Most Westerners already know that Ukrainian nationalists fiercely hate Russia so they’re unlikely to fall for the fantasy that he’s peddling to scare them away from supporting a ceasefire.
I can't be bothered to read the war-propaganda piece in Forbes, but here's a general observation of discussions of nationalism. As I see it, there are two kinds: "Blut und Boden" ethno-nationalism, and civic nationalism (aka patriotism or "souverainism"). They are often treated as the same thing, but the interests of these two groups often are exactly the opposite, as the "ethno" movements tend to destroy the political nation (for example, the Gamsakhurdia regime in Georgia, or, for that matter, the 2013-14 "Euromaidan" movement in Ukraine).
As for the hypothetical coup in Kiev, I don't think ideologies organize coups by themselves; there has to be a real power behind it. I have the impression that the place is firmly controlled by the West, and whatever incidents of public anger, riots, uprisings may occur, they would be suppressed or channeled into a manageable form.
You haven’t commented on whether the ceasefire is realistic at all. From where I stand I don’t understand why would Russia ever want a ceasefire? I’m going by what Lavrov communicated, only a permanent solution is what Russia wants.
So my question is: is there any truth that Russia is signalling readiness to a ceasefire?
I personally believe that Russia might resume interest in a ceasefire once it obtains full control over Donbass and expels Ukraine from Kursk.
In that scenario, just like Ukraine could agree to one without rescind its territorial claims, so too could Russia do the same with regards to the rest of Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions.
This doesn't mean that it'll definitely agree to a ceasefire along the LOC in such a scenario, but just that I'd expect it to warm back up to that possibility, even if it doesn't work out.
Beg to differ. There is a Russian (or maybe some other nationality) saying, "don't interfere/interrupt when you're opponent/adversary is making a mistake. Russia has clear objectives to it's campaign, all it's opponents are tripping over themselves in an attempt to adapt. They are in perpetual reconfiguration mode. This is where they make mistakes because of a lack of clear goals and objectives. Russia patiently waits whilst plugging at accomplishing her goals.
I honestly don't even understand why people make knee jerk reactions to every statement the cocaine fuhrer and his accomplices make. As it's apparently clear to everyone, they are looking for ways to save face. The reality is Black Rock is not going to salvage much of the most fertile black soil as well as mineral rich land. This is the quagmire that faces the West. This is what Putin is working to ensure. Victory will be achieved on the frontline, not on PR tours. The outcome of this conflict is being shaped by blood, guts and glory. AFU is about to collapse, why/how in the world would they effect a political outcome. This perplexes me.
The timing for a sincere attempt to reach a cease-fire is possible only after the US election, and only if Trump wins. And the cease-fire may not even come out as the result. May the Russian forces reach Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro before then.
I can't be bothered to read the war-propaganda piece in Forbes, but here's a general observation of discussions of nationalism. As I see it, there are two kinds: "Blut und Boden" ethno-nationalism, and civic nationalism (aka patriotism or "souverainism"). They are often treated as the same thing, but the interests of these two groups often are exactly the opposite, as the "ethno" movements tend to destroy the political nation (for example, the Gamsakhurdia regime in Georgia, or, for that matter, the 2013-14 "Euromaidan" movement in Ukraine).
As for the hypothetical coup in Kiev, I don't think ideologies organize coups by themselves; there has to be a real power behind it. I have the impression that the place is firmly controlled by the West, and whatever incidents of public anger, riots, uprisings may occur, they would be suppressed or channeled into a manageable form.
You haven’t commented on whether the ceasefire is realistic at all. From where I stand I don’t understand why would Russia ever want a ceasefire? I’m going by what Lavrov communicated, only a permanent solution is what Russia wants.
So my question is: is there any truth that Russia is signalling readiness to a ceasefire?
I personally believe that Russia might resume interest in a ceasefire once it obtains full control over Donbass and expels Ukraine from Kursk.
In that scenario, just like Ukraine could agree to one without rescind its territorial claims, so too could Russia do the same with regards to the rest of Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions.
This doesn't mean that it'll definitely agree to a ceasefire along the LOC in such a scenario, but just that I'd expect it to warm back up to that possibility, even if it doesn't work out.
Beg to differ. There is a Russian (or maybe some other nationality) saying, "don't interfere/interrupt when you're opponent/adversary is making a mistake. Russia has clear objectives to it's campaign, all it's opponents are tripping over themselves in an attempt to adapt. They are in perpetual reconfiguration mode. This is where they make mistakes because of a lack of clear goals and objectives. Russia patiently waits whilst plugging at accomplishing her goals.
I honestly don't even understand why people make knee jerk reactions to every statement the cocaine fuhrer and his accomplices make. As it's apparently clear to everyone, they are looking for ways to save face. The reality is Black Rock is not going to salvage much of the most fertile black soil as well as mineral rich land. This is the quagmire that faces the West. This is what Putin is working to ensure. Victory will be achieved on the frontline, not on PR tours. The outcome of this conflict is being shaped by blood, guts and glory. AFU is about to collapse, why/how in the world would they effect a political outcome. This perplexes me.
The timing for a sincere attempt to reach a cease-fire is possible only after the US election, and only if Trump wins. And the cease-fire may not even come out as the result. May the Russian forces reach Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro before then.
No ceasefire will be possible of Trump wins. Call him "Putin puppet" and he will fold.
From the beginning of the war, Russia has been seeking a way out.
The West, by contrast, is itching for a fight.
The point is not to provide a plausible scenario.
The point is provide a rationale for no alternative to doubling down.
So... just a potential CIA/MI6 Maidan in reverse!