The key to this is the US offering Russia a decent deal in Ukraine with lucrative sanctions-waived energy and tech opportunities that would incentivize Russia into informally agreeing to deprive China of decades-long access to ultra-cheap resources for fueling its superpower rise at the US’ expense.
Nothing the United States Say, Promise or Sign can be trusted.
The US "National Security Strategy": Released by the Biden-Harris Administration in October 2022 emphasizes the importance of maintaining U.S. global leadership and PREVENTING ANY Nation (Friend or Foe) from threatening its HEGEMONY❗
It’s not complicated—Putin killed his “golden goose” by invading Ukraine and now American LNG has taken Gazprom’s market share. Trump surrendered to the Taliban and so I could see him forcing Ukraine to surrender…but Big Oil is a very important component of the GOP and Speaker Johnson is their puppet and so I would bet on Trump just continuing Biden’s policies with regard to Ukraine. And keep in mind Republicans seem to want American LNG to power China so Putin wasted cash reserves that should have gone to LNG infrastructure on this asinine war with Ukraine!?!
America’s weak point was 2008 which was also Russia’s strongest point. America is stronger than we’ve been at any point since the 1990s. Obama and Trump and Biden have made America great again with a huge assist from the fracking industry.
America is a dead soul. The problem is not only in its noncompetitive economy (why would Trump demand tariffs and protectionist initiatives then). The problem is in its decadent ethos and declining demographics.
Trump’s brain is mush! He thinks it’s 2008 when America was at its weakest point after we hemorrhaged jobs to China and were exporting huge amounts of oil and involved in two asinine quagmires. Our military is second to none no! Hegseth is fighting the last war and rationalizing his support for the quagmires…he is an individual with major personality defects whining about nonsense.
>>"Russia is still reluctant to agree to the bargain-basement prices that China is reportedly demanding. Its decision makers’ thought processes can only be speculated upon given the opacity and sensitivity of these talks, but this might reasonably be due to the expectation that the US’ more muscular containment of China could coerce Beijing into agreeing to better prices with time."
Strange that there is zero attempt here to examine the Chinese perspective (in contrast to the Russian and US perspectives which are explicitly examined.) The Chinese are imputed to be nothing more than faceless, malicious energy-shylocks who want to grind the last kopeck out of Russia's grasp. But there are a few things we can say about Chinese goals:
1. China seeks diversified energy sources to minimize the strategic risks of relying on energy imports. I have seen it reported that the rerouting of PoS 2 is due to China's distrust of Mongolia and its desire to play off the great powers. China would rather have what could ultimately be an important part of its energy supply run through Kazakhstan than Mongolia. I don't know if that is the true reason for the rerouting or not. But it deserves some analysis.
2. China uses energy relationships to cement strategic ties with various producers--not just Russia. It has greatly increased its pipeline supply from Russia via PoS 1 but also imports LNG from the US, Australia, Iran and others as well as pipeline gas from Turkmenistan.
3. Chinese economic growth and, consequently, energy consumption have been constrained for the last several years.
So is China's policy really just to extort "bargain-basement prices" from Russia as is claimed here? Does China need the increased supply from PoS 2 right now and, if not, does that explain the unwillingness to pay more than "bargain-basement prices"? And Isn't India doing something quite similar in any event?
>>"The gist is that the US and Russia could agree to a series of mutual compromises culminating in the partial restoration of an energy bridge between Russia and the West for the purpose of depriving China of its envisaged decades-long access to ultra-cheap Russian resources for fueling its superpower rise."
Depriving China of Russian gas--at whatever price--is a "purpose" of the US. How does such a policy benefit Russia, especially if China sees it as Russian acquiescence to US anti-China strategy? Yes, China doesn't stop its companies from adhering to US sanctions on Russia, so this might be seen as analogous to that, but the anti-China imputations here seem to place it in a different category. And yes, there is benefit to Russia in rediversifying its energy exports. But the price proposed here is a very high one, amounting to strategic submission to the US.
Ultimately, this piece , under the guise of neutral "analysis," is proposing that Russia collude with the US against China and essentially reorient its fundamental strategic outlook, putting itself in something very close to the orbit of the US--and all under a proposal containing lots of nebulous provisions described as "tacit," informal," and "unofficial."
It would represent a strategic defeat for Russia and the ultimate success of US Ukraine policy, however you dress it up, leaving Russia to take what table scraps it can get. China is rather strangely and moralistically portrayed here as the conniving manipulator whose greed would be justly frustrated by a US-Russia grand bargain. Is Russia really in such bad shape that it must accept this climbdown? Since the article airbrushes the whole scenario as "win win" and something that all can "spin" as victory, it provides no useful analysis on that point.
