, as you just demonstrated, they know it's just politically and technically impossible. At least, I hope they do…
NATO is financed mostly by USA it is controlled by USA , its USA that gives the orders to all NATO forces , if like Germany you do not do what USA want then USA will step in and do it themselves , example the russian pipeline bringing gas to europe .Now back to Ukraine , forget about NATO they will have zero involvement because Russia , the victors will not accept them , you can also exclude all european countries because to some extent they are all in the back pocket of the USA , tariffs and all that underhand force that the USA applies to countries that do not comply.Another thing to remeber is that if the USA applies tariffs on a country the USA expects all those other countries that it has close trade with to also apply tariffs on that country and there you have the other excluded group from peacekeeping in Ukraine because Russia will not accept Australia or Canada or New Zealand or UK or ROI as peacekeepers either because of their closeknit relations with USA lets face it a lot of countries around the fear USA and will do as they are told without much said.For peacekeepers in Ukraine you would have to ignore the Middle East too because they have their own problems ( in which USA are involved too ) as Aurelian has said their are major logistical issues the further away from Ukraine you look so even if BRICS countries were considered the logistical issues would be massive in addition to the fear that some of them might have getting involved.Finally i would like to point out that it always amazes me how many people just dont get it that it is just weird and unacceptable that USA and UK ( the troublemaking warlords of the world ) get involved in telling other countries what to do especially countries that are 4000 or 5000 or 6000 miles away its about time USA and UK stopped poking their nose into other peoples business , have people forgotten that it was the USA and UK encouraging Ukraine to join ( USA controlled ) NATO that led to this war with Russia , just imagine if France decided to allow China to site missiles on their coast facing London ? that is basically what USA was suggesting to Ukraine - join ( USA controlled ) NATO and we will put USA missiles on Ukraines border with Russia just 400 miles from Moscow.
Yes you are correct , what can we do about it ? Well firstly we should rebuild the gas pipeline fro Germany through the baltic to St Petersburg reach agreement with Russia to buy their gas and trade with them in other ways , if they will have us back that is , then we should dismantle NATO its not required , the dangerous state is in the other direction - USA.The EU does not need USA its big enough to survive on its own , it is blackmailed by USA who threaten to withdraw funding from NATO , let them , we dont need a NATO.We should resume trade with China and trade with BRICS then if USA want to trade with us do that too but lets kick this can into touch about the USA being a friend or protector of europe , theyre not , theyre self serving , lets also end this idea that USA are the policeman of the world - theyre not - they are the main danger to world peace they want to control everything even other countries , the EU and BRICS can end that by walking away.Bring it on.
Now, imagine what would happen if any europolitician anywhere close to sniffing power were to say any of those things.
The United States is not a friend to europe, and it no more "protects" europe than a Mafia protection racket "protects" its victims. Take away America and its wars, and europe would have no enemies.
What do the euopean catamites propose to do about it?
I have to agree with you this time. It imagine it will take a severe breakdown in European societies (on the scale of the French or Russian revolutions) to change this.
The opposite of the conclusions are the 100 year UK support together with the ww3 contained in Monday's Telegraph article, as repeated endlessly by Z. Freeze front lines have hundred thousand ( two hundred thousand today) 'peacekeeper forces'. Make sure that there is a violation reported by Russia, the two hundred thousand respond and missiles attack across Russia. Certain response from Russia, US respond. WW3.
Clearly Starmer is completely insane. Is Trump?
I love reading Aurelien, but wonder if he has experienced the evil at work today?
The UK has a vested interest in continually causing strife so that it can show its American Master who the most loyallest little bitch is, standing beside Master all stirring and brave!
Trump is simply a moron, that loudmouth braggart at the corner bar who wound up as president.
Trump has just suggested that all the Palestinians (still) living in Gaza be shipped off to Egypt and Jordan. Is this the sign of a great statesman? Or more likely, of a psychopathic, amoral bully?
Aurelian -- you maybe wrote off the possibility of China as the guarantor of peace (i.e., occupying army) in rump Ukraine too quickly. If given a UN mandate, China might be prepared to do it. They have been building up their armed forces, and could use the experience. Plus it would cement China's rise to international prominence, wiping out the stain of the "Century of Humiliation", and it would fit in nicely with their Belt & Road scheme.
The UN mandate to China would presumably be (a) to keep both NATO and Russia out of Rump Ukraine, (b) to eliminate the endemic corruption in the Ukraine, and (c) to invest most of the capital for reconstruction in a peaceful Rump Ukraine. In effect, Rump Ukraine would become a Chinese province for a while.
- Russia already has a long border and a deep relationship with China. Consequently, Russia would probably accept China as a trustworthy occupying force in Rump Ukraine.
- The Euros would be aghast to have the Chinese army on their borders -- but no-one cares about the Euros, not even the Euros.
- The US under President Trump wants out, and might be happy to see China taking on the burden of the Ukrainian tar baby. Given a UN mandate to China, it might be very difficult for the Usual Suspects in the US Deep State to object.
NATO would probably fade away; the Euros would get back to sticking knives in each other (as their long history has shown); Russia could breathe a sigh of relief; the US could focus on its interests in the Western Hemisphere; and life for ordinary Ukrainians would be infinitely better than under the Zelensky regime. Winning all around!
I think you nailed it in the conclusion (re: hammered into submission).
Given the failure of the previous accords (Minsk) and the obvious partisan role of the West in supporting Ukraine, it'll be virtually impossible to find a "neutral" observer to monitor peace on the ground. Since the Russians have made clear they won't accept a ceasefire to kick the can further down the road, this game of prestige and brinkmanship will continue to have inherent spillover risks as long as the war continues to ebb and flow.
I was thinking about this the other day, the only real solution as things stand involves an overarching political solution, but the Russians have nested their demand within a new comprehensive US-European-Russian security architecture treaty. To the West this is fanciful, and many within would view it as a humiliation, as they've sunk a lot of propaganda over the years, not just in this conflict, to keep the majority of their populations under a mix of narrative fantasies of being the best, the righteous and a force of good in the global Hobbesian jungle (ever since the 90s ex FRY "humanitarian" interventions).
So as things stand right now, it logically follows that any political treaty would require being preceded by some sort of undisputed military victory enabling terms can be dictated (like Versailles). And this would have to be so self-evident to falter the propaganda information war. I'd also add that the typical "off ramps" used to save face seem unlikely as they would negate the deterrence effect Russia wants.
In either case, the consequence is that unless the West pivots its narrative, it has put itself in a bind and the path of least resistance leads to rearmament, with either a renewal of hostilities in the decades ahead or a perpetual new cold war.
Let's wait until actual victory before taking a victory lap, what say?
The whole point of inviting NATO "peacekeepers" intoUkraine is to provide a shield to protect the rump Ukraine while it launches attacks at Russia.
"The first is monitoring and verification, which of course presupposes something to monitor and verify. There was, in fact such a monitoring group under the OSCE in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. There is an ad hoc group in Southern Lebanon now, working with the UN Force in the South of the country. Such missions, which don’t have to be very large, are essentially for record-keeping. They keep a log of ceasefire violations, and report them usually to some kind of coordinating committee, and that’s about it. "
Ir was an open secret from 2014-2022 that the OSCE mission was basically acting as spies and artillery spotters for the Kiev regime. This was confirmed after the war began.
Dont be daft , NATO have been fighting the Russians and you talk of them now being the peacekeepers , get real , not going to happen , when will people wake up and realize NATO is used by USA to pressurize countries into submission.
I never said that NATO peacekeepers would be acceptable to Russia, and of course NATO is used to keep european catamites, well, catamites.
That said, I suspect that "Russia is fighting NATO" is just so much cope. If NATO forces were suffering any significatn casualties, this would be impossible to hide. A "boat accident" here, a "training accident" there, sure, maybe even a "helicopter crash" or two.
But if NATO forces were participating in any way the way pro-Russia types claim, there would be miltiary cemeteries full of dead people, hospitals stuffed with wounded and maimed, amputees and lurid stories everywhere, wives, sisters and mothers wanting to know where their loved ones disappeared to.
Since none of these things have happened, we can assume that "Russia is fighting NATO" is just so much cope.
You think so ? You will not find out about the number of NATO casualties til much much later , i would also add that NATO fighting Russia is done from a distance just like USA are fighting Russia "from a distance " .Supplying Ukraine with the arms and other supplies is what USA UK and EU are doing and that is actually fighting Russia.
If there were significant numbers of NATO troops, the evidence would be impossible to hide. Hell, the USSR, a far more tightly controlled society, could not successfully hide casualties in Afghanistan.
Balkanize the territories established by Lenin/Stalin as a soviet administrative tool. That includes the Balts!
Toss everyone east of the Rhine out of NATO. Demilitarize the entire area from the Rhine east (Normandy?)
Impose a Morganthau plan: no industrial metals! No heavy industry and no weaponry.
From shipping combat ready East German/Soviet arms to Croatia to encouraging Muslim statism, the multiple "dramas" of Yugoslavia breakup were a US effected stratagem to prototype Balkanizing the Russian Federation.
Peacekeepers, they need to be operating from the Rhine east.....
While the overall stance of this article is fine, even commendable, I have to nit-pick over some of the assertions therein. This is because I imagine that the author, laudably, wishes to impart a sort of gods-eye view of the situation, without obvious partiality, and if this is correct, the examples I discuss below detract from this goal. (Of course, I could be completely wrong about this aim, but even so, I think that it is in fact something to be sought after. However, I’m not the author). But anyway:
“reform the domestic political process so as to undermine support for those who wanted a united Ireland. “
You speak as if this was some kind of internationally agreed or even desireable goal - it is/was not, from any detached viewpoint - it was the goal of perhaps only the UK government and the DUP etc., and why they should be given precedence over those in Ireland who disagree escapes me.
“The nearest solution, the 1993 Vance-Owen Peace Plan, was sabotaged by the Clinton administration under pressure from NGOs and the media.”
If this was in fact the case, it is another testament to the decadence of western government. The media should have no place in determining peace plans or any other plans anywhere, especially given the very low current standards of professionalism in this area. But you appear to find this acceptable - or at least you make no protest or demurr about it.
“Well, that means giving China a voice in the definition of the end-state, as well as various Asian and African states on the Security Council.”
What exactly is the problem with this, objectively? You speak as if the western (biased) view of Chinese participation in world affairs is the only one to be considered - obviously it is a difficulty, given US/UK/EU attitudes, but why assume that they must be catered to?
These points may be seen as mendacious carping about minor details, but if the author does have a goal similar to that outlined in the first sentence, surely these points are worth considering?
"Ukraine and the West have to be hammered until they accept de facto Russian control over Ukraine, and a government in Kiev that decides it is prudent, and in the national interest, to cultivate Moscow" - hammered by whom? & why? & why should the Ukrainians accept "de facto Russian control"? I know quite a few Ukrainians - they won't they hate Putler and his regime. Also, why give over to Russia control of Ukrainian grain and minerals. Way forward for Europe: get real, re-arm and bleed the Russians to the point of regime change. Respect quite a few of the posts - this is one of the poorer ones.
The British Army right now cannot recruit though. Not sure many of us are queuing up to do as you say and actually fight as opposed to posting comments about “Putler”. Which is easier.
The idea of bleeding Russia though then simply reinforces their notion that the West seeks the destruction of Russia. So we never end the cycle of violence.
But, of course, we are good and they are bad. We, the West that has initiated countless wars of choice over the past decades. But it’s all in the name of Democracy.
The west never sought the direct destruction of Russia - but Russia does not recognise the existence of Ukraine - hence the invasion. Nothing much wrong with Russians - but the regime is vile. One has to deal with realities - & one of them is a vile government run by ex-KGB which uses Russian "citizens" to the east of the Urals as cannon fodder. As for the cycle of violence - remid me who started it? Which country divested itself of nukes? which country was guaranteed its security (by amongst others Russia).
Funny, as plenty of wetern leaders have said otherwise.
Meanwhile, thosse Ukrainians you know, why are they here and not on the front? For that matter, why does the regime need to press gang its citizens into the army, if Ukrainians are so eager? And why hasn't Russia even seen fit to do a full mobilization if they are using Russian "citizens" [sic] as "cannon fodder"?
How old are you Mike . . .? The west threatened Russia with destruction to the point of collapse well it did collapse USSR, you keep saying Russia didnt recognise Ukraine , repeating that nonsense is childish mike , USA persuading Ukraine to join NATO , do it or USA impose tariffs on you , so Ukraine applied even after Russia told them that no way would they stand by and allow USA controlled NATO to put nuclear missiles on the Ukraine Russia border just 400 miles from Moscow.Are you english mike ? Imagine France allowing China to site missiles at Callais pointing at London , just for defence of course.
My age has little to do with it. As for the USSR & collapse, all self inflicted. As for Russian recognising Ukraine - the narratives out of Moscow are that Russia wants Ukraine to "reincorporate" into Russia. Obvs the Ukrainians want that. Why would Ukraine in NATO lead to nuclear missiles in Ukraine pointing at Moscow?
Your age Mike , i was looking for a reason why you would hold such dim views , Mike have a look at a map , Russia is huge it does not want or need more land it certainly does not want Ukraine let me tell you now so as to stop your silly thinking in its tracks , Russia will not incorporate Ukraine into Russia it does not want or need Ukraine but it does not want USA controlled NATO able to put military on Ukraines borders with Russia , IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , you need to reevaluate look at USA saying it wants Greenland it wants the Panama Canal by force if ne essary look at its threats to Canada these examples should make you think about the trust you put in USA.Lastly Mike , if you look at who has caused the most wars in history its not Russia its not China its UK and USA.
Dont be daft , Ukraine have lost , Russia have won even though the EU and USA helped Ukraine, people like you need to stop beleiving all you read in the newspapers
Define "lost" and "won". I don't read (UK) newspapers but do have data feeds. Currently Russia is "losing" circa 1500 troops a day, it has burned through most of its tanks, most of its artillery and inflation is running @ 15%? 20%. Sure it occupies circa 20% of Ukraine, but gaining more ground is costing Russia dear.
If you dont know what lost or won means you are not going to understand what has been happening in this war.I suspect you do know what lost and won mean but choose to be pedantic.People in Russia are.....just people....the same as people elsewhere in the world , if you threaten them and they fear for their safety or even their life they will react.The USA planned and did all you see before you
(1) encourage UK to brexit - they did brexit
(2) encourage EU to stop trading with China - they did
(3) encourage EU to stop buying gas from Russia - they didnt - so USA made them stop by destroying the pipeline bringing gas into the EU now the EU buys its gas mostly from USA shipped in by sea.
(4) encourage Ukraine to join NATO entice them with the offer of trade deals and threaten them with the destruction of their economy by USA tariffs which the USA would force its allies to do too.Ukraine capitulated knowing they would endanger Russia because joining NATO would mean Ukraine like all the other NATO countries bordering Russia would be forced in the same way by USA to install USA made missiles on Ukraine,s border with Russia just 400 miles from Moscow.
Did i already point out that the USA finance and control NATO ? yes i did , NATO does nothing absolutely nothing of any significance without first running it past the USA
(5) Why did USA do all this to its allies ? well it did this to put a dent in the help that Russia gives to Syria Iran Lebanon Palestine , it worked , there was no way Israel even with the help of USA would have attacked Syria if Russia was not fighting this war with Ukraine , Russia had a huge naval base Tartus in Syria but have had to withdraw their support of Syria as the USA UK and EU upped their provision of armoury to Ukraine.
(7) As Russia withdrew from Syria to concentrate on Ukraine , Israel moved into Lebanon then in to Syria there was only Iran that could have tried to stop them but Iran know that an attack on Israel is an attack on USA and none of the other arab countries want to be involved in that.
(8) Shia is stunted , for now , Sunni are playing along with western powers , oil wealth helps , but one day the oil will run out and USA UK EU interest in the middle east will wane , i expect the Shia factions will return to reverse the Israeli land grab.
(9) In my opinion Russia will not trust anyone other than BRICS and i dont see any of those countries getting involved in policing the Russia Ukraine border, i may be naieve but i think Russia will allow the dust to settle , offer to help Ukraine rebuild if it agrees to a non nato future and beyond that they will flood Ukraine with military to make sure the west do not try any more of their tricks.
(10) USA ? well theyve acheived their objective , nullified the shia got full control of the middle east , weakened Russia , made EU energy dependant on USA
(11) UK ? Lost upstream without a paddle a failing second rate economy since leaving the EU but hey they had no choice , the USA told them
(12) EU its failing too energy costs crippling their rhur industries
Absolutely: people in Russia just like everybody. Do tell: how did Ukraine “threaten them” i.e. Russian citizens? (in your answer remember the Minsk agreement). In the case of Brexit – long time brewing – USA on record for wanting UK to stay in EU. Nice try – no coconut. EU – China – trade disputes trade war don’t think so – looks like 1980s – EU – Japan (I worked on dumping cases btw – for the Japs). As for gas – my memory was: Russia invades Ukraine, EU looks for emergency supplies – from USA (on the basis of: why give money to Russia that has attacked Ukraine?.). I know the gas guys – I get my info 1st hand. As for USA forcing EU regarding trade? Really? (burst out laughing).
Israel attacked Syria – well yes – after Assad’s gov collapsed – very little to do with Ukraine (& don’t think these comments are something supporting jewish genocidistst). As for the rest of your middle east “tour de table” – the USA was as surprised as the rest. Events dear boy. & lastly, what’s it like in Moscow/Leningrad these days? Suggestion: I find your half truths etc quite amusing – but you need to get out more & you lack depth.
Dear Mike , as the dust begins to settle we see that the USA are not interested in continuing to support the Ukraine war with Russia as we knew all along this is not because they love Russia or because they love Ukraine it is because it is an unnecessary way NATO is not needed its past its sell by date Russia is not a threat to europe Russia will only ever move into another country if it is threatened and thats because Russia is already a huge country that is difficult enough to administer and protect it certainly does not need or want more territory.The Ukraine was coerced by USA into joining NATO which was a threat to Russia .Now that USA have greater control of the middle east oil which is why they support the expansion of Israel and now that the USA have weakened the EU world trade by cutting the supply of cheap gas from Russia to EU and UK you will find that the EU and UK will forever have to buy gas from USA shipped across the Atlantic ocean at huge expense.Starmer and a few other idiots leading EU countries are saying they will continue to arm Ukraine and even threaten to send troops and their war machines there to fight Russia well that is very unlikely its akin to your fantasy Mike and quite frankly its the most likely way of forcing Russia out of its boundary again , leave Russia alone and Russia will sell you cheap gas andtrade with you but try and bulky Russia and they will fight back.Who is Starmer kidding the UK is falling to bits huge numbers of people in real difficulty and he gives £12billion to Ukraine government to continue fighting a war with Russia.£1 billion of that £12 billion is what was taken away from the pensioners in uk when their help with heating costs was ended the rest i suspect could solve many of the problems in the NHS , Starmer looks and acts like an idiot financed by the wealthy andnow he wants the ordinary people in UK to fight Russia.Have you signed up yet Mike ?
