He’s infamous for sabotaging spring 2022’s peace talks so it’s likely that there are other comparatively more “moderate” hawks who’ve finally come along to feeling the same way if he of all people is now proposing territorial compromises with Russia and Ukraine protecting the rights of Russian speakers.
Dead right. But, note, as we say it we implicitly do not mean the British. We mean the British establishment. Just as when we say 'Ukraine' we do not mean Ukraine the people - 10 million of them are on the 'other side' and the 30 million on the side we are referring to are largely against the war - we mean the Kiev regime.
And when we say 'Germany' we do not mean the German people, we mean the regime.
And when we say NATO we do not mean the people of the constituent nations, we mean 'the regime' (actually USA of course).
And when we say USA we do not mean 350 American people we mean the coteries that have been running the place for decades.
Right?
My point? That we are all accustomed to discuss the world and world affairs in terms of regimes not people.
And THAT is the root of all evil.
We have people dying for regimes.
No. Regimes should die for people.
That is what elections are for, notionally, to 'kill' one government and replace it with another.
Doesn't work of course. But it is the notion.
But somehow that fact is totally ignored. Totally.
ALL our discussion is in terms of these 'tokens' that stand in place of the people.
'If you grovel successfully, and convince us you are willing to sacrifice real value for nothing of any value, then we may allow you to participate in a the inevitably futile endeavours of: a) breathing life back into an economic bloc, the time for which has now irretrievably passed (and never really should have been in the first place) — "...return to the G8..."; and b) teaching us how to soap the rope and tie the knot while putting the bag over your head to go into and through the noose — "...NATO partnership..."... What very enticing carrots!
I'd be surprised if even Putin were to go for that.
"...other comparatively more “moderate” hawks..."
Think of it like this: if you've got a vampire on the ground and are preparing to drive a stake through its heart, would you be surprised if it extended a hand of 'friendship', saying, 'Wow, that was fun! Let's do it again: best two of three?'?
"The proverbial dam is now beginning to break..."
But, yes, in all seriousness, this IS a good sign.
I certainly wouldn't want to patronise him, but I DO hope Putin sees it for what it's worth and doesn't flinch or bend on ANY of the three reasons for Russia giving in to America in the first place, in February '22, by allowing them to necessitate the death of so many good men to wrestle the vampire to the ground. Let's not forget why this war was started: the Americans made it necessary to facilitate 1) the de-militarisation of the Ukraine; 2) the de-nazification of the Ukraine; 3) the reintroduction of the clause in the Ukraine's constitution (annulled by Poroshenko in 2019) defining the Ukraine as a neutral state and resuming its existence as such.
I think the two largest risks for the Ukraine War are: (1) If Trump becomes POTUS, and he cannot stand up to his own rhetoric and his generals and advisors eager for war. (2) Putin not willing to finish the job with a faint hope to have a "reconciliation" with the west.
Trump's generals will not be for spending American lives to fight the Russians, and they would oppose any proposal to do so because MAD, which is thankfully still a thing. He will force the Ukrainians into a peace treaty of some sort with Russia, and if Ukraine loses territory Trump won't care.
It's not as if he has any real estate being impacted over there, but he might like to acquire some, and war is bad for that sort of business.
I don't know what Putin will do, but I think an armistice while a binding peace treaty is negotiated is about all the concession he will make. He has little incentive to settle for less.
Perhaps it might help to recall, as I often do, how miserable Trump appeared to be during his first weeks on the job, in January 2017: he was by far the most miserable example of a US president I had ever seen; and I remember when Nixon was hung out to dry, so that's saying something! It seemed obvious to me, in January 2017, Trump had run into such obviously life-changing obstacles his presidency was doomed to be something far removed from what he had hoped it might be. The point is, this is the second time around now. Hopefully, he's learnt how to avoid and/or ameliorate how his ambitions had been destroyed or restricted the first time.
But, yes, I agree: I'm not comfortable relying on anyone, particularly an American of Trump's character, to such a great degree.
"...(2) Putin not willing to finish the job..."
Yes, I wish I didn't have to — I do SO admire Putin! — but I'm afraid I must admit, that worries me increasingly.
Nicely underscored and laid out. The fact that the execrable Boris is still brought into play to squeal their bankrupt and desperate ideas says it all.
There is a delicious element here as the Washington/ NATO / EU Warmongers inevitably back themselves against the walls of truth and reality and drown in their ignomy.
Nicely put, watching this obnoxious narcissist try to position himself as some kind of integral relevance concerning Ukraine. The arrogance of this political parasite when he has in the past disparaged & denigrated Trump, I can't stand the sight of this slobbish clown who has so much blood on his hands as Biden's puppeteers message boy..