Putin will, in effect and a la Orwell, be made to say, "We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia."
In theory, an operational multi-polar world means everybody wins some and loses some. So far China has been a big winner in SMO with minimal cost. Russia is the biggest winner, but that comes with a hefty price of blood. The proposed settlements are fairly unfavorable to Russia. It is better to let the battleground speak for a while and then come back to the negotiation table. As for the China-Russia gas deal, waiting longer is also better. The reason is physics: Europe and China need to import energy resources even if both Europe and China burned down half of their industrial bases. Europe and China's northwest need extra energy for heating in the winter. This would remain true even if the Europeans converted to Muslim. The buyers are there because the needs are there.
For the Russian people, there is a risk, I am not sure how big it is, that Mr. Putin gets too concerned about his life-time achievement and wants to conclude the SMO or even the hoped-for Russia-Europe-USA security agreement while he is in power. The military side of the SMO likely can be concluded when he is still in power. The security arrangement, however, will not come even after another 50 years, maybe 100 years. As many above have pointed out, the USA "deep state" and the European historical bias and hubris against Russia are difficult to suppress, let alone to reduce to the point of lasting agreements. For the sake of the Russians of the future generations, Mr. Putin, please do not sell natural gas, or any natural resources cheap in the international markets. Russian people have been quietly pursuing autarky since Peter the Great and have achieved a lot. Keep the gas and minerals under the ground and leave that as your legacy. The wars of foreign invasion may quiet down sometimes, but will not stop.
Russia has already lost this war—Ukraine will not be part of the Russian sphere of influence for the foreseeable future. This war was never about crappy territory but the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. Putin needs to declare victory and allow NATO to protect Kiev while he gets some crappy land…and then once Putin retires Russia can get back into the good graces of the West.
A great idea and fantastic if it were to come about. But, the 'Deep State' would literally have the Trumpster for breakfast, lunch & dinner (and make sausages with the left-overs). I sincerely believe that Putin desires to take Odessa and all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast (to land-lock the Ukrainian 'Rump State') and link-up with Transnistria, while also also neutralizing Moldova. Ukraine might even unmask itself and change it's name to Galicia, and let the Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Romanians fight over it's carcass.
But I don’t see Russia trust the USA with any agreements that would include things like “no new gas pipeline to China”, etc. Russia would essentially become subservient to the USA at a cost of turning on its closest ally.
Nah, I don’t think so. Especially since the war is going reasonably well for Russia, the west can’t maintain the weapons supply and Ukraine can’t supply the soldiers.
Since the US security doctrine is still maximalist and desires hegemony, US will be for the medium future terms be not agreement capable. Only when the US Navy will be obviously rusting away and falling appart, and its fighter jets will start loosing screws on the tamarac, and the subs will be loosing outside skin like there is no tomorrow, only then there is hope. Until then the attrition war will continue.
All this will continue until first Europe starts screaming Uncle. ANd it will the populations that will really start protesting and changing its political class with others that look like more interested in the welfare of their own population than in furthering US interests.
So the American expat in Russia (Korybko) is lobbying for Russia to do an implicit strategic devil’s deal with the United States, which Vladimir Putin accurately called out as the “Empire of Lies."
This is the same America that shredded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the Open Skies Treaty; Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA); and promised that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward” after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Of course Korybko would lobby for this deal.
This deal would aid in America’s hybrid war (or so-called “strategic competition”) against China; sow mistrust in China towards Russia and thus undermine the BRICS and SCO groups; as well as engender similar distrust in Iran and North Korea, which are also nations that Russia supposedly has strategic partnerships with like it does with China.
The end result? Neutralize geopolitical opposition to the American Empire’s global hegemony and its malevolent Rules-Based World Order.
Gas prices are a single component of the Russian relationship with China. The overall strategic situation has not changed, the US and UK will forever be hostile to Russia. There will be no grand deal that involves a pivot from China to the US. It will not happen.
Where is the analysis of the Ursa Major and Eagle S. incidents in all this "creative energy diplomacy"?
Is the threat of an all-out campaign against Russian shipping and especially the non-Russian shadow tanker fleet, none of which Russia is in a position to protect on the high seas, successfully forcing Russia to the bargaining table on US terms?
Nothing the United States Say, Promise or Sign can be trusted.
The US "National Security Strategy": Released by the Biden-Harris Administration in October 2022 emphasizes the importance of maintaining U.S. global leadership and PREVENTING ANY Nation (Friend or Foe) from threatening its HEGEMONY❗
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/12/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administrations-national-security-strategy/?citationMarker=43dcd9a7-70db-4a1f-b0ae-981daa162054
Frankly, what you envisage would only benefit the West.
