I think that the Europeans are going to be slapped by the reality of their failure with the Ukraine gambit to destroy Russia and feast on the carcass. It was always predicated on massive US involvement which is now most likely no longer there. They are up shit creek without a paddle and have few options beyond accepting the failure and making the best of it. They have little military capacity without US satellite intelligence so will be flying blind everywhere. Their industrial base has withered so they will struggle to arm themselves in any way that will enable them to defeat Russia. Terrorism is all that they have.
Russia has had enough of being invaded from the West every eighty or so years as has been the case since Gustav Adolphus (1594-1632) and is determined to finally put a stop to this. They have read the think tank reports and listened to the bloviations from multiple western politicians and know that unless they end it themselves it will continue forever. This is it.
As Tony Blinken stated "if you are not at the table, you are on the menu", and this is the uncomfortable place the Europeans have found themselves. They have earned it, but it will still be a hard lesson.
One precedent that comes to my mind immediately is the Soviet-Japanese peace declaration of 1955 (I think that's the right year.). Japan and USSR could not agree on the terms of the peace treaty, mostly over the Kuriles, so they simply declared peace and decided to normalize relations while they'd keep talking over the particulars of the peace treaty. Well, I don't think Russians and Japanese held any "serious" talk about the Kuriles since 1960s. They know that the issue is fundamentally unresolvable, but nobody really cares much about the Kuriles anyways. So if you could normalize relations without a treaty, without actually dealing with the technical particulars, why not?
Here, the "distance" between US and Russia comes to play. Quite frankly, Ukraine matters less to US than the Kuriles to Japan--at least the Kuriles used to be/sort of still are Japanese territory. Ukraine means anything to US, because? There's nothing there that should prevent normalization of US-Russia relationship. Just a few happy declarations and photo ops, if played well, should be enough--just something symbolic so that we can go on to other things. Trump, the consummate showman, probably has the best shot at pulling this off compared to anyone. The actual negotiation can go on as long as that over the Kuriles and nobody would really care. Not that there'd be a Ukraine in its current form for long anyways.
Edit: To expand a bit, that normaluzation of diplomatic relations was thought to be tied to the peace treaty, which, in turn, seemed to stumble on the Kuriles, made both Japanese and Russians interested in resolving the Kuriles problem early on--by 1955, I think, they agreed in principle to split the Kuriles, with the details to be worked out later. But once peace was declared and the relationship normalized, there was no interest in resolving the Kuriles problem--indeed, both sides actually retreated from what was agreed to in principle--and it didn't matter, since they had a lot of more valuable business besides some godforsaken islands with bad climate, small population, and not much resources, but with not inconsiderable security concerns and a lot of symbolic value should you be seen as surrendering them without a big enough concession in return. So, what would this mean for Ukraine? I think this means US just leaves, with a justification that the Ukrainian regime is full of liars and criminals and thus not worth the bother while the normalization vis a vis Russia is unchained from shatever happens in Ukraine. Trump has done a masterful job setting up the trap and Zelenski fell in completely--reminiscent of how Trump set up his rivals during 2016 GOP primaries, in fact. Unlike the Kuriles, where life goes on unchanged, though, this will have consequences--although, one hopes that shaking up the status quo will lead to some self reflection and a chance for improvements....
However it omits the same issue as previous ones. A terrorist Ukrainian state, continuing to use drones to kill and injure Russian citizens on a daily basis.
I cannot see how Putin could allow this to remain in place irrespective of arrangements with the US or others.
Unless this is resolved I cannot see how the fighting stops until the western boundaries of Ukraine are reached.
Even then of course it could continue from outside Ukraine national boundaries but it then becomes a 'real' terrorist situation with potentially international support for remedial solution.
