Ukraine’s Intelligence Community was either duped by an obvious fake that they fell for due to the panic and paranoia that’s taking hold of them after Trump’s historic electoral victory, or they simply made it up and laundered this false report through the media in order to elicit a reaction.
While the Scenario is indeed probably a fake, it nevertheless is worth considering.
Wirh certain modifications it could actually solve the conflict!
The "disputed areas" in the West - aka. Ruthenia - could be left to the West, allowing an expansion of NATO and/or EU. Either as parts of it's neighbours, ideally however as a sovereign nation, "Ruthenia".
The middle territories - the "DMZ" - could equally be organised as a nation "Ukraine". Not necessarily "friendly" to Russia, but at least statutorily "neutral" on the lines of Switzerland at the time of the Vienna Congress and the beginning of the 20th Century. With the international and obligatory Statute that it may never enter a military alliance with Russia or the "west".
Technically an armed but neutral buffer zone - not necessarily a DMZ - just as was agreed upon in Vienna by the Russian led commission after the quarrelsome Swiss delegation had been expelled from the congress!
And last, the eastern zone, Russian by culture and ethnicity could join the Russian Federation. Or at least ally wirh Russia and Belarus.
The setup would reflect the current realities, appease all parties involved and clean up the frontiers of the two blocs!
Quite a clever idea, in fact, once the troublesome and corrupt current regime in Kiev has been removed from the proceedings.
"Quite a clever idea, in fact, once the troublesome and corrupt current regime in Kiev has been removed from the proceedings."
Not just 'clever' but, in fact, sensible and realistic; and I happen to believe far more likely than this analysis might indicate.
Interesting to note how no attention seems to have been paid in this analysis to the Russians' demonstration of their new 'Oreshnik' ('Hazel') weapon on Thursday. It was exactly the same here (in the UK): on the Thursday lunchtime (BBC) news (at 1:00) there were the usual horror reports about how awful Russia is and dastardly their most recent attack on the plucky, fierce, clever, etc. etc. etc, Ukrainians (in Dnepropetrovsk) was, as usual. The difference was that the newsreader specifically stated there would be more detail in the evening news (at 10:00) and detailed analysis on 'Newnight' (after the news, at 10:30). Not another word was said about it that day, nor anything new the next (Friday).
On the other hand, NATO's new chief Groveller/BullyBoy (Rutte) dropped everything to hire a plane as fast as possible and zoom off to meet with Trump (in Florida) NOT Biden et al. (in Washington). So, it would seem, although the various analysists might have managed to ignore the latest developments, NATO and Trump haven't. This leads me to consider previous analyses, like the ones referenced in this analysis, e.g. of 7 Nov. ('The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict') as outdated and moot; it seems most analysists haven't quite caught up with Trump and Rutte yet.
This might be somewhat disappointing for those reporting far from the centre of events but it's as surprising as it is disappointing from one who should be aware of how the facts about the 'Hazel' weapon were presented to the Russian people (by video presentation on national television) by the Russian President himself. Very surprising.
This article is full of nothing more than guesses, surmises, possibles, maybes, whatifs,etc. I.e., nothing concrete. Not worth reading...people want facts. Period. BTW, there wasn't a "failed" peace treaty; it was sabotaged by the US/UK. Russia has won this war and will decide how it ends. Mc Ddd, a Sec. Gen. of NATO has ZERO power in decisions...ZERO. The guy running off to see Trump, therefore, is an idiot.
Gee, thanks for your opinion, Rob — unique and very rare, I'm sure; so kind of you to reply. The only fly in to ointment, as far as I can see, regarding how your opinion relates to me, though, is it has nothing to very little to do with anything i've commented on.(!)
"Mc Ddd, a Sec. Gen. of NATO has ZERO power in decisions...ZERO. The guy running off to see Trump, therefore, is an idiot."
OK... So what? What's that got to do with me. (That's something like a rhetorical question. Please don't feel obliged to answer.)
The idea that Poland would want a territory inhabited by millions of fractious and well-armed Ukrainians, who not only are by no stretch of the imagination Polish, but who also have committed a genocide against Poles within living memory, is dubious at best.
"escalate to de-escalate" . What does this really mean? It implies the US can go to a military confrontation with the aim of forcing its opponent to accept its terms. Whether that would work or not depends on who the opponent is. If Russia is the opponent, it's a misleading idea.
The US under Trump, cannot enter a new war on its electoral pledge to stay out of wars. It also has limited capacity to generate new debt, let alone to create an escalation of new debt from the present demands of interest costs, military budgets, reindustrialisation costs, and welfare liabilities, funded and unfunded. Adding such pressures to the existing package of debt could risk collapsing the currency.
Yes of course, it can make its citizens own the new debt, but that would be coercive in nature. If thought about rationally, the term "escalate to de-escalate" is in my opinion, utter nonsense.
Neutrality agreement with the west or current Ukraine is not meaningful. (1) Ruthenia can do whatever they want. Russia only need to help relocate ethnic Russians who want to leave that area. (2) Russian must have a territory west of Dnieper to counter-balance any political flip of the "new Ukraine". Holding only the west bank of Dnieper of the Kherson Oblast is NOT enough for military purposes. IMHO, Russia must also hold Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, and Odesa Oblasts to have a sound geographical holding for a strategic defense. To the minimal, these five Oblasts should be allowed to have a referendum on their choice -> Russia, or the new Ukraine. Every poll station can have a 3-party monitor team. (3) I simply do not believe a neutrality agreement for the "new Ukraine" can last. The West do not have hypersonic weapons now. But that does NOT mean the West will never have Hypersonic weapons. Any area not controlled by Russian military can become a potential launch point for long-range stand-off weapons.
"That would be a herculean feat for Russia to pull off, but it would represent the best possible compromise for all parties. Russia’s security would be ensured through the withdrawal of all heavy equipment east of the Dnieper while Ukraine would retain sovereignty within this massive DMZ. Ukraine would be deterred from breaking the ceasefire due to the DMZ while Russia would be deterred by the “security guarantees” that Ukraine clinched with a bunch of NATO countries throughout this year."
The best possible compromise moment was in Minsk, perhaps in Istanbul. Now the only possible compromise is far from anything involving untrustworthy military force (NATO) presence anywhere.
The compromise Putin could make is that Central and eastern part of above map are denazified, unified (except Crimea) and free to associate outside Nato, but totally demilitarised with Russian forces present on its borders.
Trump/NATO can invade UA but it makes them sitting ducks on a turf where can't involve the joint defence. Ruskies may be lacking balls but are far from the ilks like Serbia or Iraq, Syria etc.
I would say Russian forces must be stationed at the border of the New Ukraine and all its non-Russian neighbors, and Russian Security forces to perform Id and cargo checks. Ditto for its international air/sea ports. Russian forces on the east side of the new Ukraine is not enough.
Any area which will not remain under allied RF military control will not be "russian friendly". Also, history demonstrated that any agreement over "neutrality" will not be reliable: see Austria, