Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do.
It was recently assessed that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump plans to organize a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without the US’ participation in order to freeze the conflict. This is obviously a lot easier said than done. Here’s what can offset this scenario by either delaying it long enough for Russia to end the conflict on its own terms or capsizing Trump’s plan completely:
----------
1. The Europeans Fear A Direct Kinetic Escalation With Russia
France’s tough talk earlier this year about conventionally intervening in the conflict and Poland subsequently refusing to rule out its participation as well mask the Europeans’ fear of a direct kinetic escalation with Russia. Trump will have to masterfully leverage the US’ influence over them and NATO as a whole in order to coerce his country’s European partners into putting their security on the line by going through with this risky plan. It could always backfire, after all, and inadvertently spark World War III.
2. Public Opinion In The Polish Lynchpin Is Strongly Against This
It’s difficult to imagine a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without Poland’s leading participation, but public opinion is strongly against this after a reputable survey over the summer showed that 69% of Poles are opposed to dispatching troops to that neighboring country in any capacity. As mutual Polish-Ukrainian mistrust worsens as explained here, here, and here, it’ll become a very tough sell, plus Poles fear that they’ll once again be exploited by the West while getting nothing at all in return.
3. Trump’s Prior Rhetoric About Article 5 Doesn’t Inspire Confidence
Another hurdle that’ll have to be overcome is regaining confidence in Trump due to his prior rhetoric about Article 5 after he declared in February that the US won’t protect those NATO members who haven’t spent at least 2% of their GDP on defense. He even threatened that “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.” Even though most now meet that target, they might still fear that he’ll attach more strings to Article 5, which they’ll rely on for defense if they participate in this mission.
4. It’s Unclear Exactly What Trump Would Do If Russia Hit NATO Troops
Trump will also have to convince NATO members that his response to Russia hitting their troops will balance the line between fulfilling Article 5’s perceived commitments while avoiding an escalation that could spiral into World War III. They also need to be sure that he’ll go through with it and not back down. Moreover, this would have to be clearly communicated to Russia too, who he’ll have to deter. There’s a lot that can go wrong anywhere along this sequence of events so its success can’t be taken for granted.
5. NATO Is Unprepared For A Prolonged Non-Nuclear Hot War With Russia
Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes in the event of direct kinetic exchanges between them, then NATO would be unprepared for waging a prolonged non-nuclear hot war with Russia. It’s losing the “race of logistics” by far, no progress was made during the last NATO Summit on the “military Schengen” for facilitating such movements eastward, and the bloc only has 5% of the air defenses needed to protect itself. NATO might therefore ultimately lose to Russia.
6. External Mediation Could Lead To A Scaled-Back Peacekeeping Mission
Hungary and India have excellent ties with Russia and the US so it’s possible that they could independently or jointly work to broker a scaled-back peacekeeping mission instead. This could result in Western troops deploying west of the Dnieper, Ukraine demilitarizing everything that it still controls in the east of heavy weapons, and Russia agreeing to freeze the Line of Contact. Such a scenario was broadly discussed here in mid-March. It’s unlikely, admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless still possible.
7. Cautious Europeans Might Wager That It’s Better To Just Cut Their Losses
All the same, the preceding six points might lead to the cautious Europeans waging that it’s better to just cut their losses and let everything play out however it will without risking the consequences that their participation in any Ukrainian peacekeeping mission could entail. It would be an unprecedented defeat for the West if it possibly lets Russia achieve a maximum victory, but growing fatigue as well as the fear of inadvertently sparking and losing World War III could result in this world-changing outcome.
8. A Cuban-Like Brinksmanship Crisis Could Break Out Before Trump’s Reinauguration
Another possibility is that anti-Russian hawks in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) and/or Zelensky provoke a major escalation with Russia before Trump’s reinauguration out of desperation to prevent him from “selling out Ukraine” as they might see it. If that happens, then Trump would be powerless to influence the course of events. He’d have no choice but to inherit whatever the outcome would be, whether it’s World War III or a possibly lopsided peace deal.
9. There’s A Chance That Russia Achieves Maximum Victory Before Then Too
This scenario is unlikely due to the high probability that the aforesaid point would materialize, specifically in the form of a conventional NATO intervention to at least race Russia to the Dnieper, in the event that the front lines collapse before mid-January and Russia is about to achieve maximum victory. Even so, there’s always the chance that it’s averted for whatever reason, in which case there’d be no need for the NATO peacekeeping mission that Trump reportedly envisages.
10. The West Asian Wars Worsen & Become Trump’s Immediate Priority
And finally, nobody knows whether or not the West Asian wars might worsen and thus become Trump’s immediate priority upon resuming office, with there being compelling arguments to predict that both Israel and Iran might be plotting precisely this scenario in advance of their respective interests. Briefly, Israel might want to bait the US into helping it destroy Iran once and for all, while Iran might want to inflict a devastating blow to US regional interests as revenge for Trump’s assassination of Soleimani.
----------
Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then he might resort to threatening Russia and NATO alike, but such psychological warfare might have no effect. In that case, he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat.
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.
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.