The hammering will be done by the Russian Armed Forces - they have it down to a fine art by now. The Ukraine will accept de facto Russian control because the alternative is a proliferation of six by six by 4 plots in the good Ukranian soil. As for Europe re-arming? What with? Most (all?) EU economies are facing an economic brick wall right now. As it is Europe plus the US can't supply the Ukraine even with enough artillery shells. Maybe it's you who should think about 'getting real'.
Thank you for another cogent but troubling analysis. The logical outcome of it is that, as a Russian commentator might say, the Special Military Operation will continue until its aims are achieved. This will mean the conflict grinding on for many more months, hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian casualties until their military collapses and maybe, as a few have speculated, the Russians occupying up to another 4 oblasts as well as the 4 they claim as Russian territory.
I see in the last few hours Trump has issued a call to Putin to stop the war, or he will impose more sanctions etc. I think this can only go badly for Trump as the Russians will do whatever it takes to achieve their aims, he will then be perceived by many to have been defeated and relations between the West and Russia will be terrible for a long time. It may also be that more EU and NATO nations will "peel off" from the policy in the way that Hungary has done. Trump would do better to say that Ukraine is Europe's problem and wash his hands of it. Knowing how fickle he is, he might well find an excuse to do that anyway, maybe by making Zelensky take the blame.
The more Trump engages the worse it will be, for everyone involved.
If I were Russia (and I'm a nobody posting a comment on substack), I'd make sure I would take Odessa and Kiev. For many reasons, including historical. https://sites.tufts.edu/ukraine/the-kyiv-pechersk-lavra/ is a great example, 11th century.
As another nobody, I support your view.
"In Ukraine, a plausible Russian objective would be to make any residual resistance a Ukrainian problem as far as possible, putting it into the hands of a government that realised that its best interests would be served by not antagonising Moscow."
I think this is exactly what Russia unsuccessfully tried to do at the very beginning of it's 'Special Military Operation,' i.e. to quickly get rid of Zelensky's government and have someone pro-Russian instead. This is still the most reasonable way for Russia to achieve its goals of Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization and denazification. I doubt there would be much will to resist such a government left in Ukraine if the AFU and Zelensky's regime collapse one day. Russia doesn't need to occupy most of Ukraine, what it needs is a friendly regime in Kiev. The two countries co-existed just fine until 2014 when the US installed its rabidly anti-Russian puppet regime in Ukraine and the civil war broke out.
A good article, thank you. It highlights the complex nature of bringing the Ukraine conflict to an end. However, I believe that the Russians have had fairly clear strategic goals throughout the past three years, although they have changed as the war has progressed. In early 2022 their aim was to force Ukraine to accept ethnic Russians' rights to their culture and language, and for the two Oblasts in the Donbas to be permitted some autonomy but also relief from Ukrainian aggression.
They nearly secured these aims during the negotiations in Turkey, but they were scuppered by the Biden Administration and Boris Johnson's intervention. Since that time the, Russian military forces have progessively destroyed the AFU on the battlefield, and the ability of Ukraine to maintain its air defence, generate electricity, or manufacture military equipment. The situation on the battlefields as of January 2025 is one of an AFU that is nearing total collapse, and a Ukrainian economy that is essentially on life support from the US.
Recent statements from Putin and other senior Russian officials makes it clear that Russians will settle for nothing less than a demilitarisation of Ukraine, not NATO membership, and a de-nazification of the Ukrainian government. This will be resisted by NATO, and other western nations. It may be challenging for Trump to agree to this too for political reasons. However, the bottom line is that Russia's leaders cannot expect to cut a deal that allows Ukraine to keep Zelenskyy and the Banderite's in power, with the prospect of their rearming and/or waging a terrorist campaign agains the Russians (or continuing to do so).
I therefore think that the end of the conflict will be decided on the battlefields and on Russia's terms. From what I can see, Moscow has effectively written off any chance of a meaningful rapproachement with the EU and NATO. It most likely will seek an end of latent hostility with the USA, which Tump might accept, but Moscow is ready for a long-term "Cold War" with the NATO/EU states. It think Russia calculates that if Trump pulls US support from both Ukraine and NATO (which is essentially a hollow and useless organisation), it can handle whatever nonsense the Europeans might want to throw at it.
Neither NATO nor the EU are united and cohesive organisations. A US withdrawl from NATO, even in a modest manner, will see both these ungainly bureaucracies fall apart. A new world order is rising and it is not centred on either Europe or North America.
Mike...Ukraine threatened Russia by ( see 4 in my earlier post )
Mike ... you say brexit long time brewing , USA threat to Russia even longer , for USA trade power to continue they had to get UK to brexit and EU to stop buying gas from Russia both acheived.
Mike...China and EU no longer trade as they did because USA threatened that if they continued to trade with China the USA would impose tariffs on EU.
Mike...assads gov didnt collapse on its own the USA fed arms to al quieda to fight and distract assad in the north near turkey border whilst israel moven in south and took golan heights assad fled.
Mike ....you are being fed the USA propaganda
I appreciate your effort and consider you an excellent writer. In case you are curious, I found you via recommendations and links from Dave Pollard (another excellent writer).
"The Global West has the majority of the world’s capable militaries, with the capability to deploy overseas.."
Capable of what in 2025? I think not anymore or not without some serious changes that are counter to neo liberal economic thinking.
Since the combined west could not produce enough relatively simple artillery shells so Ukraine could pound the Russians back, how could they put boots on the ground in numbers needed to matter? If you go diving into US military stats and reports it's almost all bad and full of incompetence and corruption - it's rotten and past the point where the rot can be cut out.
I think the US empire's military is a shadow of what it was for the 2003 Iraq invasion. I do not believe they could reproduce such a force in personal (mostly shit, but a lot of them) or material. Time will tell. If the US empire continues to mirror the long trail of dead empires in the rear view mirror, we have a good chance of witnessing an, empire ending, nail in the coffin, military misadventure by them and one or more vassals. They just elected the man to do it.
*Nearly 70% of active service members are overweight, report finds*
"Defense Department data shows that the obesity rate, calculated using a person’s age, height and weight, has more than doubled over the past decade, from 10% to roughly 21%. At the same time, more than half of young Americans now qualify as obese, and it’s the no. 1 disqualifier for recruiting prospects.
“At a time when we are struggling to recruit an adequate labor force for the military, the growing rates of obesity are especially alarming,” said Matthew Wallin, chief operating officer of the American Security Project. “No person defending our country should find themselves unsupported and unequipped to fight a personal battle against obesity.”
