While there might indeed be some Russian hardliners who think that peace talks should just be a ruse for buying time to make more military gains, such attitudes don’t reflect the Kremlin’s, yet WaPo tried to misportray that mysterious think tank’s report as something worth taking seriously.
In Chinese war history since the time before China was ever unified to the end of the Civil War 1945-1949, there were various examples where the winning sides decided to take a breather or the defenders were slow in setting up defense works to cause decisive battle outcomes and forced the settlement of political confrontations. I can see the West has promised many things and how Russian people are tired of war, but a Minsk III in form will be a bad deal unless it is significantly different from Minsk II AND enforced. Negotiating and signing agreements are relatively easy compared to enforcement.
How convenient! Just as every US and EU politician slithers out of their holes to say in unison “the ball is now in Russia’s court,” this mysterious document appears suggesting that Russia is using negotiations to drive a wedge between the US, EU, and China.
Obviously Russia will put its interests first and this can sometimes involve trade-offs for other powers, but this seems tailor-made for the West to blame Russia for peace talks stalling.
What’s the next move? Brandishing “sanctions enforcement” as a way to incentivize India or China to pressure Russia into making concessions?
I still can't grasp why Trump just doesn't walk away from it all. It's Biden's war and it should be communicated as such. Making this his own war, by threatening more sanctions on Russia and potentially delivering more weapons to Ukraine, must be the dumbest thing a US president can do.
I agree with 99% of what you've said but I don't see this as Biden's war.
I see this as being as much Trump's war as it is the war of every U.S. President from Clinton to Trump and I'm pretty sure the Russians see it that way also. Definitely the Russian military does and I'm sure Medvedev does also.
Trump wants to rebrand himself as a President of peace but his global actions and rhetoric tell a different story.
Trump is one of the most belligerent of presidents. He congratulates his conduct towards Russia during his first presidency. He reminds us that he, not Obama, armed Ukraine with lethal javelin anti tank missles. That he tossed out Russian diplomats. That he didn't give Ukraine just blankets.
Trump may now say that both he and Putin were victims of Russia Gate but that's as far as he takes their shared experience. There's absolutely no treating Putin as a fellow victim. They aren't participants in a support group named,victims of the Deep State.
Trump is arming Ukraine, giving it intelligence that enables Ukraine to strike civilian targets in Russia. He's ignoring Russia's statements that there will be no ceasefire without an agreement on a permanent peace being in place first. He's talking about a minerals deal with Zelensky and saying that the deal will provide Zelensky with all the security guarantees it needs.
Trump had a narrow windows at the beginning of his second presidency when he could have treated this war as if it was Biden's war but his vanity wouldn't let him. Even before he was elected he just had to prove himself to be the deal maker and the big man on the blick.
He began by making pronouncements of how soon he could end the war. He even went so far as to say things like the war would end before he took office because Zelensky and Putin would fear him. He then said that he could end the war in 24 hours, 30 days, now it's 8p days.
Trump has once again taken of this war and we will all pay a price because he's just digging his hole deeper everyday. He can't back down because he can't appear weak.
It's a deep fake. Everything on there sounds like a Washington wet dream. It's beltway projection presented as some mysterious think tank analysis. If the Kremlin conducted it's international policy off the whims of some think tank, like for example say how the entire foreign policy of US/UK is determined by such groups, then Russia would have been so predictably defeated by now. I honestly don't know how you can consider such an outing serious. I thought you were good at analysis or something.
I don't like your last remarks since I have zero tolerance for personal attacks of the sort you're implying (ex: not being good at analysis). You don't live here, you don't talk to think tank folks here, and you clearly haven't observed some of the media campaigns being pushed from here advancing maximalist goals.
You can respectfully express contrarian views without personally insulting me. This is your one and only warning: if you do it again, you will no longer have the privilege -- and yes, it's indeed a privilege -- of commenting under my posts because I'll block you like I've blocked countless toxic trolls before you.