I tend to agree in that Ukraine had an opportunity to become neutral in April 2022 but was not permitted to do so, and the coontrolled Zelensky regime and NATO continued to fight and escalate in the hope that Russia might suffer some sort of internal collapse or even battlefield defeat. However the time has long since passed where Russia will allow an "independant" Ukraine time and space to re-gather its strength. Nope, it is over for them. I think this will look like Vietnam or Syria or Afghanistan in the end. I cannot easily see a scenario where negotiations will produce an outcome acceptable to Russia, even with Ukraine and Europe excluded. With the USA walking and wishing to rebuild a relationship with Russia, Ukraine is going to be fed to the bear. And so will Europe, not covered by Article 5 in any Ukraine adventure, should they decide to offer up the laughably called peace-keeping force - which will never be accepted by Russia.
As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?
Others, e.g. Glenn Diesen, have pointed out that the Ukraine conflict really started when the EU offered a trade agreement to Ukraine but insisted that Ukraine must cut its trade relations with Russia to get it. Why insisting on such a senseless thing? Have they ever done that to another country?
I mean, let's accept that they are idiots, but why do they have to be malicious idiots as well? Couldn't it be enough to be shortsighted, self-aggrandizing and greedy?
"As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?"
Because Russia is seen as the antieurope. Because a Scary Enemy is always necessary, as a pretext for crackdowns, as a means of rallying support, and as an excuse as to why the plebs cannot have nice things.
That is one possible explanation - always blame the foreigner. But they haven't used it very consistently. Perhaps they are too incompetent to carry it out.
And perhaps it's sheer inertia. Nato began a campaign in the late 90s against Islam but apparently found that it is impossible to fight a religion with guns. So they may simply have switched back to Russia as the Evil One because they were used to that version; everybody had seen Bond films and the story was easy to sell in.
Russia is a convenient antieurope because Russians are white and largely christian, and therefore claims of racism and islamophoba are harder to make stick.
A good question. Indeed, if we knew the answer, it might unlock an explanation that makes sense. Right now, like you, I'm baffled. Could it really be they simply believed their own propaganda? 'Hegemony brain' kept them from thinking clearly? An unwillingness to accept circumstances have changed?
I believe Russia stated it would limit trade relations with Ukraine if Ukraine entered into a trade agreement with the EU. My understanding is that Russia was concerned that EU goods would flood Russia if there was an EU/Ukraine agreement. This was based on Russia and Ukraine being a preexisting mutual free trade zone and Russia not wanting EU goods to come into Russia under Russia’s free trade agreement with Ukraine.
We in Russia are also perplexed why Europe is hell bent on pushing Russians away. It makes no sense and has no rational explanations (I don't buy any talk about sinister Brussels' plans to dismember us). It's just plain crazy.
Ну я просто думаю что европейцы последних лет 30 в принципе не способны на сложное планирование, а нынешняя бюрократия евросовка еще и продукт отрицательного отбора. Они по моему сами не знают, чего хотят, а все воинственные вопли не несут никакого смысла кроме того, что it's the right thing to do, как любят выражаться все эти прибабахнутые колумнисты.
My stupid computer doesn't speak Russian, but have you ever seen the "Looney Tunes" cartoons with the little yappy dog that follows Spike The Bulldog around, singing Spike's praises, getting slapped around by Spike and getting him into fights?
The europeans are like a pack of yappy little dogs. Evropeets - eto trus.
Emmanuel Todd in his The End of Empire: thé breakdown of the American Order, 2002 identifies the underlying problem, dating from the 1970s and accelerating from the 1990s as the weakening and eventual disappearance of a belief in Universalism. It’s a persuasive argument, especially for those of us who believe and are driven by its tenets. Disastrously most of the West, especially those countries which helped shape the philosophy now appear to no longer uphold the values underpinning its ideas. I would argue from my readings of Putin’s and Lavrov’s speeches that they are both making valiant attempts to preserve, reactivate and promote what’s left of the international structures which previously were assigned to uphold the universalism of the international order.
At some point, Europe / European countries will have to figure out how to live with a very large Russia on their doorstep and without the comfort blanket of the U.S. as “protector”. We did it before. After all, Russia was traditionally part of the Concert of Europe. It will take a generation or so but ultimately it will happen because it will have to.