I wouldn’t trust Boris the dufus to empty my trash bin. He has proven himself as incompetent, unintelligent, and without honor. Give him one of Biden’s ice cream cones and tell him to take a hike, in the Mojave Desert 😉🤡
The end game for Russia has to be to collapse NATO. So I would be surprised that any negotiations of the sort proposed took place. Any escalation of weapons to the Ukraine is a risk to the west, not to Russia. One thing is clear about Boris. He's definitely no Churchill, except in ego.
I don't realistically foresee NATO collapsing as a result of this conflict. They've proven that they have the resilience to unite closer than ever in pursuit of waging this proxy war.
That doesn't mean that they'll win, which is unlikely since the military-strategic dynamics favor Russia, but just that talk about NATO's demise is way too premature in my view.
Excuse my unsophistication but isn't NATO simply an agreement? A contractual relationship? If it is then it's not necessary for it to disappear is it? Its terms and conditions and methods etc call all be modified surely? It could have/should have included Russia. It could potentially do so in the future. That way everyone wins don't they?
('Ukraine' meaning what it should: the 40 million people of pre '22 Ukraine, wins the minute the war stops).
Without Russia it could include in its manifesto that Russia will be protected from threat by them. Right? Or wrong?
Such a change in charter would be a 'defeated' or dead NATO while it is still there.
What it is all about really is the USA isn't it?
Get the USA out of NATO and you've just about got the same thing: a 'dead' NATO.
Wouldn't it be nice if the 350 million Americans were to wake up from their trance and delusional state and suddenly tell their ludicrous criminal governments that they'll foment war no more?
Wouldn't that just be great?
That's what's missing you know: 350 million American people.
So slim a chance that they'll ever wake up and come on stage that I've never seen anyone call for it, moot it, predict it or include any possibility of it in any prognostications.
The funny thing about things like that, things like the Americans waking up, is that you don't realise the process is taking place while it's going on. Then, suddenly you wake up one morning and realise, 'Holy shit, is that REALLY what just happened?!'
"...talk about NATO's demise is way too premature..."
You've got to start somewhere. Dare to imagine.
What if ignorant people, who had been asleep, suddenly dreamed a dream of enlightenment and woke up? It's not impossible.
In fact, realism and cynicism being subjective concepts, like faith, one could imagine how the death of the self-imagined global-liberalists' dream of globalisation and the rise the American people's disgust, as expressed by Trump, could be a part of this.
But I take your point about foreseeing realistically.
I agree that the word "collapse" and "demise" are misplaced and give the wrong imagery of what could be NATO's outcome. They imply physical destruction.
NATO doesn't have to "collapse" to become irrelevant, all that needs to happen is that it ceases to be the glue that holds 28 nations together under a single leader.
If Russia truly believes NATO is a permanent threat to its existence, it would be looking at ways to render it irrelevant, such that there is no purpose to continue to fund it. If they are going to "win" the Ukraine war, that is what they have to achieve.
So what do you think? Can they achieve that objective?
Russian diplomat Valentin Falin remarked to Gorbachev in April 1990 “The west is playing us to the wall. They promise to respect the interests of the USSR, but in reality, step by step they are separating us from traditional Europe.” (My translation from a German account.) Putin knows how manipulative western foreign policy has been and still is. He won’t fall for Johnson’s hypocrisy.
This proposal seems pretty much like "Minsk-minus". Guarantees already provided for in the Minsk agreement, minus certain Russian goals, plus things thrown in that Russia no longer even wants. Way to bargain, guys!
Given everything I know of the Ukrainian situation I highly doubt Putin would go for any ceasefire outright unless there was some external agreement to reign in Ukraine. He will want settlements that appeal and are iron clad after the disaster of the Minsk agreements. Imo that alone sinks many prospects of peace that doesn’t include an extremely neutered rump state of Ukraine that can effectively pose no threat to Russia. He has to make the blood spilled mean something to his country. I think he could care less about the G8 and NATO at this point. BRICs is poised far more favorable to the Russian and Chinese states. Overall if there are real peace talks they will be imposed on Ukraine rather than agreed.
I'm amazed. Astounded. They still let that murderous clown walk free?
Why the astonishment - this is quintessential British perfidy, writ large. They are proud of their treachery, and their poisonous jesters..
Dead right. But, note, as we say it we implicitly do not mean the British. We mean the British establishment. Just as when we say 'Ukraine' we do not mean Ukraine the people - 10 million of them are on the 'other side' and the 30 million on the side we are referring to are largely against the war - we mean the Kiev regime.