“The growing prevalence of obesity in service members reduces the readiness of the all-volunteer military, but it isn’t a moral failing; it’s a health crisis,” the report reads. “Framing obesity as an issue of insufficient willpower or discipline prevents soldiers from seeking and receiving treatment, makes commanders and healthcare workers less inclined to intervene, and worsens health outcomes across the services.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/nearly-70-of-active-service-members-are-overweight-report-finds/
~~
They can always recruit new people.
*77% of young Americans too fat, mentally ill, on drugs and more to join military, Pentagon study finds *
"A Pentagon study revealed that 77 percent of young Americans do not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, drug use, or mental or physical problems.
“When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11 percent), drug and alcohol abuse (8 percent), and medical/physical health (7 percent),” the Pentagon’s 2020 Qualified Military Available Study of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 read.
Several key findings were noted in the summary of the report. For example, most ineligible youth (44 percent) are disqualified for multiple reasons rather than in only one area."
"The largest increases in disqualification estimates observed between 2013 and 2020 were for mental health and overweight conditions. ,"
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/03/77-of-young-americans-too-fat-mentally-ill-on-drugs-and-more-to-join-military-pentagon-study-finds/
~~~~~~~
I think they have enough to continue to help start and support proxy wars for years. The eastern Roman empire [Byzantium] and the Ottoman empire stirred up and funded a number of proxy wars. Collapse is unavoidable and there's parts of the US (N Carolina, LA) that look like heavily bombed war zones and those are self inflicted and will continue to happen and the level of destruction will increase.
~~
Below I share 2 different photo essays of 2 different war zones that look similar:
1) Man VS man.
2) Man VS nature/self
~~
War Zone 1
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/1/20/aerial-photos-show-scale-of-israeli-destruction-in-gaza
~~~
War Zone 2
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/photos-los-angeles-palisades-scale-california-fires-rcna186941
And:
Consider this quote from an American education expert:
“The US has never been first in the world, nor even near the top, on any international tests. Consistently over the past half century, American students have typically scored near the median at best, but most often being in the bottom quartile. The historical record indicates that American elementary students are only average at best, their performance degrading year by year until high school seniors perform last in almost all international tests. The International Science Studies that began in high schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s found that 14-year-olds were below average and seniors scored last of all countries. In the International Mathematics tests that began in the 1960s, American high school seniors scored last of all nations. In the 1982 International Mathematics Study, high school seniors placed at the bottom on almost every test. In terms of the PISA tests, American students – placing last – are simply following the pattern that has been consistent for the past 50 years or more.”
And a quote from one news report: “In October of 2013 a new global report issued by the OECD found that Americans ranked well below the worldwide average in just about every measure of skill. In math, reading, and technology-driven problem-solving , the United States performed worse than nearly every other country… The US would have looked even worse if China had been included in this study. In basic literacy – the ability to understand and use basic written text – 80% of Americans reached only a level 2 out of 5. And in math and numerical proficiency, using numbers in daily life, they are worse … and 10% scored below level 1. Technological literacy and ability were worse too. In problem-solving in a technological environment and the use of “cognitive skills required to solve problems”, the Americans were at the bottom.” And that bottom is in math, vocabulary, language usage and technology, with Chinese students far surpassing the Americans even when using a language that is not their own.
(More at https://www.sott.net/article/472423-Dumber-than-the-average-human )
China is estimated to spend around $6bn a year on its space programme. Although that is almost $1bn more than Russia, it is still a fraction of the American space budget, which is around $40bn a year. Despite its large budget, the US made only 19 successful space launches in 2013, compared with China’s 14 and Russia’s 31.
The only thing the US manufactures now is arms, and they are designed not for use, but for optimum profit. Hence the expensive but inefficient and next to useless F-35, the expensive F-22 which can only operate for one day per week and is now being scrapped, the useless ‘Littoral Combat’ ships which are literally falling apart and now being scrapped, the very expensive new ‘Gerald Ford’ class carrier which has unending problems, and the Zumwalt’ destroyers, cancelled after two expensive and dis-functional examples. These latter sport two humps on the foredeck, which were supposed to be large calibre guns for shelling land targets. Gun technology is now around 1000 years old - still, these guns were never made to work and are now abandoned!
Actually, this whole idea of "peace keepers" looks much more like Zelensky's dream than anything else, as coaxing NATO forces in Ukraine seems to be his only hope to prolong the war.
Some Western leaders seems to play with the idea from time to time. Notoriously, Macron. Probably to see what the French people would think of him as warlord (not much, obviously).
But, as you just demonstrated, they know it's just politically and technically impossible. At least, I hope they do…
NATO is financed mostly by USA it is controlled by USA , its USA that gives the orders to all NATO forces , if like Germany you do not do what USA want then USA will step in and do it themselves , example the russian pipeline bringing gas to europe .Now back to Ukraine , forget about NATO they will have zero involvement because Russia , the victors will not accept them , you can also exclude all european countries because to some extent they are all in the back pocket of the USA , tariffs and all that underhand force that the USA applies to countries that do not comply.Another thing to remeber is that if the USA applies tariffs on a country the USA expects all those other countries that it has close trade with to also apply tariffs on that country and there you have the other excluded group from peacekeeping in Ukraine because Russia will not accept Australia or Canada or New Zealand or UK or ROI as peacekeepers either because of their closeknit relations with USA lets face it a lot of countries around the fear USA and will do as they are told without much said.For peacekeepers in Ukraine you would have to ignore the Middle East too because they have their own problems ( in which USA are involved too ) as Aurelian has said their are major logistical issues the further away from Ukraine you look so even if BRICS countries were considered the logistical issues would be massive in addition to the fear that some of them might have getting involved.Finally i would like to point out that it always amazes me how many people just dont get it that it is just weird and unacceptable that USA and UK ( the troublemaking warlords of the world ) get involved in telling other countries what to do especially countries that are 4000 or 5000 or 6000 miles away its about time USA and UK stopped poking their nose into other peoples business , have people forgotten that it was the USA and UK encouraging Ukraine to join ( USA controlled ) NATO that led to this war with Russia , just imagine if France decided to allow China to site missiles on their coast facing London ? that is basically what USA was suggesting to Ukraine - join ( USA controlled ) NATO and we will put USA missiles on Ukraines border with Russia just 400 miles from Moscow.
