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.
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.
No, no slav in the blood whatsoever, funnily enough.
I came to love Russian culture and take pride in familiarity with its history through its people and language. Coincidentally, I've just written a bit about my background on 'Substack' (https://mcddd.substack.com/p/bonfire-night).
I wonder why? Maybe their oligarchs are cucks to the West for big profit at the expense of Russian citizens or Russia's government has been infiltrated with traitors for profit. Rurik Skywalker likely knows but it would take a lot of reading to find out where he talks about it.. Someone has the answer.
It is clear that Russia didn't anticipate the Kursk incursion. Whether it was a mistake is beside the point, although it succeeded in shifting the narrative from Ukrainian defeat to Russian incompetence.
Have you ever played chess? You prepare and anticipate your opponent's moves but you cannot KNOW for sure what he will do and you cannot prevent everything he might do.
In this case, Ukraine opted for some incredibly silly and suicidal move, akin to exchanging a rock and a knight just to take out two pawns in the Russian position, hoping for Russia to then hastily withdraw forces from its ongoing assault elsewhere on the chess board towards her defences. Russia couldn't "foresee" it because no sane player would do it. It was nonsensical and actually impossible to prevent ukraine's move. But Russia was obviously prepared for dealing with such a move swiftly and decisively and in a way that prevented Ukraine from achieving any of the military objectives that it had hoped to achieve.
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.
I share most of your views in your comment. But: I have read Korybko's articles for a while and from that I am very confident that he didn't write this article to correct his "clock is ticking piece". I think the clock piece would have become way too long had he included these 10 points.
I agree though that he is mistaken in his assessment that Putin fears (or must fear) that Nato enters the conflict with Nato troops. It would of course complicate matters for Russia and increase the death toll on Russia's side but the outcome for Nato would be complete, devastating military defeat, something that Nato wants to absolutely avoid. The reason why Nato hasn't officially deployed troops is precisely for this reason. It can always pretend: "see, nato didn't lose because we were never part of the war". It can't even pretend not to have lost once it officially joins the war.
Final remark: I disagree with Korybko's notion that peacekeepers could be deployed unilaterally. I have found no precedent for that , at least not for any major conflict. They were always mutually agreed to (albeit forced upon one side in several instances but nobody can force that upon Russia).
Even if Russia could be convinced to settle for "peacekeepers" in a proposed buffer zone, I can't believe that he would trust the Europeans to perform this function as "neutral" arbiters. For this to even have a ghost of a chance, the peacekeepers would need to be from non-aligned nations. And even then, why should Russia agree to any of this?
If Indian peacekeepers were to be deployed (big if but absolutely possible) they would be deployed only when mutually agreed upon by both the USA and Russia. They wouldn't intervene in the conflict at all but help to end the bloodshed and settle it for now. Would be perfectly in line with India's neutrality and probably boost India's standing and importance in the developing mulitpolar world order.
Agreed. But the chances of a negotiated peaceful settlement acceptable to both sides are less than 5%. Russia has been duped thrice by the West— Budapest Agreement of 1994, and the Two Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015. They won't take the words of Ukraine's Anglo-Saxon overlords for granted.
In my opinion, Russia shouldn't stop before completely annexing Novo-Rossiya, taking back 43% of Ukraine, establishing complete dominance over the Black Sea and making Ukraine a landlocked country. This might take another 2-3 years.
"We Indians are unwilling to receive the baton of a failed mission to impose a strategic defeat on Russia."
I'm glad to hear it — good on ya! And I believe Korybko shares this sentiment.
I was replying to the point above, "...peacekeepers would need to be from non-aligned nations." It was Korybko who suggested (rather optomistically, I suspect) a proposed DMZ could be patrolled by e.g. Hungarian and Indian troops. Personally, I don't see it, nor do I think it would be a good idea. I think you Indians have struck a fine and delicate balance, as is; quite understand your reluctance to upset it.
Trump's first term taught us that one must be very leery of any "reported plan" of what Trump is going to do. Both his enemies and supporters just made shit up the last time around, saying Trump is going to do this or that, and then the plan would fail to materialize.