I hacked their server, these are the REAL conditions:
The Russian Federation should agree to a cease fire only after taking Odessa, all of the Black Sea coast and occupying Kiev. Also they should only sign an actual peace treaty AFTER accepting into RF all those oblasts East of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Volyn, Riven and Ternopil oblasts which vote to become part of RF after the present day Ukrainian military has been disbanded or jailed. The five remaining oblasts should be immediately made part of EU and the EU PLUS BRITAIN jointly required to pay for those 5 oblasts war damage recovery plus supplying ALL their residents DIRECTLY with UBI funds in Euros sufficient to bring all of their (new EU population) Rump Ukraine residents incomes up to the EU overall average for life, regardless of their actually working.
That may sound expensive but it would still be far cheaper than first rearming Euroland + Britain and then losing a nuclear war.
Informed Americans know that WaPo is nothing but propaganda. Here is how I interpret this piece:
- If Trump and his admin are true to their anti-neocon, anti-war rhetoric, then this piece is just more deep state garbage aimed at Americans to undermine Trump and at Russia to create confusion.
- If Trump positions are just political rhetoric then this piece is creating space for Trump to go back on promises to voters and re-escalate the war.
Personally, prior to that disingenuous and bad faith cease fire proposal, I was inclined to trust Trump. After what Rubio and Walz did in Jeddah, I am now on the fence thinking either Trump is either disingenuous or not in control.
I also think that, at this point, if Russia and Putin are sincere in wanting to end this war, which I am inclined to believe, the best approach now is to simply and factually state that Russia believes the idea that Ukraine is the impediment is just pretense. They should request that Trump clear the air by abandoning this pretense and stating thatUS and NATO policy with respect to Ukraine, NATO expansion, and anti-Russia animus was wrong.
The longer the irrational pretense is maintained, and the longer neocons go without repudiation, the more the Russians can be assured that control remains with the neocons and friendly/normal relations will simply not be possible for now. Sigh.
So a WAPO article about an unknown, uncited, potentially bogus, potentially biased reading of a unknown Russian article is enough for you to label the unreferenced article "hardline".
And then suggest that President Putin doesn't agree with it (or wouldn't if he actually read it) because he is "moderate".
Really?
Hardline? You use WAPO as an unbiased trustworthy evaluator of the Russian ideological spectrum?
Medvedev and others are more aptly considered "hard line".
Those in Russia who are in favor of doubly retaliating severely for each targeted attack on civilians and essentially destroying Ukraine, are "hardline".
Even if you believe in the WAPO "classification system" used to communicate with the Washington DC elite, why do you want to perpetuate it by using it, without questioning its accuracy, or the necessity of using an emotional label to demonize Russian views held by many?
Why not stick to discussing the facts and leave the WAPO-type subjective propaganda judgments in WAPO, or some British establishment, or Globalist warmonger rag?
You're unhinged, I have enough personal experience living here over the last nearly 12 years and networking with a bunch of think tanks, media, diplomats, etc. to be able to assess for myself what may or may not reasonable reflect the hardline position.
You have no similar experiences and therefore aren't realistically in any position to challenge my assessment that this might indeed be a real report, even if it was deliberately misreported through the omission of some content for example.
And yes, Putin himself is very "moderate": he hasn't even authorized bombing bridges across the Dnieper despite them being the logistical lifelines for resupplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces for over 1,100 days. That's not a "hardline" position, quite the opposite.
I could go on and on but you're not worth my time, I just strongly dislike being disrespected on my page by random people who question my qualifications to make the assessments I do about Russia.
Anyone can disagree, in fact, I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views, but your sarcasm and the very disrespectful way that you worded your post were unacceptable. Behave or you'll lose your privilege of posting under my articles next time.
You're clearly implying that I'm some subversive element inside of Russia, which is batshit crazy but par for the course for Alt-Media trolls. There's been a three-year-long nationwide counter-intel op, I'd have been detained or deported if it was true.
Stay in your place and stop discrediting your side and everything that you claim to stand for by pushing such outlandish innuendo about me, which also by extension discredits the Russian security services as I explained above. You're almost as kooky as "NAFO', my gosh.
Maybe I'm letting my long held feeling of betrayal by the U.S. bias my reading. I'm totally disappointed with Trump. I don't believe he's at all sincere. I do believe Putin is because he's never wavered from his position.
We in the West have been betrayed. Our leaders never gave us what they promised us. Putin has never lied to us but our own leaders have lied from day one.