Meanwhile the US will stay imperial and seek to continue to control Europe. But its ability to do so will reduce as its own relative power in the world declines and in the next generation or so European leaders emerge who question the value of the US “alliance”. Especially if the key consequence is impoverishment and being forced to spend fortunes on multi decade US weapons programmes, effectively subsidising the US war machine.
I fear there will be a lot more conflict as these dynamics play out, and Europe will be very much on the receiving end of it.
Chances of a settlement are distant. Promises by the Trump administration can't be expected to last past 2028.
On the other hand, the incoming Trump admin's focus has so far featured outing of misdeeds by their internal opponents, ie to consolidate their power. USAID was a nexus of their internal opponents. Similarly, the Russiagate-NATO-UA lobby. And that same group must know how guilty they are too, in particular for sponsoring modern day Nazi revanchism with Western taxpayer funds. For this alone, they deserve far worse than embarrassment. But what's actually being asked of them, I suspect, is to accept the Trump team's power - in contrast to 2016. After that (presuming it happens) the focus may well shift elsewhere, such as Iran. With Trump admin indifferent to whether or not Ukraine war is settled.
Excellent write-up, @aurelien2022. My take is much simpler than yours. There would be no agreement, no treaty. Russia will defeat Banderite Ukraine on the battlefield and dictate terms of surrender. Trump will shrug and move on with his domestic agenda for the United States. Europeans will howl and cry in horror
I strongly suspect that this is actually Trump's goal. It feels like he's setting the stage now for the inevitable moment when either the Ukraine or the Europeans, and more likely both together, block any potential peace deal from progressing. After all, it takes all warring parties to agree to a peace. It only takes one party for the war to continue. To me, it all looks like Trump is busy knotting a rope into a big noose and dangling it in front of the Ukraine (in particular Zelensky personally) and the EU/UK, trusting that sooner or later, at least one them will be stupid enough to stick their own head in.
Once that happens, Trump will (and the US) will wash their hands from the entire affair and walk away from the Ukrainian conflict completely. They will leave the EU/UK and the Ukraine with their own mess to sort out, while he will continue to further normalise relations between the US and Russia, accepting, perhaps reluctantly, whatever outcome the conflict ultimately gets.
There are "talks" between countries and then there are big Treaties that set up or cancel countries (as happened after WW1 & 2 and often in history before then such as 1815). But the break up of any country such as the Soviet Union, Iraq or Yugoslavia is always problematic as it leaves some messy bits such as mixed marriages and people whose land ends up in the 'wrong' place for them.
Only thing I'd like to see Aurelien come back to is the subject of emotion in the minds of the people involved in these negotiations. He's mentioned the importance of analyzing geopolitical moves on the basis of emotion before. Trump has significant emotional reasons to enter negotiations with a pro-Russian, anti-European, and anti-Zelensky mood. The only actor involved who hasn't stabbed Trump in the back is Putin. That might be what it all hinges on.
1. "The first is the belief that the apparent disengagement of the US from Ukraine will actually make much difference. The only way in which this would be true is if a Ukrainian victory (generously defined) would be possible with further US assistance, but not without it. But in order for that to be true, it would be necessary to argue that, whereas the Ukrainian Army after eight years of fighting could not retake control of the whole of the breakaway Republics when the UA was at full strength and the rebels were weak, then in some way a massively weaker UA could defeat not only the rebels but the Russian Army as well, with a little more effort and support from Washington. This is clearly delusional."
The unspoken subtext (which, for obvious reasons, could not be said out loud) was always that europeans would be sent, once Ukraine really started to run low on warm live bodies, and that the Americans soon follow, as they never would leave their vassals hanging out to dry.
2. Let's see whether anything concrete comes of the talks.
Thank you for this insightful work. I noticed that you use the terms "West" and "western" toward the end. Do you think they still have a meaning after 2025-02-14 ?
Not the Neoconservative wrecking ball diplomacy that we have become accustomed to resulting in a colossal loss of life orchestrated for the most part by a relative few ideologues.
Very insightful, Aurelien. Still, the asymmetry in the position of the parties is striking.