Good job of discussing the possible permutations of a US-Russia grand deal. It is amazingly complicated.
It’s not complicated—Putin killed his “golden goose” by invading Ukraine and now American LNG has taken Gazprom’s market share. Trump surrendered to the Taliban and so I could see him forcing Ukraine to surrender…but Big Oil is a very important component of the GOP and Speaker Johnson is their puppet and so I would bet on Trump just continuing Biden’s policies with regard to Ukraine. And keep in mind Republicans seem to want American LNG to power China so Putin wasted cash reserves that should have gone to LNG infrastructure on this asinine war with Ukraine!?!
The sun is setting on the Western empire. Why make a deal with a dead man?!
America’s weak point was 2008 which was also Russia’s strongest point. America is stronger than we’ve been at any point since the 1990s. Obama and Trump and Biden have made America great again with a huge assist from the fracking industry.
America is a dead soul. The problem is not only in its noncompetitive economy (why would Trump demand tariffs and protectionist initiatives then). The problem is in its decadent ethos and declining demographics.
Trump’s brain is mush! He thinks it’s 2008 when America was at its weakest point after we hemorrhaged jobs to China and were exporting huge amounts of oil and involved in two asinine quagmires. Our military is second to none no! Hegseth is fighting the last war and rationalizing his support for the quagmires…he is an individual with major personality defects whining about nonsense.
>>"Russia is still reluctant to agree to the bargain-basement prices that China is reportedly demanding. Its decision makers’ thought processes can only be speculated upon given the opacity and sensitivity of these talks, but this might reasonably be due to the expectation that the US’ more muscular containment of China could coerce Beijing into agreeing to better prices with time."
Strange that there is zero attempt here to examine the Chinese perspective (in contrast to the Russian and US perspectives which are explicitly examined.) The Chinese are imputed to be nothing more than faceless, malicious energy-shylocks who want to grind the last kopeck out of Russia's grasp. But there are a few things we can say about Chinese goals:
1. China seeks diversified energy sources to minimize the strategic risks of relying on energy imports. I have seen it reported that the rerouting of PoS 2 is due to China's distrust of Mongolia and its desire to play off the great powers. China would rather have what could ultimately be an important part of its energy supply run through Kazakhstan than Mongolia. I don't know if that is the true reason for the rerouting or not. But it deserves some analysis.
2. China uses energy relationships to cement strategic ties with various producers--not just Russia. It has greatly increased its pipeline supply from Russia via PoS 1 but also imports LNG from the US, Australia, Iran and others as well as pipeline gas from Turkmenistan.
3. Chinese economic growth and, consequently, energy consumption have been constrained for the last several years.
So is China's policy really just to extort "bargain-basement prices" from Russia as is claimed here? Does China need the increased supply from PoS 2 right now and, if not, does that explain the unwillingness to pay more than "bargain-basement prices"? And Isn't India doing something quite similar in any event?
>>"The gist is that the US and Russia could agree to a series of mutual compromises culminating in the partial restoration of an energy bridge between Russia and the West for the purpose of depriving China of its envisaged decades-long access to ultra-cheap Russian resources for fueling its superpower rise."
Depriving China of Russian gas--at whatever price--is a "purpose" of the US. How does such a policy benefit Russia, especially if China sees it as Russian acquiescence to US anti-China strategy? Yes, China doesn't stop its companies from adhering to US sanctions on Russia, so this might be seen as analogous to that, but the anti-China imputations here seem to place it in a different category. And yes, there is benefit to Russia in rediversifying its energy exports. But the price proposed here is a very high one, amounting to strategic submission to the US.
Ultimately, this piece , under the guise of neutral "analysis," is proposing that Russia collude with the US against China and essentially reorient its fundamental strategic outlook, putting itself in something very close to the orbit of the US--and all under a proposal containing lots of nebulous provisions described as "tacit," informal," and "unofficial."
It would represent a strategic defeat for Russia and the ultimate success of US Ukraine policy, however you dress it up, leaving Russia to take what table scraps it can get. China is rather strangely and moralistically portrayed here as the conniving manipulator whose greed would be justly frustrated by a US-Russia grand bargain. Is Russia really in such bad shape that it must accept this climbdown? Since the article airbrushes the whole scenario as "win win" and something that all can "spin" as victory, it provides no useful analysis on that point.
Putin will, in effect and a la Orwell, be made to say, "We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia."
So good to see what it might look like from a different perspective for a change. Thank you — most thought provoking and by that measure enlightening.