I do believe Putin is too moderate though. I think he's gone to far too soon with trying to return to a normal diplomatic relationship with the U.S. The U.S. isn't capable of such a thing because the U.S. isn't normal. Putin must avoid the allure of peace. I abhor this war and I abhor my Western leaders who brought it on. Unfortunately Trump is the embodiment of U.S. foreign policy. And he shouldn't be involved in negotiating an end to a war that he played a role in igniting.
I apologize for any slight you felt. I've agreed with you on several of your articles.
1. giving an opinion (of hardline/moderate) that you should NOT use the opinion of the "hypothetical" article (whose reference was withheld by the original publisher).
2. that I'd rather have YOUR considered opinion about that (not that article's) given the amount of time and study you have in the area.
I presume you had a bad day and/or I was not able to get my point across well enough. Communication by the written word alone leaves much to be desired. I read your work, therefore I must believe it is worthwhile.
"For instance, normalizing relations with the US, clinching strategic resource deals with it, and agreeing to the missile and arms quid pro quos could forge the trust required to discuss the other goals. " Yes. Look at who they sent - the deal guy, Witkoff. Look at who they sidelined - the military guy, Kellogg. Putin said he's amenable to a ceasefire when details are worked out. He says he is open to joint oil and gas development, and he has certainly figured out that the only possible security for massive pipelines outside his country is in joint ownership. Putin spoke directly to Witkoff because they speak the same language - the language of oil and gas and deals. It must have been a relief to Putin to have someone like that to deal with.
Incidentally, Ukraine attacked Moscow with drones while Witkoff was there. They flew drones over Euroclear when Zelensky was in Brussels and now the senior executives have security details. Euroclear has steadfastly taken the position that the frozen funds cannot be touched.
What happened in the Moscow meeting was the opening to a series of meetings and -I believe, and firmly so - negotiations that will carve up the oil and gas infrastructure and distribution scheme for that region, with the lion's share for the US and Russia. Now that it is these two parties, on the heels of a military confrontation, their relative positions in the global world order and vis a vis one another make it ripe for them to take advantage of everyone else. There is a lot of opportunity for both, and the results depend on how well they understand the business and can forecast future supply and demand. This is how mafia bosses in a territory dispute that has gotten out of hand resolve the dispute - they carve it up. It works when there's enough to go around. Even if there isn't, they will tell us that there is. ☮
The author takes it for granted that Russia is the one that will bargain in bad faith but the historical record proves just the opposite to be true.
It is the West that bargains in bad faith. And in particular it is the U.S., the so called leader of the Free World, that has an unbroken record of bargaining in bad faith. Just as the U.S. is doing now.
This whole so called Ukrainian backed peace proposal is insincere case in point.
Presenting Russia with a so called Peace Proposal and then resuming the delivery of weapons to Ukraine plus the supply of intelligence. And saying that now the world will see who is really interested in peace is manipulative and dishonest.
Saying that NATO wouldn't advance one inch to the East and then doing exactly that while falsely claiming no such promise was given is lying to yourself and citizens.
The U.S. and the West both promised their citizens a peace dividend when the Kremlin ended the Cold War but never delivered.
U.S. violation of the One China policy is another case of bargaining in bad faith
The U.S. has stationed its troops and military storehouse within striking distance of Taiwan. And has created the Taiwan Relations Act as legislative fig leaf to excuse its encirclemenf of China.
Diplomacy isn't a stalling technique. It the process that governs the conducting of relations between sovereign countries.
My question for the author is, why is it that all the sudden the U.S. is in such a hurry to end this war? I remember whe the U.S. and the E.U. favorite refrain was that they would be with Ukraine "for as long as it takes.:" They weren't in a hurry. They had no set date for ending the war. Their collective goals were to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, weaken it or get regime change.
Now Trump gets in office and he was setting a goal of hours, then days now he has set 90 days. And this man, who as president 45 engaged in numerous anti Russian acts. He now has the nerve to rebrand himself as a president of peace while at the same time arming Ukraine, intimidating China, giving Israel bombs to kill Palestinians, say he wants to un'unite Russia and China, threatens to take Greenland by force if necessary etc.
You totally twisted what I wrote: I've consistently argued that Russia negotiates in good faith, it's just the alleged think tank document which strongly implies the opposite.
I'm not even reading the rest of what you wrote since it's likely tarnished by this factually false claim about my views. I regret even looking at your comment.