You may as well just hope for Trump to withdraw the US from NATO altogether, which I in fact do, but I'm not holding my breath. Let's see who his Secretary of State is going to be first. We'll know a little more then.
Yes. Legacy media pieces like the WSJ article are attempts by various players trying to fence in Trump's options before he has publicly announced his intentions. Despite their reporting, they likely know little of his intentions, and are just reporting scuttlebutt from interested third parties advancing their own agendas.
What Trump and his Kushner Rubio RFK Jr Psychos might do? This is absurd. This "not realy a war" that Putin has launched will continue for several years. And Russians will die and the society will shrink.
Putin still loves Israel and still loves the idea of the West. He has failed on so many levels, and while the United Snakes of Israel First AmeriKKKa is a bubbling country of broken this and broken that, it's still the most powerful financial sicario in the lobotomized Goyim world.
Yeah, average fuckers like me, sure, we voted for AI and endless drone manufacturing and endless dual and triple use college programs, and then, the deplorables who love cocksucker Trump, the citizens next door, well, closet and open racists, women haters, homophobes and fucking shaking trees thinking about China and brown people south of the border and then, well, a vote for Trump IS a vote for MILITARY might, a vote for flattening Gaza, a vote for the infantilization of Amerikkka on steroids.
Putin and his crew have been ill-advised, and they know nothing about Americans, really, and they think the political system, the cunts in office, that somehow they, our fellow AmeriKKKans, are different than the average Joe and Carmen.
Nope.
So, AmeriKKKans are dying of chronic disease, suicide, pollution, bad air and food and water, but Russians, man, dying in that famous fucking war of attrition.
Putin and his old fashion brain, man. Just like all the soulless white men.
Paulo, I understand where you are coming from (I think) and I can absolutely comprehend the frustration of many people with Putin (heck, I share some of that). But we always have to keep in mind that what you and I and most everyone else sees are always just the tips of icebergs. A lot is going on beneath the surface that nobody of us can see (and that includes 99.999% of the media and every so-called expert, too). Our judgements are hence based on severly limited and very partial knowledge and observations!
Having said hat, I found the Kremlin's reaction to those rumoured Trump peace proposals very encouraging when they said: "We will look at what he has to say and then decide whether there is a need to respond to it." That's world class trolling and display of strength at the same time. They literally said that it might well be such unimportant stuff or plain silly garbage that the Kremlin wouldn't even bother to reply to it!
I appreciate the retort. Most people on these sub sub Substacks want to rumble in the jungle, or, shit dog, just stay with their fucking Team Blue or Team Red. Look, I'm a socialist with plenty of anarchist sensibilities. If we put our energy and minds and bodies behind these fucking singularly great powerful MEN, that is, MEN with slaves, i.e. armies and air forces, then we are captured fucking house niggers.
The grand 4-D chessboard? Come on, systems thinking is a wonderful (and a cursed) place to be. I have been around the block, lived and worked in countries other than the UnUnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa, and I have and still am a precarious worked at age 67.
Books under my belt, teaching at colleges and universities, fucking hitchhiking from Nogales to Panama, and, well, the other side of midnight with some sicarios or narcos or whatever you want to call them.
But studying the world, from coral reefs on up many atmospheres, and seeing Bill and Medlinda Gates Foundation up close and Amazon's Black Lizard Eyes Bezos up front and having head based in at Occupy Seattle as a teacher, what have you, I am not oging to think that there is so much deeper and Matrix like shit going on "under the surface" that our simplistic judgments are just pissing in the wind?
THe whole man and whole woman. The people in positions of power. How they got there, and following the money, and alas, values. So, the evils of the lessers or the greatness of the evil doers, is that the choice.
Just one little rape, and that is not enough to judge the character of a man, i.e. Trump and Biden?
Character, dude, and while Putin has to deal with our fucked up psychopathic Kushner-Trump LLC, I know for a fact Putin respects Trump.
Is Putin showman PT Barnum, or some Slavic variation on that theme.
