He deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic.
This is important because it shows that there is a growing awareness in US Empire foreign policy circles that Ukraine will never win this war; the best it can hope for is to survive it. The timing cannot be coincidental, either, coming so soon after the American electorate's categorical rejection of that same foreign policy.
There are never any coincidences with those people.
At least compromise and a negotiated settlement are now seen as possible and maybe even necessary by that pack of imperialist warmongers in the CFR, so I'll take the positive and continue to never trust them.
"...chief deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to..."
You want to give this guy credit for not really understanding something it was his job to understand a long time ago? That's how losers are made.
"...the raft of bilateral security guarantees..."
That's a tricky part. If this guy can suggest how to sort that silly mess out, THEN maybe he should get some credit. (It's not really 'tricky'; it's just that the losers have made such a show of pretending to be able to make it that way. There will be need to be some show for them to save face.)
"...Article 5 is misinterpreted..."
See: there are all sorts of ways to help them climb down, supposedly unnoticed.
"...it hasn’t ramped up its surgical strikes against military targets or its battlefield operations in response..."
Еще не вечер.
"...thus implying that it tacitly accepts this 'new normal'."
Wouldn't it be foolish to either: a) accept or b) reject something (anything) before doing so could be used in negotiations? That would be something like forfeiting bargaining chips for no reason, wouldn't it?
"...the West also tacitly accepts that its sanctions failed to inflict the strategic defeat on Russia that they expected..."
You're comparing chalk and cheese here: the West's sanctions simply have failed; it's of no importance whether they accept that tacitly or otherwise. It is fact. The fact that NATO has cobbled together something on the clever-clever sneaky quiet, which it can consider an equivalent to Article 5 for the Ukraine, and use that to save face for losing is NOT of such significance — chalk and cheese, night and day, apples and oranges, etc. — of no relevance.
"Haass is either unaware of this, forgot, or has something else in mind,..."
That's what losers do. That's why they lose.
"...impressively better than anything that his peers have thus far put forth."
Yes, quite: impressively ill-considered, uninformed, incomplete and unworkable. One kindergartener pooing on the floor next to the pot is not that much impressively better than his peers, who make no attempts whatsoever. But I take your point, to be fair: he is at least trying.
"Considering his influence in policy formulation..."
Yes, it's alarming. But that's why the electorate was willing to risk electing Trump: because this needs to change, and they see any change as better than none.
Andrew, since you live in Russia, what is your sense of how sanctions have actually harmed Russia vs. simply inconvenienced them? I follow Eli From Russia, who I think gives a good account of what the average citizen has to cope with, and my own analysis from a resource and engineering perspective tells me there isn't much they actually need to import that can't be obtained from an ally or through various back channels. Would you call that a reasonable account of the situation or is there something I'm missing that is actually putting a strain on their economy, besides of course the war effort?
Mr. Haass essentially wanted what the neocons refused in March-April 2022 without moving a finger, only lips. While this attitude does imply a significant change on the surface, I think it signifies only a change at the tactical level and nothing at the strategic level. In other words, buy time, prepare, and try again. Russian leaders should trust the boots of their infantrymen on the actual ground.
During the long formulation of the Chinese Civil War (1928-1949), CCP had tried this trick many times. The most critical three times were the last three times managed by General Marshal. They bought enough time for USSR to transfer confiscated equipment of the Japanese army formerly stationed in Manchuria AND trained CCP force to use them, and provided PLA with its first artillery regiments, tank regiments, heavy machine guns in each rifle company, etc.
This is important because it shows that there is a growing awareness in US Empire foreign policy circles that Ukraine will never win this war; the best it can hope for is to survive it. The timing cannot be coincidental, either, coming so soon after the American electorate's categorical rejection of that same foreign policy.
There are never any coincidences with those people.
At least compromise and a negotiated settlement are now seen as possible and maybe even necessary by that pack of imperialist warmongers in the CFR, so I'll take the positive and continue to never trust them.
"...chief deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to..."
You want to give this guy credit for not really understanding something it was his job to understand a long time ago? That's how losers are made.
"...the raft of bilateral security guarantees..."
That's a tricky part. If this guy can suggest how to sort that silly mess out, THEN maybe he should get some credit. (It's not really 'tricky'; it's just that the losers have made such a show of pretending to be able to make it that way. There will be need to be some show for them to save face.)
"...Article 5 is misinterpreted..."
See: there are all sorts of ways to help them climb down, supposedly unnoticed.
"...it hasn’t ramped up its surgical strikes against military targets or its battlefield operations in response..."
Еще не вечер.
"...thus implying that it tacitly accepts this 'new normal'."
Wouldn't it be foolish to either: a) accept or b) reject something (anything) before doing so could be used in negotiations? That would be something like forfeiting bargaining chips for no reason, wouldn't it?
"...the West also tacitly accepts that its sanctions failed to inflict the strategic defeat on Russia that they expected..."
You're comparing chalk and cheese here: the West's sanctions simply have failed; it's of no importance whether they accept that tacitly or otherwise. It is fact. The fact that NATO has cobbled together something on the clever-clever sneaky quiet, which it can consider an equivalent to Article 5 for the Ukraine, and use that to save face for losing is NOT of such significance — chalk and cheese, night and day, apples and oranges, etc. — of no relevance.
"Haass is either unaware of this, forgot, or has something else in mind,..."
That's what losers do. That's why they lose.
"...impressively better than anything that his peers have thus far put forth."
Yes, quite: impressively ill-considered, uninformed, incomplete and unworkable. One kindergartener pooing on the floor next to the pot is not that much impressively better than his peers, who make no attempts whatsoever. But I take your point, to be fair: he is at least trying.
"Considering his influence in policy formulation..."
Yes, it's alarming. But that's why the electorate was willing to risk electing Trump: because this needs to change, and they see any change as better than none.
"...at least generate a debate..."
Not slow on the uptake, or anything? Duh!
There is only one solution: the chickenhawks must be removed from power and influence in the West. Everything else will sort itself out.
Andrew, since you live in Russia, what is your sense of how sanctions have actually harmed Russia vs. simply inconvenienced them? I follow Eli From Russia, who I think gives a good account of what the average citizen has to cope with, and my own analysis from a resource and engineering perspective tells me there isn't much they actually need to import that can't be obtained from an ally or through various back channels. Would you call that a reasonable account of the situation or is there something I'm missing that is actually putting a strain on their economy, besides of course the war effort?
Mr. Haass essentially wanted what the neocons refused in March-April 2022 without moving a finger, only lips. While this attitude does imply a significant change on the surface, I think it signifies only a change at the tactical level and nothing at the strategic level. In other words, buy time, prepare, and try again. Russian leaders should trust the boots of their infantrymen on the actual ground.
During the long formulation of the Chinese Civil War (1928-1949), CCP had tried this trick many times. The most critical three times were the last three times managed by General Marshal. They bought enough time for USSR to transfer confiscated equipment of the Japanese army formerly stationed in Manchuria AND trained CCP force to use them, and provided PLA with its first artillery regiments, tank regiments, heavy machine guns in each rifle company, etc.