I literally made a video the day before this analysis arguing that Russia is sincere about peace talks, it takes some chutzpah to flat-out lie about my views like you did:
You Alt-Media trolls discredit the entire community and are why credentialed and experienced experts of my caliber rarely venture into their comments section.
This whole negotiation process connects to reality very poorly. This reflects clearly on Ukraine’s military situation which is also an artificial construction. On the one hand we have a war with hard facts that are easily observable. We also hear this constant flow of psychobabble about the desires of the international media and their handlers. The whole of this contradiction is reflected in the WaPo article that evaluates the presentation of Russian interests as some sort of extreme act. If the U.S. population swallows this propaganda that tells me that they were overdosed with vaccines in the last four decades.
Andrew, many times I was telling that Russian are naive, immature and have no strategic knowledge what is happening in the World. The US always was lying to Russia, they incorporated Finland and Sweden. This negotiation shows total ignorance of Russian Government and I see as the beginning the end of Russia. This document could be OK if Russia was loosing and in fact President Putin will be remembered as second Gorbachev. Instead moving towards Diepr River, bomb all bridges on Bug, Dniestr and Dniepr Rivers plus destruction of ukrabandera duma, Russia allowed to be urinated on themselves by the us, uk, iSSrahell, france and sweden. Obviously urine is considered as a rain in Russia, so be it.
Points #4 and #9 were about trading Iran for Western Novorossiya (Odessa etc)? Besides that - even if Russia would withdraw support for Iran, China will rush in 150%. So the US might argue it's exchanging something tangible for something intangible?
In Chinese war history since the time before China was ever unified to the end of the Civil War 1945-1949, there were various examples where the winning sides decided to take a breather or the defenders were slow in setting up defense works to cause decisive battle outcomes and forced the settlement of political confrontations. I can see the West has promised many things and how Russian people are tired of war, but a Minsk III in form will be a bad deal unless it is significantly different from Minsk II AND enforced. Negotiating and signing agreements are relatively easy compared to enforcement.
Doing a Minsk 3 isn't going to happen because they never intend to enforce any agreement.
Russia must take all of Ukraine then join with Poland, Hungary, Romania in deciding the fate of Western Ukraine.
Ukraine cannot remain as a country.
How convenient! Just as every US and EU politician slithers out of their holes to say in unison “the ball is now in Russia’s court,” this mysterious document appears suggesting that Russia is using negotiations to drive a wedge between the US, EU, and China.
Obviously Russia will put its interests first and this can sometimes involve trade-offs for other powers, but this seems tailor-made for the West to blame Russia for peace talks stalling.
What’s the next move? Brandishing “sanctions enforcement” as a way to incentivize India or China to pressure Russia into making concessions?
I still can't grasp why Trump just doesn't walk away from it all. It's Biden's war and it should be communicated as such. Making this his own war, by threatening more sanctions on Russia and potentially delivering more weapons to Ukraine, must be the dumbest thing a US president can do.
I agree with 99% of what you've said but I don't see this as Biden's war.
I see this as being as much Trump's war as it is the war of every U.S. President from Clinton to Trump and I'm pretty sure the Russians see it that way also. Definitely the Russian military does and I'm sure Medvedev does also.
Trump wants to rebrand himself as a President of peace but his global actions and rhetoric tell a different story.
Trump is one of the most belligerent of presidents. He congratulates his conduct towards Russia during his first presidency. He reminds us that he, not Obama, armed Ukraine with lethal javelin anti tank missles. That he tossed out Russian diplomats. That he didn't give Ukraine just blankets.
Trump may now say that both he and Putin were victims of Russia Gate but that's as far as he takes their shared experience. There's absolutely no treating Putin as a fellow victim. They aren't participants in a support group named,victims of the Deep State.
Trump is arming Ukraine, giving it intelligence that enables Ukraine to strike civilian targets in Russia. He's ignoring Russia's statements that there will be no ceasefire without an agreement on a permanent peace being in place first. He's talking about a minerals deal with Zelensky and saying that the deal will provide Zelensky with all the security guarantees it needs.
Trump had a narrow windows at the beginning of his second presidency when he could have treated this war as if it was Biden's war but his vanity wouldn't let him. Even before he was elected he just had to prove himself to be the deal maker and the big man on the blick.