Socialism or barbarism, and alas, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is good and bad, it's the lowly smart fucking people who can see through the oligarchy and the strong men and strong women and can follow the money and follow the psychopaths.
Just commenting on what Putin and Trump might do is, well, more armchair fun.
Inverted Totalitarianism, dude, and the Century of the Jew is still the Jews' Century, and the Vatican or Moscow will still be under that black demon hole.
Andrew, why do you give NATO direct intervention so much weight?
What sort of intervention do you envisage? How many troops can NATO assemble? Tanks, artillery, planes?
Short of a nuclear deterrent that's useless unless Europe is suicidal, I am at a loss to comprehend how NATO can put together a credible force to confront Russia on the battlefield.
Great article. I have one issue though with your view of Iranians. Whatever Iran's leadership might do, it will NOT do it to revenge anything or anybody. These are grown up adults who do not gamble with their country's future and the life of Iran's population for some emotional or PR reasons.
I suspect Mr. Putin has decided to first, focus on BRICS summit. Now that is done, he has to make up his mind. Just for the sake of giving Mr. Trump a proper hint (as Trump does not always pick hints well) Russia military will launch something. Such a big operation takes time to prepare. I had the impression it took UK/France 3 months just to bring enough artillery shells to the front before the Somme campaign. But of course, Mr. Putin and other Russian leaders may have been thinking along a totally different line. Maybe they think they can get a good deal from Trump :-)
In Operation Bagration, Russians had proven it once before. Unfortunately, the art of war is a knowledge that can be forgotten. There are surely a lot more histories to be made.
Really?! Hadn't France, together with some other buddies, decided some months ago they should invade; then there was the 'Coalition of the Willing' thing; then Poland thought perhaps they should shoot down missiles over the Ukraine... What was all that all about? Nothing like dithering, I'm sure!
At least East Asia is looking better than it was. Most of the parties to the South China Sea dispute have now joined BRICS. An odd thing to do if they are supposedly in an existential fight with China. India and China are also mending relations, as part of India's desire to be a non-aligned leader.
The biggest risk is that Trump is just feigning opposition to the neocons, and will let them into his cabinet. The second biggest risk is that Trump is genuinely opposed to them, and those neocons in Biden's administration orchestrate an escalation prior to his inauguration.
Any sort of positive development on anti-war politics is still a distant dream, but it's looking a lot more likely than it was 2 weeks ago. Cautious optimism is called for.
[Maybe I’ve got this wrong (?)] Isn’t it R’s position that before ANY negotiations the relationships between it and NATO countries must be normalized and sanctions removed? R can use this as a breakwater to resist others’ self-serving plans.
"...neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes..." "...NATO would be unprepared..."
This is the only real question: a) will Europe be able to convince America it should attack Russia (with nuclear weapons), once Europe has coerced Russian into nuclear war; b) will America consider it Europe's responsibility to defend itself, without American support, if they are stupid enough to continue chewing the bait and force Russia into nuclear war? Let's call it, 'the Article 5 dilemma'. If Trump thought the lawfare waged against him by his 'opponents' in the run up to the election was a perverse travesty of law, there could be a new dimension of that waiting for him just around the corner.
I suspect Trump sees the dilemma like this: on the one hand (horn), he's been saying for years he wasn't going to pay for Europe to fight (Biden's Deep State) war(s), yet on the other, he's got to worry about internal pressures and demands, as represented and demonstrated by Mike 'A-Bomb' (because little boys grow into fat men) Pompeo, representing the Moron McCain Mentality (see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/МММ) desperately seeking some means to throw off responsibility for Korea (See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pompeos-six-hours-in-pyongyang-a-reporters-notebook/ for beautifully impartial journalism (NOT), and because Google won't let much else through.). All of those secure and good positions in the to-be-freshly-re-branded Deep State need representatives for the superficial (for show) seats of power: so much to do, so little time; and now the Europeans think they might have something more important than Israel to worry about... Poor ol' Trump — dilemmas, dilemmas — as if he'd never been (t)here before!
"...he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat."