Europeans like being slaves, much the way a dog needs a Master.
European governments are puppet regimes. Europeans like this state of affairs and literally cannot imagine life any other way. Again, much like dogs.
What does anyone propose to do about it?
Yes you are correct , what can we do about it ? Well firstly we should rebuild the gas pipeline fro Germany through the baltic to St Petersburg reach agreement with Russia to buy their gas and trade with them in other ways , if they will have us back that is , then we should dismantle NATO its not required , the dangerous state is in the other direction - USA.The EU does not need USA its big enough to survive on its own , it is blackmailed by USA who threaten to withdraw funding from NATO , let them , we dont need a NATO.We should resume trade with China and trade with BRICS then if USA want to trade with us do that too but lets kick this can into touch about the USA being a friend or protector of europe , theyre not , theyre self serving , lets also end this idea that USA are the policeman of the world - theyre not - they are the main danger to world peace they want to control everything even other countries , the EU and BRICS can end that by walking away.Bring it on.
Now, imagine what would happen if any europolitician anywhere close to sniffing power were to say any of those things.
The United States is not a friend to europe, and it no more "protects" europe than a Mafia protection racket "protects" its victims. Take away America and its wars, and europe would have no enemies.
What do the euopean catamites propose to do about it?
I have to agree with you this time. It imagine it will take a severe breakdown in European societies (on the scale of the French or Russian revolutions) to change this.
The opposite of the conclusions are the 100 year UK support together with the ww3 contained in Monday's Telegraph article, as repeated endlessly by Z. Freeze front lines have hundred thousand ( two hundred thousand today) 'peacekeeper forces'. Make sure that there is a violation reported by Russia, the two hundred thousand respond and missiles attack across Russia. Certain response from Russia, US respond. WW3.
Clearly Starmer is completely insane. Is Trump?
I love reading Aurelien, but wonder if he has experienced the evil at work today?
"Clearly Starmer is completely insane. Is Trump?"
The UK has a vested interest in continually causing strife so that it can show its American Master who the most loyallest little bitch is, standing beside Master all stirring and brave!
Trump is simply a moron, that loudmouth braggart at the corner bar who wound up as president.
Still into insulting Trump after all these years?
Haven't you heard? The way to get out of a hole is to quit digging.
If Trump would stop acting like a moron, I'd stop calling him one.
Really? I don't find your assurance convincing. LOL
Trump has just suggested that all the Palestinians (still) living in Gaza be shipped off to Egypt and Jordan. Is this the sign of a great statesman? Or more likely, of a psychopathic, amoral bully?
Do you sometimes have an inkling that there might be other options besides "great statesman" and "psychopathic amoral bully"?
Aurelian -- you maybe wrote off the possibility of China as the guarantor of peace (i.e., occupying army) in rump Ukraine too quickly. If given a UN mandate, China might be prepared to do it. They have been building up their armed forces, and could use the experience. Plus it would cement China's rise to international prominence, wiping out the stain of the "Century of Humiliation", and it would fit in nicely with their Belt & Road scheme.
The UN mandate to China would presumably be (a) to keep both NATO and Russia out of Rump Ukraine, (b) to eliminate the endemic corruption in the Ukraine, and (c) to invest most of the capital for reconstruction in a peaceful Rump Ukraine. In effect, Rump Ukraine would become a Chinese province for a while.
- Russia already has a long border and a deep relationship with China. Consequently, Russia would probably accept China as a trustworthy occupying force in Rump Ukraine.
- The Euros would be aghast to have the Chinese army on their borders -- but no-one cares about the Euros, not even the Euros.
- The US under President Trump wants out, and might be happy to see China taking on the burden of the Ukrainian tar baby. Given a UN mandate to China, it might be very difficult for the Usual Suspects in the US Deep State to object.
NATO would probably fade away; the Euros would get back to sticking knives in each other (as their long history has shown); Russia could breathe a sigh of relief; the US could focus on its interests in the Western Hemisphere; and life for ordinary Ukrainians would be infinitely better than under the Zelensky regime. Winning all around!
I think you nailed it in the conclusion (re: hammered into submission).
Given the failure of the previous accords (Minsk) and the obvious partisan role of the West in supporting Ukraine, it'll be virtually impossible to find a "neutral" observer to monitor peace on the ground. Since the Russians have made clear they won't accept a ceasefire to kick the can further down the road, this game of prestige and brinkmanship will continue to have inherent spillover risks as long as the war continues to ebb and flow.
I was thinking about this the other day, the only real solution as things stand involves an overarching political solution, but the Russians have nested their demand within a new comprehensive US-European-Russian security architecture treaty. To the West this is fanciful, and many within would view it as a humiliation, as they've sunk a lot of propaganda over the years, not just in this conflict, to keep the majority of their populations under a mix of narrative fantasies of being the best, the righteous and a force of good in the global Hobbesian jungle (ever since the 90s ex FRY "humanitarian" interventions).
So as things stand right now, it logically follows that any political treaty would require being preceded by some sort of undisputed military victory enabling terms can be dictated (like Versailles). And this would have to be so self-evident to falter the propaganda information war. I'd also add that the typical "off ramps" used to save face seem unlikely as they would negate the deterrence effect Russia wants.
In either case, the consequence is that unless the West pivots its narrative, it has put itself in a bind and the path of least resistance leads to rearmament, with either a renewal of hostilities in the decades ahead or a perpetual new cold war.
My italian translation...
"La spada è più forte...
...della penna. In Ucraina, almeno."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/01/la-spada-e-piu-forte-della-penna-in.html
Let's wait until actual victory before taking a victory lap, what say?
The whole point of inviting NATO "peacekeepers" intoUkraine is to provide a shield to protect the rump Ukraine while it launches attacks at Russia.
"The first is monitoring and verification, which of course presupposes something to monitor and verify. There was, in fact such a monitoring group under the OSCE in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. There is an ad hoc group in Southern Lebanon now, working with the UN Force in the South of the country. Such missions, which don’t have to be very large, are essentially for record-keeping. They keep a log of ceasefire violations, and report them usually to some kind of coordinating committee, and that’s about it. "
Ir was an open secret from 2014-2022 that the OSCE mission was basically acting as spies and artillery spotters for the Kiev regime. This was confirmed after the war began.
Dont be daft , NATO have been fighting the Russians and you talk of them now being the peacekeepers , get real , not going to happen , when will people wake up and realize NATO is used by USA to pressurize countries into submission.