He began by making pronouncements of how soon he could end the war. He even went so far as to say things like the war would end before he took office because Zelensky and Putin would fear him. He then said that he could end the war in 24 hours, 30 days, now it's 8p days.
Trump has once again taken of this war and we will all pay a price because he's just digging his hole deeper everyday. He can't back down because he can't appear weak.
The president of peace isn't at all peaceful.
It's a deep fake. Everything on there sounds like a Washington wet dream. It's beltway projection presented as some mysterious think tank analysis. If the Kremlin conducted it's international policy off the whims of some think tank, like for example say how the entire foreign policy of US/UK is determined by such groups, then Russia would have been so predictably defeated by now. I honestly don't know how you can consider such an outing serious. I thought you were good at analysis or something.
I don't like your last remarks since I have zero tolerance for personal attacks of the sort you're implying (ex: not being good at analysis). You don't live here, you don't talk to think tank folks here, and you clearly haven't observed some of the media campaigns being pushed from here advancing maximalist goals.
You can respectfully express contrarian views without personally insulting me. This is your one and only warning: if you do it again, you will no longer have the privilege -- and yes, it's indeed a privilege -- of commenting under my posts because I'll block you like I've blocked countless toxic trolls before you.
I hacked their server, these are the REAL conditions:
The Russian Federation should agree to a cease fire only after taking Odessa, all of the Black Sea coast and occupying Kiev. Also they should only sign an actual peace treaty AFTER accepting into RF all those oblasts East of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Volyn, Riven and Ternopil oblasts which vote to become part of RF after the present day Ukrainian military has been disbanded or jailed. The five remaining oblasts should be immediately made part of EU and the EU PLUS BRITAIN jointly required to pay for those 5 oblasts war damage recovery plus supplying ALL their residents DIRECTLY with UBI funds in Euros sufficient to bring all of their (new EU population) Rump Ukraine residents incomes up to the EU overall average for life, regardless of their actually working.
That may sound expensive but it would still be far cheaper than first rearming Euroland + Britain and then losing a nuclear war.
Informed Americans know that WaPo is nothing but propaganda. Here is how I interpret this piece:
- If Trump and his admin are true to their anti-neocon, anti-war rhetoric, then this piece is just more deep state garbage aimed at Americans to undermine Trump and at Russia to create confusion.
- If Trump positions are just political rhetoric then this piece is creating space for Trump to go back on promises to voters and re-escalate the war.
Personally, prior to that disingenuous and bad faith cease fire proposal, I was inclined to trust Trump. After what Rubio and Walz did in Jeddah, I am now on the fence thinking either Trump is either disingenuous or not in control.
I also think that, at this point, if Russia and Putin are sincere in wanting to end this war, which I am inclined to believe, the best approach now is to simply and factually state that Russia believes the idea that Ukraine is the impediment is just pretense. They should request that Trump clear the air by abandoning this pretense and stating thatUS and NATO policy with respect to Ukraine, NATO expansion, and anti-Russia animus was wrong.
The longer the irrational pretense is maintained, and the longer neocons go without repudiation, the more the Russians can be assured that control remains with the neocons and friendly/normal relations will simply not be possible for now. Sigh.
So a WAPO article about an unknown, uncited, potentially bogus, potentially biased reading of a unknown Russian article is enough for you to label the unreferenced article "hardline".
And then suggest that President Putin doesn't agree with it (or wouldn't if he actually read it) because he is "moderate".
Really?
Hardline? You use WAPO as an unbiased trustworthy evaluator of the Russian ideological spectrum?
Medvedev and others are more aptly considered "hard line".
Those in Russia who are in favor of doubly retaliating severely for each targeted attack on civilians and essentially destroying Ukraine, are "hardline".
Even if you believe in the WAPO "classification system" used to communicate with the Washington DC elite, why do you want to perpetuate it by using it, without questioning its accuracy, or the necessity of using an emotional label to demonize Russian views held by many?
Why not stick to discussing the facts and leave the WAPO-type subjective propaganda judgments in WAPO, or some British establishment, or Globalist warmonger rag?
You're unhinged, I have enough personal experience living here over the last nearly 12 years and networking with a bunch of think tanks, media, diplomats, etc. to be able to assess for myself what may or may not reasonable reflect the hardline position.