The US has the easiest position. The US can simply walk away -- just as Joe Biden walked away from Afghanistan. There will be no massive demonstrations in the US, and President Trump will have fulfilled his promise to end US participation in the war.
What Russia wants is to be treated as a normal country, not as an evil threat. However, Russia cannot get that through military victory. Even if Russia completely took over the Ukraine, that would still leave Russia facing the aggressive Euros/NATO directly on its borders -- which is what it is trying to avoid. The US will be glad to restart normal relations with Russia, but the Euros ... not so much.
It is totally unclear what the Euros want. They behave towards Russia like threatening rabid dogs, without any obvious aim. Some suggest that the English want Sevastopol as a naval base, but that is as unrealistic as Zelensky wanting the Crimea back. How can Russia negotiate a deal with a Euro mob that does not know what it wants? The Euros are going to be the real problem in ending the conflict.
An aside on the military situation -- no soldier on either the Ukrainian or Russian sides wants to be the last person to die in a war which may be coming to an end. Morale on both sides may suffer, and further Russian advances may become quite difficult.
Thinking of it, this may be THE reply of my question:
Dale Copeland insists that great power wars usually appears when one great power sees itself outcompeted in the economic field (Economic interdependence and war, Princeton 2015). Thus, Clausewitz was wrong, war is not a continuation of politics with other means, it is a continuation of business with other means.
And noone can deny that the Nato countries do badly in the economic field. Do they have undisputed leadership in any other business than aerospace? And it looks bleak for the future. The Nato countries' share of new patents in the world is now down to below 30% according to WIPO, almost 70% belong to East Asia.
Add to that that even Macron and Draghi insist that there is a need for public investments, they wrote a public letter about that three years ago. But the trouble is that the bourgeoisie can't accept other public investments than in arms. So, it must be arms.
There is another advantage with that. If 5% of GDP is invested in arms there is not much left for the welfare budget. And that is good for the upper middle class, they hate welfare budgets, but they can't say so in public. Now, they can slash it and nobody would dare to oppose.
The only disadvantage is that with all this agitation against Russia (which of course is needed to bring about the program), there is a risk that Russia will attack, fearing a stronger adversary within ten years. Particularly as idiots like Kaija Kallas openly argue for an attack to dismember Russia, and nobody with equal status opposing it.
And if it does, there is not much to set against it.
So, they are idiots, because they concoct schemes that can't be carried out without immense risks for themselves. What will they do when the military establishments in Europe are slashed out by oreshniks?
When did the West lose the ability to view international affairs rationally, slowly, thoroughly? When was the last time it viewed diplomacy, treaties and negotiations strategically, as in chess, and not in a reactionary manner?
Geez - Western powers underestimating Russian resilience? Can't recall ever having seen that before in history [insert dripping sarcasm here]
I for one am not very optimistic that Europe's decision makers will 'wake up and smell the coffee' any time soon.
I've had my dealings with politicians, think tankers and senior bureaucrats over the decades and most of them are not exactly flexible in their thinking, let alone in their policies. Many are of them are downright cowards. Dogmatism dominates Europe because it nullifies responsibility.
I've warned for a long time how Europe's elite has been captured by American interests, to the detriment of Europeans. The upcoming generation of European figure heads are no better. They rabidly support the US led status quo because it benefits them personally - and the hand that giveth is in Washington.
And that is the one weak point were ways things could change quickly. Only if the personal interests of Europe's elite no longer align with Washington (aka they don't get their American silverlings anymore) is any European geo-political realignment based on Real Politik even possible.
And that is not going to happen any time soon. Washington still needs Europeans to sign off on overpriced American energy and weapons so Washington will continue its policy of tacitly sponsoring their champions. So in all likelihood the American domination of Europe will grow even worse in years to come.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in all of this - but the signs are not good.
Very good Aurelien.
I think that the Europeans are going to be slapped by the reality of their failure with the Ukraine gambit to destroy Russia and feast on the carcass. It was always predicated on massive US involvement which is now most likely no longer there. They are up shit creek without a paddle and have few options beyond accepting the failure and making the best of it. They have little military capacity without US satellite intelligence so will be flying blind everywhere. Their industrial base has withered so they will struggle to arm themselves in any way that will enable them to defeat Russia. Terrorism is all that they have.