I never said that NATO peacekeepers would be acceptable to Russia, and of course NATO is used to keep european catamites, well, catamites.
That said, I suspect that "Russia is fighting NATO" is just so much cope. If NATO forces were suffering any significatn casualties, this would be impossible to hide. A "boat accident" here, a "training accident" there, sure, maybe even a "helicopter crash" or two.
But if NATO forces were participating in any way the way pro-Russia types claim, there would be miltiary cemeteries full of dead people, hospitals stuffed with wounded and maimed, amputees and lurid stories everywhere, wives, sisters and mothers wanting to know where their loved ones disappeared to.
Since none of these things have happened, we can assume that "Russia is fighting NATO" is just so much cope.
You think so ? You will not find out about the number of NATO casualties til much much later , i would also add that NATO fighting Russia is done from a distance just like USA are fighting Russia "from a distance " .Supplying Ukraine with the arms and other supplies is what USA UK and EU are doing and that is actually fighting Russia.
If there were significant numbers of NATO troops, the evidence would be impossible to hide. Hell, the USSR, a far more tightly controlled society, could not successfully hide casualties in Afghanistan.
Balkanize the territories established by Lenin/Stalin as a soviet administrative tool. That includes the Balts!
Toss everyone east of the Rhine out of NATO. Demilitarize the entire area from the Rhine east (Normandy?)
Impose a Morganthau plan: no industrial metals! No heavy industry and no weaponry.
From shipping combat ready East German/Soviet arms to Croatia to encouraging Muslim statism, the multiple "dramas" of Yugoslavia breakup were a US effected stratagem to prototype Balkanizing the Russian Federation.
Peacekeepers, they need to be operating from the Rhine east.....
Something interesting that I missed a couple of days ago (ballon d'essai...?): https://strana.today/news/478985-peremirie-k-paskhe-mir-k-9-maja-v-politkruhakh-obsuzhdaetsja-100-dnevnyj-plan-trampa.html
While the overall stance of this article is fine, even commendable, I have to nit-pick over some of the assertions therein. This is because I imagine that the author, laudably, wishes to impart a sort of gods-eye view of the situation, without obvious partiality, and if this is correct, the examples I discuss below detract from this goal. (Of course, I could be completely wrong about this aim, but even so, I think that it is in fact something to be sought after. However, I’m not the author). But anyway:
“reform the domestic political process so as to undermine support for those who wanted a united Ireland. “
You speak as if this was some kind of internationally agreed or even desireable goal - it is/was not, from any detached viewpoint - it was the goal of perhaps only the UK government and the DUP etc., and why they should be given precedence over those in Ireland who disagree escapes me.
“The nearest solution, the 1993 Vance-Owen Peace Plan, was sabotaged by the Clinton administration under pressure from NGOs and the media.”
If this was in fact the case, it is another testament to the decadence of western government. The media should have no place in determining peace plans or any other plans anywhere, especially given the very low current standards of professionalism in this area. But you appear to find this acceptable - or at least you make no protest or demurr about it.
“Well, that means giving China a voice in the definition of the end-state, as well as various Asian and African states on the Security Council.”
What exactly is the problem with this, objectively? You speak as if the western (biased) view of Chinese participation in world affairs is the only one to be considered - obviously it is a difficulty, given US/UK/EU attitudes, but why assume that they must be catered to?
These points may be seen as mendacious carping about minor details, but if the author does have a goal similar to that outlined in the first sentence, surely these points are worth considering?
"Ukraine and the West have to be hammered until they accept de facto Russian control over Ukraine, and a government in Kiev that decides it is prudent, and in the national interest, to cultivate Moscow" - hammered by whom? & why? & why should the Ukrainians accept "de facto Russian control"? I know quite a few Ukrainians - they won't they hate Putler and his regime. Also, why give over to Russia control of Ukrainian grain and minerals. Way forward for Europe: get real, re-arm and bleed the Russians to the point of regime change. Respect quite a few of the posts - this is one of the poorer ones.
The British Army right now cannot recruit though. Not sure many of us are queuing up to do as you say and actually fight as opposed to posting comments about “Putler”. Which is easier.
The idea of bleeding Russia though then simply reinforces their notion that the West seeks the destruction of Russia. So we never end the cycle of violence.
But, of course, we are good and they are bad. We, the West that has initiated countless wars of choice over the past decades. But it’s all in the name of Democracy.
The west never sought the direct destruction of Russia - but Russia does not recognise the existence of Ukraine - hence the invasion. Nothing much wrong with Russians - but the regime is vile. One has to deal with realities - & one of them is a vile government run by ex-KGB which uses Russian "citizens" to the east of the Urals as cannon fodder. As for the cycle of violence - remid me who started it? Which country divested itself of nukes? which country was guaranteed its security (by amongst others Russia).
Funny, as plenty of wetern leaders have said otherwise.
Meanwhile, thosse Ukrainians you know, why are they here and not on the front? For that matter, why does the regime need to press gang its citizens into the army, if Ukrainians are so eager? And why hasn't Russia even seen fit to do a full mobilization if they are using Russian "citizens" [sic] as "cannon fodder"?
How old are you Mike . . .? The west threatened Russia with destruction to the point of collapse well it did collapse USSR, you keep saying Russia didnt recognise Ukraine , repeating that nonsense is childish mike , USA persuading Ukraine to join NATO , do it or USA impose tariffs on you , so Ukraine applied even after Russia told them that no way would they stand by and allow USA controlled NATO to put nuclear missiles on the Ukraine Russia border just 400 miles from Moscow.Are you english mike ? Imagine France allowing China to site missiles at Callais pointing at London , just for defence of course.
My age has little to do with it. As for the USSR & collapse, all self inflicted. As for Russian recognising Ukraine - the narratives out of Moscow are that Russia wants Ukraine to "reincorporate" into Russia. Obvs the Ukrainians want that. Why would Ukraine in NATO lead to nuclear missiles in Ukraine pointing at Moscow?
Your age Mike , i was looking for a reason why you would hold such dim views , Mike have a look at a map , Russia is huge it does not want or need more land it certainly does not want Ukraine let me tell you now so as to stop your silly thinking in its tracks , Russia will not incorporate Ukraine into Russia it does not want or need Ukraine but it does not want USA controlled NATO able to put military on Ukraines borders with Russia , IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , you need to reevaluate look at USA saying it wants Greenland it wants the Panama Canal by force if ne essary look at its threats to Canada these examples should make you think about the trust you put in USA.Lastly Mike , if you look at who has caused the most wars in history its not Russia its not China its UK and USA.