In theory, an operational multi-polar world means everybody wins some and loses some. So far China has been a big winner in SMO with minimal cost. Russia is the biggest winner, but that comes with a hefty price of blood. The proposed settlements are fairly unfavorable to Russia. It is better to let the battleground speak for a while and then come back to the negotiation table. As for the China-Russia gas deal, waiting longer is also better. The reason is physics: Europe and China need to import energy resources even if both Europe and China burned down half of their industrial bases. Europe and China's northwest need extra energy for heating in the winter. This would remain true even if the Europeans converted to Muslim. The buyers are there because the needs are there.
For the Russian people, there is a risk, I am not sure how big it is, that Mr. Putin gets too concerned about his life-time achievement and wants to conclude the SMO or even the hoped-for Russia-Europe-USA security agreement while he is in power. The military side of the SMO likely can be concluded when he is still in power. The security arrangement, however, will not come even after another 50 years, maybe 100 years. As many above have pointed out, the USA "deep state" and the European historical bias and hubris against Russia are difficult to suppress, let alone to reduce to the point of lasting agreements. For the sake of the Russians of the future generations, Mr. Putin, please do not sell natural gas, or any natural resources cheap in the international markets. Russian people have been quietly pursuing autarky since Peter the Great and have achieved a lot. Keep the gas and minerals under the ground and leave that as your legacy. The wars of foreign invasion may quiet down sometimes, but will not stop.
I broadly agree that it seems "fairly unfavorable" to Russia and will certainly be seen to be so by Russians.
The question is, what is the genesis of this proposal?
There is nothing in the piece that sets out clearly why Russia needs to accept it now.
Russia has already lost this war—Ukraine will not be part of the Russian sphere of influence for the foreseeable future. This war was never about crappy territory but the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. Putin needs to declare victory and allow NATO to protect Kiev while he gets some crappy land…and then once Putin retires Russia can get back into the good graces of the West.
Why are you more afraid of China than the US? Who is supplying the weapons killing Russians?
Who honors their commitments and who doesn't? Whose side are you on?
Yes, that's a question that deserves an answer.
A great idea and fantastic if it were to come about. But, the 'Deep State' would literally have the Trumpster for breakfast, lunch & dinner (and make sausages with the left-overs). I sincerely believe that Putin desires to take Odessa and all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast (to land-lock the Ukrainian 'Rump State') and link-up with Transnistria, while also also neutralizing Moldova. Ukraine might even unmask itself and change it's name to Galicia, and let the Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Romanians fight over it's carcass.
On paper it makes sense.
But I don’t see Russia trust the USA with any agreements that would include things like “no new gas pipeline to China”, etc. Russia would essentially become subservient to the USA at a cost of turning on its closest ally.
Nah, I don’t think so. Especially since the war is going reasonably well for Russia, the west can’t maintain the weapons supply and Ukraine can’t supply the soldiers.
Since the US security doctrine is still maximalist and desires hegemony, US will be for the medium future terms be not agreement capable. Only when the US Navy will be obviously rusting away and falling appart, and its fighter jets will start loosing screws on the tamarac, and the subs will be loosing outside skin like there is no tomorrow, only then there is hope. Until then the attrition war will continue.
All this will continue until first Europe starts screaming Uncle. ANd it will the populations that will really start protesting and changing its political class with others that look like more interested in the welfare of their own population than in furthering US interests.
Russia's compromises because it is losing 5 billion a year?! New Year's joke?
The West can't be trusted.
So the American expat in Russia (Korybko) is lobbying for Russia to do an implicit strategic devil’s deal with the United States, which Vladimir Putin accurately called out as the “Empire of Lies."
This is the same America that shredded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the Open Skies Treaty; Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA); and promised that NATO would expand “not one inch eastward” after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Of course Korybko would lobby for this deal.
This deal would aid in America’s hybrid war (or so-called “strategic competition”) against China; sow mistrust in China towards Russia and thus undermine the BRICS and SCO groups; as well as engender similar distrust in Iran and North Korea, which are also nations that Russia supposedly has strategic partnerships with like it does with China.
The end result? Neutralize geopolitical opposition to the American Empire’s global hegemony and its malevolent Rules-Based World Order.
How do say “Good Luck with That” in Russian?
Thank you for this practical and constructive geostrategic analysis and suggestions for a path forward, Andrew. I'll include it in my next blog post.
Gas prices are a single component of the Russian relationship with China. The overall strategic situation has not changed, the US and UK will forever be hostile to Russia. There will be no grand deal that involves a pivot from China to the US. It will not happen.
Where is the analysis of the Ursa Major and Eagle S. incidents in all this "creative energy diplomacy"?
Is the threat of an all-out campaign against Russian shipping and especially the non-Russian shadow tanker fleet, none of which Russia is in a position to protect on the high seas, successfully forcing Russia to the bargaining table on US terms?