Russia has had enough of being invaded from the West every eighty or so years as has been the case since Gustav Adolphus (1594-1632) and is determined to finally put a stop to this. They have read the think tank reports and listened to the bloviations from multiple western politicians and know that unless they end it themselves it will continue forever. This is it.
As Tony Blinken stated "if you are not at the table, you are on the menu", and this is the uncomfortable place the Europeans have found themselves. They have earned it, but it will still be a hard lesson.
One precedent that comes to my mind immediately is the Soviet-Japanese peace declaration of 1955 (I think that's the right year.). Japan and USSR could not agree on the terms of the peace treaty, mostly over the Kuriles, so they simply declared peace and decided to normalize relations while they'd keep talking over the particulars of the peace treaty. Well, I don't think Russians and Japanese held any "serious" talk about the Kuriles since 1960s. They know that the issue is fundamentally unresolvable, but nobody really cares much about the Kuriles anyways. So if you could normalize relations without a treaty, without actually dealing with the technical particulars, why not?
Here, the "distance" between US and Russia comes to play. Quite frankly, Ukraine matters less to US than the Kuriles to Japan--at least the Kuriles used to be/sort of still are Japanese territory. Ukraine means anything to US, because? There's nothing there that should prevent normalization of US-Russia relationship. Just a few happy declarations and photo ops, if played well, should be enough--just something symbolic so that we can go on to other things. Trump, the consummate showman, probably has the best shot at pulling this off compared to anyone. The actual negotiation can go on as long as that over the Kuriles and nobody would really care. Not that there'd be a Ukraine in its current form for long anyways.
Edit: To expand a bit, that normaluzation of diplomatic relations was thought to be tied to the peace treaty, which, in turn, seemed to stumble on the Kuriles, made both Japanese and Russians interested in resolving the Kuriles problem early on--by 1955, I think, they agreed in principle to split the Kuriles, with the details to be worked out later. But once peace was declared and the relationship normalized, there was no interest in resolving the Kuriles problem--indeed, both sides actually retreated from what was agreed to in principle--and it didn't matter, since they had a lot of more valuable business besides some godforsaken islands with bad climate, small population, and not much resources, but with not inconsiderable security concerns and a lot of symbolic value should you be seen as surrendering them without a big enough concession in return. So, what would this mean for Ukraine? I think this means US just leaves, with a justification that the Ukrainian regime is full of liars and criminals and thus not worth the bother while the normalization vis a vis Russia is unchained from shatever happens in Ukraine. Trump has done a masterful job setting up the trap and Zelenski fell in completely--reminiscent of how Trump set up his rivals during 2016 GOP primaries, in fact. Unlike the Kuriles, where life goes on unchanged, though, this will have consequences--although, one hopes that shaking up the status quo will lead to some self reflection and a chance for improvements....
As usual an excellently written analysis.
However it omits the same issue as previous ones. A terrorist Ukrainian state, continuing to use drones to kill and injure Russian citizens on a daily basis.
I cannot see how Putin could allow this to remain in place irrespective of arrangements with the US or others.
Unless this is resolved I cannot see how the fighting stops until the western boundaries of Ukraine are reached.
Even then of course it could continue from outside Ukraine national boundaries but it then becomes a 'real' terrorist situation with potentially international support for remedial solution.
I tend to agree in that Ukraine had an opportunity to become neutral in April 2022 but was not permitted to do so, and the coontrolled Zelensky regime and NATO continued to fight and escalate in the hope that Russia might suffer some sort of internal collapse or even battlefield defeat. However the time has long since passed where Russia will allow an "independant" Ukraine time and space to re-gather its strength. Nope, it is over for them. I think this will look like Vietnam or Syria or Afghanistan in the end. I cannot easily see a scenario where negotiations will produce an outcome acceptable to Russia, even with Ukraine and Europe excluded. With the USA walking and wishing to rebuild a relationship with Russia, Ukraine is going to be fed to the bear. And so will Europe, not covered by Article 5 in any Ukraine adventure, should they decide to offer up the laughably called peace-keeping force - which will never be accepted by Russia.