Works for me. Who might that not work for? After all, he's going to have to bail Israel out for Biden's failure (as he/they see it). It would be only fair if the Ukraine had to pay (back some of what it owes, as he/they see it). Again, works for me; makes good sense to anyone, I would have thought.
Europe and European (non-)"leaders" aren't a factor in world politics anymore. they have completely subordninated themselves and their countries under the US. And while they will probably once again bark at Trump like they did during his first term, they are still at the whim of the US. Why is that important? Because IF Europeans (say, the idiots running the UK) "decide" to go to war with Russia, the Kremlin will treat it as a war waged by the combined West, including the US (which will have to provide its extensive ISR capabilities anyway for such a war effort or else "Europeans" wouldn't even know what to shoot at and where to march to).
In other words, if some moron in Britain or Brussels or Paris decided to attack Russia proper in a major way, the US mainland would instantly be in play, too, for Russian counterstrikes. Using the European pawns against Russia is always possible for Washington but that will NOT allow the US to stay out and escape Russian retaliation, to the contrary. Russia would instantly go for the heads of the snake, namely the USA, Israel and the UK.
"Russia would instantly go for the heads of the snake, namely the USA, Israel and the UK."
Not necessarily. They might be wiser to apply that most persevering law of British Empire building, which has served their followers, the Americans so well: 'Divide & Rule'. If some Europeans, or anyone else, wants to go ahead and declare war on Russia, that doesn't necessarily mean the Americans will put themselves in harm's way to support and defend them. The fact that the Europeans, like the Ukrainians, aren't able to, e.g. target missiles, or do much of anything else, without American support is not necessarily America's fault. Trump would have every right to refuse to 'take one for team EU'; and it rather looks and smells as if he would indeed be just so disinclined.
That could work well for Russian and, ultimately, the rest of the world, a more balanced multi-polar approach and World Peace, as well. Let's just hope the Germans, French and British get their knickers in such a painful twist by Russia's refusal to surrender and submit that they can see no other way than to declare war. Increasingly, it's looking as if that's the only realistic way out.
Germany's coalition has now failed, France has been hiding under the parapet since they had to twist their electoral knickers around 'left-wing Communuist(!)' idiots to avoid going that route before Germany, and Britain is as Britain always has been: incapable of surviving on its own without convoluted support from banks. Nothing ever lasts forever!
Regarding 1. and 2. - the reason France didn't intervene was because of the US presidential elections. It would not do to leave France out to dry or to ride to the rescue right before the vote, lest Trump make hay of this. Concerning Poland - since when did public opinion start to matter?
If public opinion doesn't matter, why are hundreds of billions spent every year to massage and direct public opinion, censor dissent and indoctrinate the masses on a daily basis?
You make a good point, my guess is because it is cheaper to mold public opinion than it is to rely on force. The elities simply ignore public opinion when it can't be molded their way.
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.
Trump better put on his best haz-mat suit before putting forward new policies—the whole Ukraine thing is radioactive in the extreme.
"I hope that I'm wrong."
Not half as much as I do!
Are you a Russian citizen, McD?
No, no slav in the blood whatsoever, funnily enough.
I came to love Russian culture and take pride in familiarity with its history through its people and language. Coincidentally, I've just written a bit about my background on 'Substack' (https://mcddd.substack.com/p/bonfire-night).
Russia should, but Russia has been desperate to negotiate since the beginning of the war.
I wonder why? Maybe their oligarchs are cucks to the West for big profit at the expense of Russian citizens or Russia's government has been infiltrated with traitors for profit. Rurik Skywalker likely knows but it would take a lot of reading to find out where he talks about it.. Someone has the answer.
My admitted pure SWAG is that this has nothing to do with money and everything to do with wanting be seen as members of The Club.
Need I remind you of, for instance, the Kursk suckerpunch?
It is clear that Russia didn't anticipate the Kursk incursion. Whether it was a mistake is beside the point, although it succeeded in shifting the narrative from Ukrainian defeat to Russian incompetence.
Have you ever played chess? You prepare and anticipate your opponent's moves but you cannot KNOW for sure what he will do and you cannot prevent everything he might do.
