Ukraine peace plan improves American, Ukrainian, European, and even Russian security, preventing future wars, facilitating prosperity, and driving a wedge between Russia and China.
As I wrote two weeks ago, Ukraine received a joint ultimatum from the US and Russia demanding capitulation.
The only thing I didn't understand - the US is not ready to send soldiers, but is ready to invite engineers and even bankers to act as a human shield. This is strange.
No it's not. It's a tripwire. Russia won't want to endanger these people, but they aren't an offensive force.
As to America developing Ukrainian resources and getting its proper cut, I don't see you complaining about Europe "giving" 100% of its aid in the form of loans.
For that matter, I don't recall you being upset about FDR creating Lend-Lease for its allies in World War II.
We've seen this mechanism working live: all representatives of the human shield gather in an organized manner at Kabul airport and leave on previously provided charter flights.
The salami principle suggests that there are similarly no response tools for one-time acts, such as strike of an unnamed drone or a roadside bomb causing the death of oil workers and bankers. The only way to keep those people in dangerous territories will be exactly the same as in Bagram. The cleaner will receive five times the salary.
The entire described model was tested in Afghanistan. During Trump's term, Afghanistan absorbed half a trillion dollars. It became a corrupting node undermining the US. We know the result.
While I'm tickled pink at Trump's changes to the US government and foreign policy, the Ukraine minerals deal looks like a losing proposition to me.
First of all, it was the USA led by Victoria Nuland of the Obama Administration that overthrew the duly elected government of Ukraine in 2014, and then spent the next 8 years pumping the rogue regime full of weapons and money to build fortifications. It was a deliberate strategy to use Ukraine to stab the underbelly of Russia. It was entirely done for US and British objectives. It was a horrible deal for Ukraine.
After 2022, when Russia invaded, Ukraine had worked out a treaty at the Istanbul meetings, but the Empire sent Boris Johnson to visit Zelensky and tell him to strike the treaty and fight. So, the war with Russia was done for US and British interests, not Ukrainian interests. Ukraine has been utterly destroyed by the war, losing territory, a generation of young men, and electricity infrastructure.
Now Trump shows up and wants peace. Great! But why should Ukraine pay the USA for peace? If anything the USA should pay to rebuild Ukraine, because we used Ukraine as a cat's paw to poke Russia.
Trump doesn't seem to have a real strategy in Ukraine other than to make a deal and get out. I don't think Ukraine has any real reserves of rare earth minerals to begin with. My prediction is that the minerals deal is just a way for Trump to save face for the USA, because Russia is going to get everything they want. Russia is winning on the battlefield, and has no reason to give up any concessions. The USA and NATO are not in any position to inflict more pain on Russia. They are out of bullets, out of sanctions, and out of time.
Almost everything is accurate except that Victoria Nuland did not facilitate the coup and removal of Yanukovych, just as there was no coup (Yes, exactly), but Russia invaded in 2014 in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. For eight years, no one was pumping Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine fought with its own reserves in the format of an anti-terrorist operation. One can probably argue that without widespread mobilization, Russia has no tools for "winning on the battlefield."
The rest is accurate.
The US has no tools to pressure the Russian Federation; Russia wants to and will fight, as Lavrov stated today.
There are certainly possibilities to influence Putin, they are simple, obvious, and cheap - all that's needed is to unpack the desert warehouses of first-gen 25y.o Hummers, Bradleys, and Strykers, which will definitely never be used in combat, and provide a couple hundred first-gen F-16s, which similarly will never fight again. This is a simple, understandable, and inexpensive move that Biden was unable to make for unclear reasons. It doesn't need to be free, just valued at their real cost rather than according to the scheme invented by Biden. This would greatly strengthen Trump's position in negotiations, but his model is probably different - he wants to give everything away and see what happens next.
That last sentence is absurd, and Donald Trump's entire long life demonstrates that.
But as to Biden, the Democrats never had any intention of doing the sort of thing you describe, or anything else that could lead to victory. This is all an exercise in weapons testing and money laundering, with an outside hope of cracking up the Russian Federation. They always spoke with forked tongue.
If you want Ukraine to keep fighting, no one's stopping them. This war can grind on to the last Ukrainian. Or we can make a peace deal that provides a degree of stability and breathing space for Ukraine to recover and become prosperous. Not a satisfying victory, but the only one available short of a U.S. invasion and nuclear exchange.
Unfortunately, none of the models work. During the already 11-year war, all methods of what is now fashionable to call "making a deal" have been tried - eyes were closed to the annexation of Crimea, to the military invasion of Donbas territories. Zelensky made titanic efforts to achieve some semblance of peace, but nothing worked. Russia reformed its army and military industry and prepared for a new invasion. Unfortunately, Russia's strategic goal is the complete absorption of Ukraine. Both sides will not achieve any goals if they stop, and as a result, the war will continue on an even larger scale. In the interval between hot phases, the war will continue using less noticeable methods, predominantly terrorist ones. And as I said and will continue to say - there are no tools to stop the war when Russia continues to try to achieve its goals except for military and economic ones.