As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?
Others, e.g. Glenn Diesen, have pointed out that the Ukraine conflict really started when the EU offered a trade agreement to Ukraine but insisted that Ukraine must cut its trade relations with Russia to get it. Why insisting on such a senseless thing? Have they ever done that to another country?
I mean, let's accept that they are idiots, but why do they have to be malicious idiots as well? Couldn't it be enough to be shortsighted, self-aggrandizing and greedy?
"As usual, I only miss the explanation of the stupidity of European leaders. Yes, they are stupid, but why THIS particular stupidity? Why did they have to treat Russia with every conceivable sort of aggression short of outright war?"
Because Russia is seen as the antieurope. Because a Scary Enemy is always necessary, as a pretext for crackdowns, as a means of rallying support, and as an excuse as to why the plebs cannot have nice things.
That is one possible explanation - always blame the foreigner. But they haven't used it very consistently. Perhaps they are too incompetent to carry it out.
And perhaps it's sheer inertia. Nato began a campaign in the late 90s against Islam but apparently found that it is impossible to fight a religion with guns. So they may simply have switched back to Russia as the Evil One because they were used to that version; everybody had seen Bond films and the story was easy to sell in.
Russia is a convenient antieurope because Russians are white and largely christian, and therefore claims of racism and islamophoba are harder to make stick.
Perhaps. But it also has a long training into the role.
A good question. Indeed, if we knew the answer, it might unlock an explanation that makes sense. Right now, like you, I'm baffled. Could it really be they simply believed their own propaganda? 'Hegemony brain' kept them from thinking clearly? An unwillingness to accept circumstances have changed?
I believe Russia stated it would limit trade relations with Ukraine if Ukraine entered into a trade agreement with the EU. My understanding is that Russia was concerned that EU goods would flood Russia if there was an EU/Ukraine agreement. This was based on Russia and Ukraine being a preexisting mutual free trade zone and Russia not wanting EU goods to come into Russia under Russia’s free trade agreement with Ukraine.
We in Russia are also perplexed why Europe is hell bent on pushing Russians away. It makes no sense and has no rational explanations (I don't buy any talk about sinister Brussels' plans to dismember us). It's just plain crazy.
Bruseels and various EU politicians have made it plain that, yes, they intend to dismember Russia.
They hardly capable to control a failed state like Bosnia, let alone dismember anything.
The plan was always for the Americans to do it and the european poodles to come along for the ride.
Ну я просто думаю что европейцы последних лет 30 в принципе не способны на сложное планирование, а нынешняя бюрократия евросовка еще и продукт отрицательного отбора. Они по моему сами не знают, чего хотят, а все воинственные вопли не несут никакого смысла кроме того, что it's the right thing to do, как любят выражаться все эти прибабахнутые колумнисты.
My stupid computer doesn't speak Russian, but have you ever seen the "Looney Tunes" cartoons with the little yappy dog that follows Spike The Bulldog around, singing Spike's praises, getting slapped around by Spike and getting him into fights?
The europeans are like a pack of yappy little dogs. Evropeets - eto trus.
Emmanuel Todd in his The End of Empire: thé breakdown of the American Order, 2002 identifies the underlying problem, dating from the 1970s and accelerating from the 1990s as the weakening and eventual disappearance of a belief in Universalism. It’s a persuasive argument, especially for those of us who believe and are driven by its tenets. Disastrously most of the West, especially those countries which helped shape the philosophy now appear to no longer uphold the values underpinning its ideas. I would argue from my readings of Putin’s and Lavrov’s speeches that they are both making valiant attempts to preserve, reactivate and promote what’s left of the international structures which previously were assigned to uphold the universalism of the international order.