In this case, Ukraine opted for some incredibly silly and suicidal move, akin to exchanging a rock and a knight just to take out two pawns in the Russian position, hoping for Russia to then hastily withdraw forces from its ongoing assault elsewhere on the chess board towards her defences. Russia couldn't "foresee" it because no sane player would do it. It was nonsensical and actually impossible to prevent ukraine's move. But Russia was obviously prepared for dealing with such a move swiftly and decisively and in a way that prevented Ukraine from achieving any of the military objectives that it had hoped to achieve.
Indian &/or Hungarian "peacekeepers" in Galicia might work out...
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.
Great insights, Thomas. I think the author is stimulating open discussion about topics. It's healthy to read various perspectives.
I share most of your views in your comment. But: I have read Korybko's articles for a while and from that I am very confident that he didn't write this article to correct his "clock is ticking piece". I think the clock piece would have become way too long had he included these 10 points.
I agree though that he is mistaken in his assessment that Putin fears (or must fear) that Nato enters the conflict with Nato troops. It would of course complicate matters for Russia and increase the death toll on Russia's side but the outcome for Nato would be complete, devastating military defeat, something that Nato wants to absolutely avoid. The reason why Nato hasn't officially deployed troops is precisely for this reason. It can always pretend: "see, nato didn't lose because we were never part of the war". It can't even pretend not to have lost once it officially joins the war.
Final remark: I disagree with Korybko's notion that peacekeepers could be deployed unilaterally. I have found no precedent for that , at least not for any major conflict. They were always mutually agreed to (albeit forced upon one side in several instances but nobody can force that upon Russia).
Even if Russia could be convinced to settle for "peacekeepers" in a proposed buffer zone, I can't believe that he would trust the Europeans to perform this function as "neutral" arbiters. For this to even have a ghost of a chance, the peacekeepers would need to be from non-aligned nations. And even then, why should Russia agree to any of this?
I think that's what Korybko's getting at: the Indians and Hungarians can do it.
India won't interfere in a conflict between US and Russia, much less intervene.
It is a war started by NATO expansion, and the Anglo-Saxon Alliance should handle the outcome themselves.
We Indians are unwilling to receive the baton of a failed mission to impose a strategic defeat on Russia.
If Indian peacekeepers were to be deployed (big if but absolutely possible) they would be deployed only when mutually agreed upon by both the USA and Russia. They wouldn't intervene in the conflict at all but help to end the bloodshed and settle it for now. Would be perfectly in line with India's neutrality and probably boost India's standing and importance in the developing mulitpolar world order.
Agreed. But the chances of a negotiated peaceful settlement acceptable to both sides are less than 5%. Russia has been duped thrice by the West— Budapest Agreement of 1994, and the Two Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015. They won't take the words of Ukraine's Anglo-Saxon overlords for granted.
In my opinion, Russia shouldn't stop before completely annexing Novo-Rossiya, taking back 43% of Ukraine, establishing complete dominance over the Black Sea and making Ukraine a landlocked country. This might take another 2-3 years.
"We Indians are unwilling to receive the baton of a failed mission to impose a strategic defeat on Russia."
I'm glad to hear it — good on ya! And I believe Korybko shares this sentiment.
I was replying to the point above, "...peacekeepers would need to be from non-aligned nations." It was Korybko who suggested (rather optomistically, I suspect) a proposed DMZ could be patrolled by e.g. Hungarian and Indian troops. Personally, I don't see it, nor do I think it would be a good idea. I think you Indians have struck a fine and delicate balance, as is; quite understand your reluctance to upset it.
Thank you. We believe in "principled neutrality".
Russia has been our greatest ally and most trusted friend for over seven decades now. Our leadership won't do anything to upset it.
Big smiley face! (I don't use emojis.)
Yes, but it is face-saving only, and would facilitate peace, and increase Indian prestige.
Trump's first term taught us that one must be very leery of any "reported plan" of what Trump is going to do. Both his enemies and supporters just made shit up the last time around, saying Trump is going to do this or that, and then the plan would fail to materialize.