You have no similar experiences and therefore aren't realistically in any position to challenge my assessment that this might indeed be a real report, even if it was deliberately misreported through the omission of some content for example.
And yes, Putin himself is very "moderate": he hasn't even authorized bombing bridges across the Dnieper despite them being the logistical lifelines for resupplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces for over 1,100 days. That's not a "hardline" position, quite the opposite.
I could go on and on but you're not worth my time, I just strongly dislike being disrespected on my page by random people who question my qualifications to make the assessments I do about Russia.
Anyone can disagree, in fact, I encourage respectfully expressed contrarian views, but your sarcasm and the very disrespectful way that you worded your post were unacceptable. Behave or you'll lose your privilege of posting under my articles next time.
You're clearly implying that I'm some subversive element inside of Russia, which is batshit crazy but par for the course for Alt-Media trolls. There's been a three-year-long nationwide counter-intel op, I'd have been detained or deported if it was true.
Stay in your place and stop discrediting your side and everything that you claim to stand for by pushing such outlandish innuendo about me, which also by extension discredits the Russian security services as I explained above. You're almost as kooky as "NAFO', my gosh.
Maybe I'm letting my long held feeling of betrayal by the U.S. bias my reading. I'm totally disappointed with Trump. I don't believe he's at all sincere. I do believe Putin is because he's never wavered from his position.
We in the West have been betrayed. Our leaders never gave us what they promised us. Putin has never lied to us but our own leaders have lied from day one.
I do believe Putin is too moderate though. I think he's gone to far too soon with trying to return to a normal diplomatic relationship with the U.S. The U.S. isn't capable of such a thing because the U.S. isn't normal. Putin must avoid the allure of peace. I abhor this war and I abhor my Western leaders who brought it on. Unfortunately Trump is the embodiment of U.S. foreign policy. And he shouldn't be involved in negotiating an end to a war that he played a role in igniting.
I apologize for any slight you felt. I've agreed with you on several of your articles.
Alright, it's fine, thanks for clarifying. Wishing you a nice weekend.
Thank you, for understanding. I hope you are enjoying your weekend also.
I am not accusing you of the things you imagine.
I tend to be literal.
I will try again, very simply & briefly:
I was
1. giving an opinion (of hardline/moderate) that you should NOT use the opinion of the "hypothetical" article (whose reference was withheld by the original publisher).
2. that I'd rather have YOUR considered opinion about that (not that article's) given the amount of time and study you have in the area.
I presume you had a bad day and/or I was not able to get my point across well enough. Communication by the written word alone leaves much to be desired. I read your work, therefore I must believe it is worthwhile.
Slava Russia, the modern Noah's arc! Orthodoxy is prevailing!
This is an excellent article, thank you!
"For instance, normalizing relations with the US, clinching strategic resource deals with it, and agreeing to the missile and arms quid pro quos could forge the trust required to discuss the other goals. " Yes. Look at who they sent - the deal guy, Witkoff. Look at who they sidelined - the military guy, Kellogg. Putin said he's amenable to a ceasefire when details are worked out. He says he is open to joint oil and gas development, and he has certainly figured out that the only possible security for massive pipelines outside his country is in joint ownership. Putin spoke directly to Witkoff because they speak the same language - the language of oil and gas and deals. It must have been a relief to Putin to have someone like that to deal with.
Incidentally, Ukraine attacked Moscow with drones while Witkoff was there. They flew drones over Euroclear when Zelensky was in Brussels and now the senior executives have security details. Euroclear has steadfastly taken the position that the frozen funds cannot be touched.
What happened in the Moscow meeting was the opening to a series of meetings and -I believe, and firmly so - negotiations that will carve up the oil and gas infrastructure and distribution scheme for that region, with the lion's share for the US and Russia. Now that it is these two parties, on the heels of a military confrontation, their relative positions in the global world order and vis a vis one another make it ripe for them to take advantage of everyone else. There is a lot of opportunity for both, and the results depend on how well they understand the business and can forecast future supply and demand. This is how mafia bosses in a territory dispute that has gotten out of hand resolve the dispute - they carve it up. It works when there's enough to go around. Even if there isn't, they will tell us that there is. ☮
The author takes it for granted that Russia is the one that will bargain in bad faith but the historical record proves just the opposite to be true.
