Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Denis's avatar

Well, paper tiger Trump can propose whatever peace plan he wants but Russia should be very careful not to get caught up in agreements of any kind only to get minsked again and again. Fool me once shame on you but fool me twice shame on moi. NATO's tomfoolery led them to go shark fishing dangling their weenies as bait leading to a colossal fatal miscalculation to Russia's epic advantage. What peace can Trumpster offer? None at all. It would only be a delaying tactic to fool Russia again. Rather Russia should set the terms of peace after Nazi Ukraine's unconditional surrender and there's nothing NATO can do about it. I can't think of a better time that Russia has had in its past to gain so much militarily, in real estate, financially and politically now. So Trumpster's biggest obstacle to making some kind of a peace deal could very well be Russia's hinted polite response to shove it up his ass. My concern is that Russia doesn't go all the way turning one of its potential greatest triumphs into one of its greatest failed opportunities. Here lies Russia's defining moment in the 21st century. Yet I sense they'll come up short. I hope that I'm wrong.

Expand full comment
Thomas Rask's avatar

Your article yesterday was “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” and that is what I originally came to your substack to comment on. But then I found that the very next day, you published this article where you suddenly found 10 reasons you didn't give yesterday for why the clock ISN'T ticking. Thanks for realizing your mistake yesterday, and I love your work, but you must do better than this.

Speaking of today's 10 reasons: note that "10" was also the number of times you used the term "Western/NATO" in your article yesterday, alternately referring to them as "troops" or "forces" but always suggesting they could be peacekeepers.

But the final time you used the term "Western/NATO" in your article yesterday, you simply called them "Western/NATO peacekeepers." So by the end of the article, you transformed those troops into peacekeepers, accepted as such...just like that.

To this reader, the above looks like sloppy rhetorical sleight of hand, and it reduces your credibility. "Looks like"...but maybe it was unintentional.

Even though it appears you now realize that no clock is ticking, allow me to add reasons 11, 12 and 13 for why no clock is ticking.

11/ You spoke of "the potential entrance of conventional Western/NATO forces into Ukraine as peacekeepers." There is zero chance that Russia would accept "Western/NATO troops" (i.e. US + vassal state troops) as peacekeepers. Zeer-oh! Russia will declare them to be enemy combatants.

"Western/NATO troops" can arrive wearing blue helmets or luminous uniforms, claiming that they are peacekeepers. The moment they are fired upon by Russians and some of them are killed, they will have a decision to make.

Why I say that: I grew up in Sweden, but live in the US (Florida), and spend summers in Europe (including Sweden). So I know both places, and Sweden has had peacekeepers all over the world, but also troops NOT acting as peacekeepers in Afghanistan. In order for there to be "peacekeeping" troops, the warring sides have to agree that these are peacekeepers.

Once that is agreed to, the "peacekeepers" then wear blue helmets or something to clearly show that they are not regular troops. Also, peacekeepers have completely different rules of engagement than regular troops and typically don't bring heavy weaponry. Why would they when the warring parties have accepted them as peacekeepers.

So again: the moment your "Western/NATO peacekeepers" are attacked by the Russian military and some are killed, those "peacekeepers" will have to make a difficult decision. Or rather: the MIC will make that decision for them, and I think I know what it will be.

12/ You wrote yesterday "that Putin lacks the political will to risk an unprecedented escalation" and that this somehow matters. You make the mistake that so many make of thinking that Putin is free to do whatever he wants.

If "Western/NATO troops" arrive claiming to be peacekeepers, and Putin treats them as such, he will be ousted. But it will never get to that because Putin isn't that stupid.

A new *comprehensive* security arrangement for Europe is what is needed. At Valdai last week, even Putin did not correct Glenn Diesen when he addressed Putin and used the term "Europe" as if it doesn't include Russia. Diesen should have used the term "EU" or "EU + countries it currently is trying to bring in" or some other term.

Geographically speaking, we all know what Europe is. The largest country in Europe is Russia, the largest ethnic group in Europe is Russians, and Russian is the most common mother tongue in Europe.

More broadly about Europe: Slavs are about 40% of the European population (I'm excluding Russia East of the Urals, and Anatolian Turkey), yet Slavic nations get treated like second-class nations by Western Europeans. Pre-2022 example: how dare Poland not accept the number of migrants from medieval countries that Ursula has specified!

In addition, Western Europeans and the US government treat Slavs like cannon fodder. The men of Ukraine are just the latest to receive that treatment. They must fight and die to attrit Russia in furtherance of US policy objectives. Never mind what's good for Ukraine, and "Fuck the EU" as Victoria Nuland infamously said. Witches like Nuland and Pfizer von der Bosch (Ursula) should go straight back to where they came from: the most remote and awful parts of hell. But I digress.

Consider also as evidence, for example, US Senator Lindsay Graham's arrogance in saying he wanted to fight Russia "to the last Ukrainian," then doubling down on stupid by saying "when we said we wanted to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, we meant it."

13/ These "Western/NATO" troops (not peacekeepers) don't have sufficient hardware to fight Russia with and therefore have no prospects of succeeding. No wonder public opinion in Poland is 69% against sending Polish troops to Ukraine for any reason.

Put another way: your "Western/NATO" troops are going to fight Russia with what weapons?

-----

There are actually more reasons to add to your list, but this comment is already way too long. However, I hope you found it worth reading.

Expand full comment
69 more comments...

No posts