You may as well just hope for Trump to withdraw the US from NATO altogether, which I in fact do, but I'm not holding my breath. Let's see who his Secretary of State is going to be first. We'll know a little more then.
Yes. Legacy media pieces like the WSJ article are attempts by various players trying to fence in Trump's options before he has publicly announced his intentions. Despite their reporting, they likely know little of his intentions, and are just reporting scuttlebutt from interested third parties advancing their own agendas.
What Trump and his Kushner Rubio RFK Jr Psychos might do? This is absurd. This "not realy a war" that Putin has launched will continue for several years. And Russians will die and the society will shrink.
Putin still loves Israel and still loves the idea of the West. He has failed on so many levels, and while the United Snakes of Israel First AmeriKKKa is a bubbling country of broken this and broken that, it's still the most powerful financial sicario in the lobotomized Goyim world.
Yeah, average fuckers like me, sure, we voted for AI and endless drone manufacturing and endless dual and triple use college programs, and then, the deplorables who love cocksucker Trump, the citizens next door, well, closet and open racists, women haters, homophobes and fucking shaking trees thinking about China and brown people south of the border and then, well, a vote for Trump IS a vote for MILITARY might, a vote for flattening Gaza, a vote for the infantilization of Amerikkka on steroids.
Putin and his crew have been ill-advised, and they know nothing about Americans, really, and they think the political system, the cunts in office, that somehow they, our fellow AmeriKKKans, are different than the average Joe and Carmen.
Nope.
So, AmeriKKKans are dying of chronic disease, suicide, pollution, bad air and food and water, but Russians, man, dying in that famous fucking war of attrition.
Putin and his old fashion brain, man. Just like all the soulless white men.
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/copy-yeah-i-am-not-seeng-zionist
Mark's in Moscow, former US Navy guy, and, well, listen up:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151426627
Paulo, I understand where you are coming from (I think) and I can absolutely comprehend the frustration of many people with Putin (heck, I share some of that). But we always have to keep in mind that what you and I and most everyone else sees are always just the tips of icebergs. A lot is going on beneath the surface that nobody of us can see (and that includes 99.999% of the media and every so-called expert, too). Our judgements are hence based on severly limited and very partial knowledge and observations!
Having said hat, I found the Kremlin's reaction to those rumoured Trump peace proposals very encouraging when they said: "We will look at what he has to say and then decide whether there is a need to respond to it." That's world class trolling and display of strength at the same time. They literally said that it might well be such unimportant stuff or plain silly garbage that the Kremlin wouldn't even bother to reply to it!
I appreciate the retort. Most people on these sub sub Substacks want to rumble in the jungle, or, shit dog, just stay with their fucking Team Blue or Team Red. Look, I'm a socialist with plenty of anarchist sensibilities. If we put our energy and minds and bodies behind these fucking singularly great powerful MEN, that is, MEN with slaves, i.e. armies and air forces, then we are captured fucking house niggers.
The grand 4-D chessboard? Come on, systems thinking is a wonderful (and a cursed) place to be. I have been around the block, lived and worked in countries other than the UnUnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa, and I have and still am a precarious worked at age 67.
Books under my belt, teaching at colleges and universities, fucking hitchhiking from Nogales to Panama, and, well, the other side of midnight with some sicarios or narcos or whatever you want to call them.
But studying the world, from coral reefs on up many atmospheres, and seeing Bill and Medlinda Gates Foundation up close and Amazon's Black Lizard Eyes Bezos up front and having head based in at Occupy Seattle as a teacher, what have you, I am not oging to think that there is so much deeper and Matrix like shit going on "under the surface" that our simplistic judgments are just pissing in the wind?
THe whole man and whole woman. The people in positions of power. How they got there, and following the money, and alas, values. So, the evils of the lessers or the greatness of the evil doers, is that the choice.
Just one little rape, and that is not enough to judge the character of a man, i.e. Trump and Biden?
Character, dude, and while Putin has to deal with our fucked up psychopathic Kushner-Trump LLC, I know for a fact Putin respects Trump.
Is Putin showman PT Barnum, or some Slavic variation on that theme.