At some point, Europe / European countries will have to figure out how to live with a very large Russia on their doorstep and without the comfort blanket of the U.S. as “protector”. We did it before. After all, Russia was traditionally part of the Concert of Europe. It will take a generation or so but ultimately it will happen because it will have to.
Meanwhile the US will stay imperial and seek to continue to control Europe. But its ability to do so will reduce as its own relative power in the world declines and in the next generation or so European leaders emerge who question the value of the US “alliance”. Especially if the key consequence is impoverishment and being forced to spend fortunes on multi decade US weapons programmes, effectively subsidising the US war machine.
I fear there will be a lot more conflict as these dynamics play out, and Europe will be very much on the receiving end of it.
Chances of a settlement are distant. Promises by the Trump administration can't be expected to last past 2028.
On the other hand, the incoming Trump admin's focus has so far featured outing of misdeeds by their internal opponents, ie to consolidate their power. USAID was a nexus of their internal opponents. Similarly, the Russiagate-NATO-UA lobby. And that same group must know how guilty they are too, in particular for sponsoring modern day Nazi revanchism with Western taxpayer funds. For this alone, they deserve far worse than embarrassment. But what's actually being asked of them, I suspect, is to accept the Trump team's power - in contrast to 2016. After that (presuming it happens) the focus may well shift elsewhere, such as Iran. With Trump admin indifferent to whether or not Ukraine war is settled.
Excellent write-up, @aurelien2022. My take is much simpler than yours. There would be no agreement, no treaty. Russia will defeat Banderite Ukraine on the battlefield and dictate terms of surrender. Trump will shrug and move on with his domestic agenda for the United States. Europeans will howl and cry in horror
I strongly suspect that this is actually Trump's goal. It feels like he's setting the stage now for the inevitable moment when either the Ukraine or the Europeans, and more likely both together, block any potential peace deal from progressing. After all, it takes all warring parties to agree to a peace. It only takes one party for the war to continue. To me, it all looks like Trump is busy knotting a rope into a big noose and dangling it in front of the Ukraine (in particular Zelensky personally) and the EU/UK, trusting that sooner or later, at least one them will be stupid enough to stick their own head in.
Once that happens, Trump will (and the US) will wash their hands from the entire affair and walk away from the Ukrainian conflict completely. They will leave the EU/UK and the Ukraine with their own mess to sort out, while he will continue to further normalise relations between the US and Russia, accepting, perhaps reluctantly, whatever outcome the conflict ultimately gets.
There are "talks" between countries and then there are big Treaties that set up or cancel countries (as happened after WW1 & 2 and often in history before then such as 1815). But the break up of any country such as the Soviet Union, Iraq or Yugoslavia is always problematic as it leaves some messy bits such as mixed marriages and people whose land ends up in the 'wrong' place for them.
Only thing I'd like to see Aurelien come back to is the subject of emotion in the minds of the people involved in these negotiations. He's mentioned the importance of analyzing geopolitical moves on the basis of emotion before. Trump has significant emotional reasons to enter negotiations with a pro-Russian, anti-European, and anti-Zelensky mood. The only actor involved who hasn't stabbed Trump in the back is Putin. That might be what it all hinges on.
1. "The first is the belief that the apparent disengagement of the US from Ukraine will actually make much difference. The only way in which this would be true is if a Ukrainian victory (generously defined) would be possible with further US assistance, but not without it. But in order for that to be true, it would be necessary to argue that, whereas the Ukrainian Army after eight years of fighting could not retake control of the whole of the breakaway Republics when the UA was at full strength and the rebels were weak, then in some way a massively weaker UA could defeat not only the rebels but the Russian Army as well, with a little more effort and support from Washington. This is clearly delusional."
The unspoken subtext (which, for obvious reasons, could not be said out loud) was always that europeans would be sent, once Ukraine really started to run low on warm live bodies, and that the Americans soon follow, as they never would leave their vassals hanging out to dry.
2. Let's see whether anything concrete comes of the talks.
Thank you for this insightful work. I noticed that you use the terms "West" and "western" toward the end. Do you think they still have a meaning after 2025-02-14 ?