It is the West that bargains in bad faith. And in particular it is the U.S., the so called leader of the Free World, that has an unbroken record of bargaining in bad faith. Just as the U.S. is doing now.
This whole so called Ukrainian backed peace proposal is insincere case in point.
Presenting Russia with a so called Peace Proposal and then resuming the delivery of weapons to Ukraine plus the supply of intelligence. And saying that now the world will see who is really interested in peace is manipulative and dishonest.
Saying that NATO wouldn't advance one inch to the East and then doing exactly that while falsely claiming no such promise was given is lying to yourself and citizens.
The U.S. and the West both promised their citizens a peace dividend when the Kremlin ended the Cold War but never delivered.
U.S. violation of the One China policy is another case of bargaining in bad faith
The U.S. has stationed its troops and military storehouse within striking distance of Taiwan. And has created the Taiwan Relations Act as legislative fig leaf to excuse its encirclemenf of China.
Diplomacy isn't a stalling technique. It the process that governs the conducting of relations between sovereign countries.
My question for the author is, why is it that all the sudden the U.S. is in such a hurry to end this war? I remember whe the U.S. and the E.U. favorite refrain was that they would be with Ukraine "for as long as it takes.:" They weren't in a hurry. They had no set date for ending the war. Their collective goals were to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, weaken it or get regime change.
Now Trump gets in office and he was setting a goal of hours, then days now he has set 90 days. And this man, who as president 45 engaged in numerous anti Russian acts. He now has the nerve to rebrand himself as a president of peace while at the same time arming Ukraine, intimidating China, giving Israel bombs to kill Palestinians, say he wants to un'unite Russia and China, threatens to take Greenland by force if necessary etc.
You totally twisted what I wrote: I've consistently argued that Russia negotiates in good faith, it's just the alleged think tank document which strongly implies the opposite.
I'm not even reading the rest of what you wrote since it's likely tarnished by this factually false claim about my views. I regret even looking at your comment.
I literally made a video the day before this analysis arguing that Russia is sincere about peace talks, it takes some chutzpah to flat-out lie about my views like you did:
https://x.com/AKorybko/status/1899854700989551067
You Alt-Media trolls discredit the entire community and are why credentialed and experienced experts of my caliber rarely venture into their comments section.
The question is, how deep and long the purported changes in the US strategic vision that Trump is bringing are going to be? The way Trump and the company of libtards, a real Wrecking Crew (https://www.amazon.ca/Wrecking-Crew-Conservatives-Government-Themselves/dp/0805090908) are going after the structures created to support society and the population at large (no I am not talking about the USAID) but this: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/02/weve-been-here-before-a-review-of-thomas-franks-the-wrecking-crew.html will likely created a lot of resentment in the US public, including MAGA Americans...
The US will become more and more not agreement capable...
This whole negotiation process connects to reality very poorly. This reflects clearly on Ukraine’s military situation which is also an artificial construction. On the one hand we have a war with hard facts that are easily observable. We also hear this constant flow of psychobabble about the desires of the international media and their handlers. The whole of this contradiction is reflected in the WaPo article that evaluates the presentation of Russian interests as some sort of extreme act. If the U.S. population swallows this propaganda that tells me that they were overdosed with vaccines in the last four decades.
It looks like Trump's negotiator wrote it.
Andrew, many times I was telling that Russian are naive, immature and have no strategic knowledge what is happening in the World. The US always was lying to Russia, they incorporated Finland and Sweden. This negotiation shows total ignorance of Russian Government and I see as the beginning the end of Russia. This document could be OK if Russia was loosing and in fact President Putin will be remembered as second Gorbachev. Instead moving towards Diepr River, bomb all bridges on Bug, Dniestr and Dniepr Rivers plus destruction of ukrabandera duma, Russia allowed to be urinated on themselves by the us, uk, iSSrahell, france and sweden. Obviously urine is considered as a rain in Russia, so be it.
Get yourself checked. You sound unwell Pawel.
Points #4 and #9 were about trading Iran for Western Novorossiya (Odessa etc)? Besides that - even if Russia would withdraw support for Iran, China will rush in 150%. So the US might argue it's exchanging something tangible for something intangible?