Socialism or barbarism, and alas, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is good and bad, it's the lowly smart fucking people who can see through the oligarchy and the strong men and strong women and can follow the money and follow the psychopaths.
Just commenting on what Putin and Trump might do is, well, more armchair fun.
Inverted Totalitarianism, dude, and the Century of the Jew is still the Jews' Century, and the Vatican or Moscow will still be under that black demon hole.
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/war-by-other-means-banks-and-glafia
Blessings, and if we can't have true peace, i.e., the end of penury and slavery and sheeple production, then, Viva that Mother Fucking Revolution!
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/war-by-other-means-banks-and-glafia
Leave me some head room in your retreating Humvee!
Andrew, why do you give NATO direct intervention so much weight?
What sort of intervention do you envisage? How many troops can NATO assemble? Tanks, artillery, planes?
Short of a nuclear deterrent that's useless unless Europe is suicidal, I am at a loss to comprehend how NATO can put together a credible force to confront Russia on the battlefield.
Great article. I have one issue though with your view of Iranians. Whatever Iran's leadership might do, it will NOT do it to revenge anything or anybody. These are grown up adults who do not gamble with their country's future and the life of Iran's population for some emotional or PR reasons.
Let's see who is standing at the podium January 20, 2025. We live in strange times.
It is words against realities on the ground, and a time for decisive actions.
So what is Russia waiting for?
I suspect Mr. Putin has decided to first, focus on BRICS summit. Now that is done, he has to make up his mind. Just for the sake of giving Mr. Trump a proper hint (as Trump does not always pick hints well) Russia military will launch something. Such a big operation takes time to prepare. I had the impression it took UK/France 3 months just to bring enough artillery shells to the front before the Somme campaign. But of course, Mr. Putin and other Russian leaders may have been thinking along a totally different line. Maybe they think they can get a good deal from Trump :-)
I hope Russia has learned something about logistics since 1916. Otherwise, a lot of "may" and "maybe", unfortunately.
In Operation Bagration, Russians had proven it once before. Unfortunately, the art of war is a knowledge that can be forgotten. There are surely a lot more histories to be made.
The right circumstances, i.e. time.
Note that Russia's enemies do not dither.
Really?! Hadn't France, together with some other buddies, decided some months ago they should invade; then there was the 'Coalition of the Willing' thing; then Poland thought perhaps they should shoot down missiles over the Ukraine... What was all that all about? Nothing like dithering, I'm sure!
As pointed out in a previous thread, what stopped France and Poland was the concern that escalation would affect the outcome of the US elections.
Yeah, right...
Well, I guess, if YOU say so, that MUST be right.
Oh, and I forgot NATO's 'Shenghen' thing. And I'm sure, if I were better informed, I could recall many more.
The first being the insanity of believing Russia would countenance NATO troops in Ukraine. The U.S. must be deaf.
"Please don't escalate, so I can look good, Vladimir, even though Russia will lose already-claimed territory."
Man, i wonder how Russia's willingness to accept this outcome isnt even a factor. Weird.
At least East Asia is looking better than it was. Most of the parties to the South China Sea dispute have now joined BRICS. An odd thing to do if they are supposedly in an existential fight with China. India and China are also mending relations, as part of India's desire to be a non-aligned leader.
The biggest risk is that Trump is just feigning opposition to the neocons, and will let them into his cabinet. The second biggest risk is that Trump is genuinely opposed to them, and those neocons in Biden's administration orchestrate an escalation prior to his inauguration.
Any sort of positive development on anti-war politics is still a distant dream, but it's looking a lot more likely than it was 2 weeks ago. Cautious optimism is called for.
[Maybe I’ve got this wrong (?)] Isn’t it R’s position that before ANY negotiations the relationships between it and NATO countries must be normalized and sanctions removed? R can use this as a breakwater to resist others’ self-serving plans.
"...neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes..." "...NATO would be unprepared..."