And when we say 'Germany' we do not mean the German people, we mean the regime.
And when we say NATO we do not mean the people of the constituent nations, we mean 'the regime' (actually USA of course).
And when we say USA we do not mean 350 American people we mean the coteries that have been running the place for decades.
Right?
My point? That we are all accustomed to discuss the world and world affairs in terms of regimes not people.
And THAT is the root of all evil.
We have people dying for regimes.
No. Regimes should die for people.
That is what elections are for, notionally, to 'kill' one government and replace it with another.
Doesn't work of course. But it is the notion.
But somehow that fact is totally ignored. Totally.
ALL our discussion is in terms of these 'tokens' that stand in place of the people.
"...well-intentioned but misguided carrots..."
'If you grovel successfully, and convince us you are willing to sacrifice real value for nothing of any value, then we may allow you to participate in a the inevitably futile endeavours of: a) breathing life back into an economic bloc, the time for which has now irretrievably passed (and never really should have been in the first place) — "...return to the G8..."; and b) teaching us how to soap the rope and tie the knot while putting the bag over your head to go into and through the noose — "...NATO partnership..."... What very enticing carrots!
I'd be surprised if even Putin were to go for that.
"...other comparatively more “moderate” hawks..."
Think of it like this: if you've got a vampire on the ground and are preparing to drive a stake through its heart, would you be surprised if it extended a hand of 'friendship', saying, 'Wow, that was fun! Let's do it again: best two of three?'?
"The proverbial dam is now beginning to break..."
But, yes, in all seriousness, this IS a good sign.
I certainly wouldn't want to patronise him, but I DO hope Putin sees it for what it's worth and doesn't flinch or bend on ANY of the three reasons for Russia giving in to America in the first place, in February '22, by allowing them to necessitate the death of so many good men to wrestle the vampire to the ground. Let's not forget why this war was started: the Americans made it necessary to facilitate 1) the de-militarisation of the Ukraine; 2) the de-nazification of the Ukraine; 3) the reintroduction of the clause in the Ukraine's constitution (annulled by Poroshenko in 2019) defining the Ukraine as a neutral state and resuming its existence as such.
Post Script:
Ooops, my bad: NOT 2019, but December 23, 2014 — https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html. A Christmas gift for John Wayne/James Bond/Moron McCain-type admirers?
Sorry!
I think the two largest risks for the Ukraine War are: (1) If Trump becomes POTUS, and he cannot stand up to his own rhetoric and his generals and advisors eager for war. (2) Putin not willing to finish the job with a faint hope to have a "reconciliation" with the west.
Trump's generals will not be for spending American lives to fight the Russians, and they would oppose any proposal to do so because MAD, which is thankfully still a thing. He will force the Ukrainians into a peace treaty of some sort with Russia, and if Ukraine loses territory Trump won't care.
It's not as if he has any real estate being impacted over there, but he might like to acquire some, and war is bad for that sort of business.
I don't know what Putin will do, but I think an armistice while a binding peace treaty is negotiated is about all the concession he will make. He has little incentive to settle for less.
"...(1) If Trump becomes POTUS..."
Yes, I agree, and it worries me too.
Perhaps it might help to recall, as I often do, how miserable Trump appeared to be during his first weeks on the job, in January 2017: he was by far the most miserable example of a US president I had ever seen; and I remember when Nixon was hung out to dry, so that's saying something! It seemed obvious to me, in January 2017, Trump had run into such obviously life-changing obstacles his presidency was doomed to be something far removed from what he had hoped it might be. The point is, this is the second time around now. Hopefully, he's learnt how to avoid and/or ameliorate how his ambitions had been destroyed or restricted the first time.
But, yes, I agree: I'm not comfortable relying on anyone, particularly an American of Trump's character, to such a great degree.
"...(2) Putin not willing to finish the job..."
Yes, I wish I didn't have to — I do SO admire Putin! — but I'm afraid I must admit, that worries me increasingly.
Nicely underscored and laid out. The fact that the execrable Boris is still brought into play to squeal their bankrupt and desperate ideas says it all.
There is a delicious element here as the Washington/ NATO / EU Warmongers inevitably back themselves against the walls of truth and reality and drown in their ignomy.
Nicely put, watching this obnoxious narcissist try to position himself as some kind of integral relevance concerning Ukraine. The arrogance of this political parasite when he has in the past disparaged & denigrated Trump, I can't stand the sight of this slobbish clown who has so much blood on his hands as Biden's puppeteers message boy..