It is fairly obvious from the Minsk Accords that Putin wanted the Donbass to remain in Ukraine and wanted Ukraine to be an independent but pro-Russian country. That was Russia's policy from 2014 to 2022. It was only in 2022 that Putin finally realized that the Minsk Accords were never intended to be followed, and he finally abandoned that strategy.
Having personal friends who live in Donetsk and Bryansk, I can tell you that the people of Donetsk suffered constant shelling for most of those 8 years of "ceasefire" under the Minsk Accords. Their suffering created a lot of internal political pressure on Putin to do something.
Russia made its security proposal to Washington in December of 2021, which was laughed out of the house by the Biden Regime. Kiev was preparing to break the Minsk ceasefire and invade Donbass again, and then Zelensky publically called for Ukraine to get nuclear weapons in late February of 2022. Collectively, those actions triggered Russia's invasion.
In March of 2022, the negotiated peace agreement still had the Donbass region remaining as part of Ukraine. It was only after Boris Johnson scuppered the peace deal that Russia finally said, fine, we will hold referendums and admit the Donbass into Russia.
My purpose in relating these facts is to point out that Russia was never hungry for more territory. Their primary interest was protecting native Russian speakers, seeing Ukraine as a friendly neighbor rather than a hostile NATO satellite. It was only when all of their efforts had failed that they finally decided to admit the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine into Russia.
Why should Europe provide 100% of its "aid" in the form of loans? And why should it provide just 1/3 of what we're providing?
Ukraine needs outside investors and technical expertise to develop its resources and profit from them. Why are we supposed to do that for free?
And of course we're in a position to inflict more pain on Russia. Just not at a price any sane person would pay. I note that even the Democrats didn't actually send ground troops, despite howling for it.
It's probable that the decision about "aid" was a joint decision of the President and Parliament of the United States. The question of "why" should be addressed to the Speaker. He definitely remembers how it all happened.
There are absolutely no problems with joint development of natural resources - rare earth elements, oil, gas, gold, graphite. Models for such cooperation have long existed in regular business practice. But. As was said in a popular film - The first rule of business is to protect your investments. A protection model using a human shield without demonstrating forceful counter-arguments looks bad. Frankly bad.
Old dog, old tricks.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-minerals/trump-ghani-agree-us-can-help-develop-afghanistans-rare-earth-minerals-idUSKCN1BX06G/
As I wrote two weeks ago, Ukraine received a joint ultimatum from the US and Russia demanding capitulation.
The only thing I didn't understand - the US is not ready to send soldiers, but is ready to invite engineers and even bankers to act as a human shield. This is strange.
No it's not. It's a tripwire. Russia won't want to endanger these people, but they aren't an offensive force.
As to America developing Ukrainian resources and getting its proper cut, I don't see you complaining about Europe "giving" 100% of its aid in the form of loans.
For that matter, I don't recall you being upset about FDR creating Lend-Lease for its allies in World War II.
We've seen this mechanism working live: all representatives of the human shield gather in an organized manner at Kabul airport and leave on previously provided charter flights.
The salami principle suggests that there are similarly no response tools for one-time acts, such as strike of an unnamed drone or a roadside bomb causing the death of oil workers and bankers. The only way to keep those people in dangerous territories will be exactly the same as in Bagram. The cleaner will receive five times the salary.
The entire described model was tested in Afghanistan. During Trump's term, Afghanistan absorbed half a trillion dollars. It became a corrupting node undermining the US. We know the result.
While I'm tickled pink at Trump's changes to the US government and foreign policy, the Ukraine minerals deal looks like a losing proposition to me.
First of all, it was the USA led by Victoria Nuland of the Obama Administration that overthrew the duly elected government of Ukraine in 2014, and then spent the next 8 years pumping the rogue regime full of weapons and money to build fortifications. It was a deliberate strategy to use Ukraine to stab the underbelly of Russia. It was entirely done for US and British objectives. It was a horrible deal for Ukraine.
After 2022, when Russia invaded, Ukraine had worked out a treaty at the Istanbul meetings, but the Empire sent Boris Johnson to visit Zelensky and tell him to strike the treaty and fight. So, the war with Russia was done for US and British interests, not Ukrainian interests. Ukraine has been utterly destroyed by the war, losing territory, a generation of young men, and electricity infrastructure.
Now Trump shows up and wants peace. Great! But why should Ukraine pay the USA for peace? If anything the USA should pay to rebuild Ukraine, because we used Ukraine as a cat's paw to poke Russia.