This is the only real question: a) will Europe be able to convince America it should attack Russia (with nuclear weapons), once Europe has coerced Russian into nuclear war; b) will America consider it Europe's responsibility to defend itself, without American support, if they are stupid enough to continue chewing the bait and force Russia into nuclear war? Let's call it, 'the Article 5 dilemma'. If Trump thought the lawfare waged against him by his 'opponents' in the run up to the election was a perverse travesty of law, there could be a new dimension of that waiting for him just around the corner.
I suspect Trump sees the dilemma like this: on the one hand (horn), he's been saying for years he wasn't going to pay for Europe to fight (Biden's Deep State) war(s), yet on the other, he's got to worry about internal pressures and demands, as represented and demonstrated by Mike 'A-Bomb' (because little boys grow into fat men) Pompeo, representing the Moron McCain Mentality (see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/МММ) desperately seeking some means to throw off responsibility for Korea (See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pompeos-six-hours-in-pyongyang-a-reporters-notebook/ for beautifully impartial journalism (NOT), and because Google won't let much else through.). All of those secure and good positions in the to-be-freshly-re-branded Deep State need representatives for the superficial (for show) seats of power: so much to do, so little time; and now the Europeans think they might have something more important than Israel to worry about... Poor ol' Trump — dilemmas, dilemmas — as if he'd never been (t)here before!
"...he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat."
Works for me. Who might that not work for? After all, he's going to have to bail Israel out for Biden's failure (as he/they see it). It would be only fair if the Ukraine had to pay (back some of what it owes, as he/they see it). Again, works for me; makes good sense to anyone, I would have thought.
Europe and European (non-)"leaders" aren't a factor in world politics anymore. they have completely subordninated themselves and their countries under the US. And while they will probably once again bark at Trump like they did during his first term, they are still at the whim of the US. Why is that important? Because IF Europeans (say, the idiots running the UK) "decide" to go to war with Russia, the Kremlin will treat it as a war waged by the combined West, including the US (which will have to provide its extensive ISR capabilities anyway for such a war effort or else "Europeans" wouldn't even know what to shoot at and where to march to).
In other words, if some moron in Britain or Brussels or Paris decided to attack Russia proper in a major way, the US mainland would instantly be in play, too, for Russian counterstrikes. Using the European pawns against Russia is always possible for Washington but that will NOT allow the US to stay out and escape Russian retaliation, to the contrary. Russia would instantly go for the heads of the snake, namely the USA, Israel and the UK.
"Russia would instantly go for the heads of the snake, namely the USA, Israel and the UK."
Not necessarily. They might be wiser to apply that most persevering law of British Empire building, which has served their followers, the Americans so well: 'Divide & Rule'. If some Europeans, or anyone else, wants to go ahead and declare war on Russia, that doesn't necessarily mean the Americans will put themselves in harm's way to support and defend them. The fact that the Europeans, like the Ukrainians, aren't able to, e.g. target missiles, or do much of anything else, without American support is not necessarily America's fault. Trump would have every right to refuse to 'take one for team EU'; and it rather looks and smells as if he would indeed be just so disinclined.
That could work well for Russian and, ultimately, the rest of the world, a more balanced multi-polar approach and World Peace, as well. Let's just hope the Germans, French and British get their knickers in such a painful twist by Russia's refusal to surrender and submit that they can see no other way than to declare war. Increasingly, it's looking as if that's the only realistic way out.
Germany's coalition has now failed, France has been hiding under the parapet since they had to twist their electoral knickers around 'left-wing Communuist(!)' idiots to avoid going that route before Germany, and Britain is as Britain always has been: incapable of surviving on its own without convoluted support from banks. Nothing ever lasts forever!
Regarding 1. and 2. - the reason France didn't intervene was because of the US presidential elections. It would not do to leave France out to dry or to ride to the rescue right before the vote, lest Trump make hay of this. Concerning Poland - since when did public opinion start to matter?
If public opinion doesn't matter, why are hundreds of billions spent every year to massage and direct public opinion, censor dissent and indoctrinate the masses on a daily basis?
You make a good point, my guess is because it is cheaper to mold public opinion than it is to rely on force. The elities simply ignore public opinion when it can't be molded their way.