I wouldn’t trust Boris the dufus to empty my trash bin. He has proven himself as incompetent, unintelligent, and without honor. Give him one of Biden’s ice cream cones and tell him to take a hike, in the Mojave Desert 😉🤡
The end game for Russia has to be to collapse NATO. So I would be surprised that any negotiations of the sort proposed took place. Any escalation of weapons to the Ukraine is a risk to the west, not to Russia. One thing is clear about Boris. He's definitely no Churchill, except in ego.
I don't realistically foresee NATO collapsing as a result of this conflict. They've proven that they have the resilience to unite closer than ever in pursuit of waging this proxy war.
That doesn't mean that they'll win, which is unlikely since the military-strategic dynamics favor Russia, but just that talk about NATO's demise is way too premature in my view.
Excuse my unsophistication but isn't NATO simply an agreement? A contractual relationship? If it is then it's not necessary for it to disappear is it? Its terms and conditions and methods etc call all be modified surely? It could have/should have included Russia. It could potentially do so in the future. That way everyone wins don't they?
('Ukraine' meaning what it should: the 40 million people of pre '22 Ukraine, wins the minute the war stops).
Without Russia it could include in its manifesto that Russia will be protected from threat by them. Right? Or wrong?
Such a change in charter would be a 'defeated' or dead NATO while it is still there.
What it is all about really is the USA isn't it?
Get the USA out of NATO and you've just about got the same thing: a 'dead' NATO.
Wouldn't it be nice if the 350 million Americans were to wake up from their trance and delusional state and suddenly tell their ludicrous criminal governments that they'll foment war no more?
Wouldn't that just be great?
That's what's missing you know: 350 million American people.
So slim a chance that they'll ever wake up and come on stage that I've never seen anyone call for it, moot it, predict it or include any possibility of it in any prognostications.
The funny thing about things like that, things like the Americans waking up, is that you don't realise the process is taking place while it's going on. Then, suddenly you wake up one morning and realise, 'Holy shit, is that REALLY what just happened?!'
And it is!
I hope that is the case right now.
Have I mentioned how I think it could well be done?
This way:
https://abrogard.com/blog/2023/12/25/dont-write-to-congress/
and demonstrations of validity of the method: open source voting apps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_voting_system
If I saw some signs of something like that I'd be optimistic. :)
Well, 'right now' might be a bit premature.
'right now' they're waking up is premature? sad news. :( but not unexpected.
The specter called NATO is haunting EU now. Or perhaps, the specter called NATO has attached itself to EU.
Attached at the hip, I'm afraid, for many decades now — since birth.
"...talk about NATO's demise is way too premature..."
You've got to start somewhere. Dare to imagine.
What if ignorant people, who had been asleep, suddenly dreamed a dream of enlightenment and woke up? It's not impossible.
In fact, realism and cynicism being subjective concepts, like faith, one could imagine how the death of the self-imagined global-liberalists' dream of globalisation and the rise the American people's disgust, as expressed by Trump, could be a part of this.
But I take your point about foreseeing realistically.
Still...
I agree that the word "collapse" and "demise" are misplaced and give the wrong imagery of what could be NATO's outcome. They imply physical destruction.
NATO doesn't have to "collapse" to become irrelevant, all that needs to happen is that it ceases to be the glue that holds 28 nations together under a single leader.
If Russia truly believes NATO is a permanent threat to its existence, it would be looking at ways to render it irrelevant, such that there is no purpose to continue to fund it. If they are going to "win" the Ukraine war, that is what they have to achieve.
So what do you think? Can they achieve that objective?
Russian diplomat Valentin Falin remarked to Gorbachev in April 1990 “The west is playing us to the wall. They promise to respect the interests of the USSR, but in reality, step by step they are separating us from traditional Europe.” (My translation from a German account.) Putin knows how manipulative western foreign policy has been and still is. He won’t fall for Johnson’s hypocrisy.
This proposal seems pretty much like "Minsk-minus". Guarantees already provided for in the Minsk agreement, minus certain Russian goals, plus things thrown in that Russia no longer even wants. Way to bargain, guys!
Given everything I know of the Ukrainian situation I highly doubt Putin would go for any ceasefire outright unless there was some external agreement to reign in Ukraine. He will want settlements that appeal and are iron clad after the disaster of the Minsk agreements. Imo that alone sinks many prospects of peace that doesn’t include an extremely neutered rump state of Ukraine that can effectively pose no threat to Russia. He has to make the blood spilled mean something to his country. I think he could care less about the G8 and NATO at this point. BRICs is poised far more favorable to the Russian and Chinese states. Overall if there are real peace talks they will be imposed on Ukraine rather than agreed.
we do notice and never mind the thousands killed over the last two years