Trump doesn't seem to have a real strategy in Ukraine other than to make a deal and get out. I don't think Ukraine has any real reserves of rare earth minerals to begin with. My prediction is that the minerals deal is just a way for Trump to save face for the USA, because Russia is going to get everything they want. Russia is winning on the battlefield, and has no reason to give up any concessions. The USA and NATO are not in any position to inflict more pain on Russia. They are out of bullets, out of sanctions, and out of time.
Almost everything is accurate except that Victoria Nuland did not facilitate the coup and removal of Yanukovych, just as there was no coup (Yes, exactly), but Russia invaded in 2014 in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. For eight years, no one was pumping Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine fought with its own reserves in the format of an anti-terrorist operation. One can probably argue that without widespread mobilization, Russia has no tools for "winning on the battlefield."
The rest is accurate.
The US has no tools to pressure the Russian Federation; Russia wants to and will fight, as Lavrov stated today.
There are certainly possibilities to influence Putin, they are simple, obvious, and cheap - all that's needed is to unpack the desert warehouses of first-gen 25y.o Hummers, Bradleys, and Strykers, which will definitely never be used in combat, and provide a couple hundred first-gen F-16s, which similarly will never fight again. This is a simple, understandable, and inexpensive move that Biden was unable to make for unclear reasons. It doesn't need to be free, just valued at their real cost rather than according to the scheme invented by Biden. This would greatly strengthen Trump's position in negotiations, but his model is probably different - he wants to give everything away and see what happens next.
That last sentence is absurd, and Donald Trump's entire long life demonstrates that.
But as to Biden, the Democrats never had any intention of doing the sort of thing you describe, or anything else that could lead to victory. This is all an exercise in weapons testing and money laundering, with an outside hope of cracking up the Russian Federation. They always spoke with forked tongue.
If you want Ukraine to keep fighting, no one's stopping them. This war can grind on to the last Ukrainian. Or we can make a peace deal that provides a degree of stability and breathing space for Ukraine to recover and become prosperous. Not a satisfying victory, but the only one available short of a U.S. invasion and nuclear exchange.
Unfortunately, none of the models work. During the already 11-year war, all methods of what is now fashionable to call "making a deal" have been tried - eyes were closed to the annexation of Crimea, to the military invasion of Donbas territories. Zelensky made titanic efforts to achieve some semblance of peace, but nothing worked. Russia reformed its army and military industry and prepared for a new invasion. Unfortunately, Russia's strategic goal is the complete absorption of Ukraine. Both sides will not achieve any goals if they stop, and as a result, the war will continue on an even larger scale. In the interval between hot phases, the war will continue using less noticeable methods, predominantly terrorist ones. And as I said and will continue to say - there are no tools to stop the war when Russia continues to try to achieve its goals except for military and economic ones.
It is fairly obvious from the Minsk Accords that Putin wanted the Donbass to remain in Ukraine and wanted Ukraine to be an independent but pro-Russian country. That was Russia's policy from 2014 to 2022. It was only in 2022 that Putin finally realized that the Minsk Accords were never intended to be followed, and he finally abandoned that strategy.
Having personal friends who live in Donetsk and Bryansk, I can tell you that the people of Donetsk suffered constant shelling for most of those 8 years of "ceasefire" under the Minsk Accords. Their suffering created a lot of internal political pressure on Putin to do something.
Russia made its security proposal to Washington in December of 2021, which was laughed out of the house by the Biden Regime. Kiev was preparing to break the Minsk ceasefire and invade Donbass again, and then Zelensky publically called for Ukraine to get nuclear weapons in late February of 2022. Collectively, those actions triggered Russia's invasion.
In March of 2022, the negotiated peace agreement still had the Donbass region remaining as part of Ukraine. It was only after Boris Johnson scuppered the peace deal that Russia finally said, fine, we will hold referendums and admit the Donbass into Russia.
My purpose in relating these facts is to point out that Russia was never hungry for more territory. Their primary interest was protecting native Russian speakers, seeing Ukraine as a friendly neighbor rather than a hostile NATO satellite. It was only when all of their efforts had failed that they finally decided to admit the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine into Russia.
Why should Europe provide 100% of its "aid" in the form of loans? And why should it provide just 1/3 of what we're providing?
Ukraine needs outside investors and technical expertise to develop its resources and profit from them. Why are we supposed to do that for free?
And of course we're in a position to inflict more pain on Russia. Just not at a price any sane person would pay. I note that even the Democrats didn't actually send ground troops, despite howling for it.
It's probable that the decision about "aid" was a joint decision of the President and Parliament of the United States. The question of "why" should be addressed to the Speaker. He definitely remembers how it all happened.
There are absolutely no problems with joint development of natural resources - rare earth elements, oil, gas, gold, graphite. Models for such cooperation have long existed in regular business practice. But. As was said in a popular film - The first rule of business is to protect your investments. A protection model using a human shield without demonstrating forceful counter-arguments looks bad. Frankly bad.
It can "look bad" all you want. But you're not getting ground troops.