Not the Neoconservative wrecking ball diplomacy that we have become accustomed to resulting in a colossal loss of life orchestrated for the most part by a relative few ideologues.
Thank you for the lesson on the real thing.
Very insightful, Aurelien. Still, the asymmetry in the position of the parties is striking.
The US has the easiest position. The US can simply walk away -- just as Joe Biden walked away from Afghanistan. There will be no massive demonstrations in the US, and President Trump will have fulfilled his promise to end US participation in the war.
What Russia wants is to be treated as a normal country, not as an evil threat. However, Russia cannot get that through military victory. Even if Russia completely took over the Ukraine, that would still leave Russia facing the aggressive Euros/NATO directly on its borders -- which is what it is trying to avoid. The US will be glad to restart normal relations with Russia, but the Euros ... not so much.
It is totally unclear what the Euros want. They behave towards Russia like threatening rabid dogs, without any obvious aim. Some suggest that the English want Sevastopol as a naval base, but that is as unrealistic as Zelensky wanting the Crimea back. How can Russia negotiate a deal with a Euro mob that does not know what it wants? The Euros are going to be the real problem in ending the conflict.
An aside on the military situation -- no soldier on either the Ukrainian or Russian sides wants to be the last person to die in a war which may be coming to an end. Morale on both sides may suffer, and further Russian advances may become quite difficult.
Thinking of it, this may be THE reply of my question:
Dale Copeland insists that great power wars usually appears when one great power sees itself outcompeted in the economic field (Economic interdependence and war, Princeton 2015). Thus, Clausewitz was wrong, war is not a continuation of politics with other means, it is a continuation of business with other means.
And noone can deny that the Nato countries do badly in the economic field. Do they have undisputed leadership in any other business than aerospace? And it looks bleak for the future. The Nato countries' share of new patents in the world is now down to below 30% according to WIPO, almost 70% belong to East Asia.
Add to that that even Macron and Draghi insist that there is a need for public investments, they wrote a public letter about that three years ago. But the trouble is that the bourgeoisie can't accept other public investments than in arms. So, it must be arms.
There is another advantage with that. If 5% of GDP is invested in arms there is not much left for the welfare budget. And that is good for the upper middle class, they hate welfare budgets, but they can't say so in public. Now, they can slash it and nobody would dare to oppose.
The only disadvantage is that with all this agitation against Russia (which of course is needed to bring about the program), there is a risk that Russia will attack, fearing a stronger adversary within ten years. Particularly as idiots like Kaija Kallas openly argue for an attack to dismember Russia, and nobody with equal status opposing it.
And if it does, there is not much to set against it.
So, they are idiots, because they concoct schemes that can't be carried out without immense risks for themselves. What will they do when the military establishments in Europe are slashed out by oreshniks?
When did the West lose the ability to view international affairs rationally, slowly, thoroughly? When was the last time it viewed diplomacy, treaties and negotiations strategically, as in chess, and not in a reactionary manner?
Geez - Western powers underestimating Russian resilience? Can't recall ever having seen that before in history [insert dripping sarcasm here]
I for one am not very optimistic that Europe's decision makers will 'wake up and smell the coffee' any time soon.
I've had my dealings with politicians, think tankers and senior bureaucrats over the decades and most of them are not exactly flexible in their thinking, let alone in their policies. Many are of them are downright cowards. Dogmatism dominates Europe because it nullifies responsibility.
I've warned for a long time how Europe's elite has been captured by American interests, to the detriment of Europeans. The upcoming generation of European figure heads are no better. They rabidly support the US led status quo because it benefits them personally - and the hand that giveth is in Washington.
And that is the one weak point were ways things could change quickly. Only if the personal interests of Europe's elite no longer align with Washington (aka they don't get their American silverlings anymore) is any European geo-political realignment based on Real Politik even possible.
And that is not going to happen any time soon. Washington still needs Europeans to sign off on overpriced American energy and weapons so Washington will continue its policy of tacitly sponsoring their champions. So in all likelihood the American domination of Europe will grow even worse in years to come.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in all of this - but the signs are not good.