You obviously don't have a clue, and as you also obviously don't want any clues, it's a waste of time engaging with you.
Dont be daft , Ukraine have lost , Russia have won even though the EU and USA helped Ukraine, people like you need to stop beleiving all you read in the newspapers
Define "lost" and "won". I don't read (UK) newspapers but do have data feeds. Currently Russia is "losing" circa 1500 troops a day, it has burned through most of its tanks, most of its artillery and inflation is running @ 15%? 20%. Sure it occupies circa 20% of Ukraine, but gaining more ground is costing Russia dear.
If you dont know what lost or won means you are not going to understand what has been happening in this war.I suspect you do know what lost and won mean but choose to be pedantic.People in Russia are.....just people....the same as people elsewhere in the world , if you threaten them and they fear for their safety or even their life they will react.The USA planned and did all you see before you
(1) encourage UK to brexit - they did brexit
(2) encourage EU to stop trading with China - they did
(3) encourage EU to stop buying gas from Russia - they didnt - so USA made them stop by destroying the pipeline bringing gas into the EU now the EU buys its gas mostly from USA shipped in by sea.
(4) encourage Ukraine to join NATO entice them with the offer of trade deals and threaten them with the destruction of their economy by USA tariffs which the USA would force its allies to do too.Ukraine capitulated knowing they would endanger Russia because joining NATO would mean Ukraine like all the other NATO countries bordering Russia would be forced in the same way by USA to install USA made missiles on Ukraine,s border with Russia just 400 miles from Moscow.
Did i already point out that the USA finance and control NATO ? yes i did , NATO does nothing absolutely nothing of any significance without first running it past the USA
(5) Why did USA do all this to its allies ? well it did this to put a dent in the help that Russia gives to Syria Iran Lebanon Palestine , it worked , there was no way Israel even with the help of USA would have attacked Syria if Russia was not fighting this war with Ukraine , Russia had a huge naval base Tartus in Syria but have had to withdraw their support of Syria as the USA UK and EU upped their provision of armoury to Ukraine.
(7) As Russia withdrew from Syria to concentrate on Ukraine , Israel moved into Lebanon then in to Syria there was only Iran that could have tried to stop them but Iran know that an attack on Israel is an attack on USA and none of the other arab countries want to be involved in that.
(8) Shia is stunted , for now , Sunni are playing along with western powers , oil wealth helps , but one day the oil will run out and USA UK EU interest in the middle east will wane , i expect the Shia factions will return to reverse the Israeli land grab.
(9) In my opinion Russia will not trust anyone other than BRICS and i dont see any of those countries getting involved in policing the Russia Ukraine border, i may be naieve but i think Russia will allow the dust to settle , offer to help Ukraine rebuild if it agrees to a non nato future and beyond that they will flood Ukraine with military to make sure the west do not try any more of their tricks.
(10) USA ? well theyve acheived their objective , nullified the shia got full control of the middle east , weakened Russia , made EU energy dependant on USA
(11) UK ? Lost upstream without a paddle a failing second rate economy since leaving the EU but hey they had no choice , the USA told them
(12) EU its failing too energy costs crippling their rhur industries
(13) China , the next big blip
Brilliant summary. It takes a fogcutter of some strength to see through the clouds of Western BS. Bravo.
Absolutely: people in Russia just like everybody. Do tell: how did Ukraine “threaten them” i.e. Russian citizens? (in your answer remember the Minsk agreement). In the case of Brexit – long time brewing – USA on record for wanting UK to stay in EU. Nice try – no coconut. EU – China – trade disputes trade war don’t think so – looks like 1980s – EU – Japan (I worked on dumping cases btw – for the Japs). As for gas – my memory was: Russia invades Ukraine, EU looks for emergency supplies – from USA (on the basis of: why give money to Russia that has attacked Ukraine?.). I know the gas guys – I get my info 1st hand. As for USA forcing EU regarding trade? Really? (burst out laughing).
Israel attacked Syria – well yes – after Assad’s gov collapsed – very little to do with Ukraine (& don’t think these comments are something supporting jewish genocidistst). As for the rest of your middle east “tour de table” – the USA was as surprised as the rest. Events dear boy. & lastly, what’s it like in Moscow/Leningrad these days? Suggestion: I find your half truths etc quite amusing – but you need to get out more & you lack depth.
Dear Mike , as the dust begins to settle we see that the USA are not interested in continuing to support the Ukraine war with Russia as we knew all along this is not because they love Russia or because they love Ukraine it is because it is an unnecessary way NATO is not needed its past its sell by date Russia is not a threat to europe Russia will only ever move into another country if it is threatened and thats because Russia is already a huge country that is difficult enough to administer and protect it certainly does not need or want more territory.The Ukraine was coerced by USA into joining NATO which was a threat to Russia .Now that USA have greater control of the middle east oil which is why they support the expansion of Israel and now that the USA have weakened the EU world trade by cutting the supply of cheap gas from Russia to EU and UK you will find that the EU and UK will forever have to buy gas from USA shipped across the Atlantic ocean at huge expense.Starmer and a few other idiots leading EU countries are saying they will continue to arm Ukraine and even threaten to send troops and their war machines there to fight Russia well that is very unlikely its akin to your fantasy Mike and quite frankly its the most likely way of forcing Russia out of its boundary again , leave Russia alone and Russia will sell you cheap gas andtrade with you but try and bulky Russia and they will fight back.Who is Starmer kidding the UK is falling to bits huge numbers of people in real difficulty and he gives £12billion to Ukraine government to continue fighting a war with Russia.£1 billion of that £12 billion is what was taken away from the pensioners in uk when their help with heating costs was ended the rest i suspect could solve many of the problems in the NHS , Starmer looks and acts like an idiot financed by the wealthy andnow he wants the ordinary people in UK to fight Russia.Have you signed up yet Mike ?
You have completely incorrect statistics.
I must have the wrong data feeds because mine tell me that yours are feeding you the reality through the looking glass.
If your data sources are calling this war "Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine"... you are reading US propaganda.
The hammering will be done by the Russian Armed Forces - they have it down to a fine art by now. The Ukraine will accept de facto Russian control because the alternative is a proliferation of six by six by 4 plots in the good Ukranian soil. As for Europe re-arming? What with? Most (all?) EU economies are facing an economic brick wall right now. As it is Europe plus the US can't supply the Ukraine even with enough artillery shells. Maybe it's you who should think about 'getting real'.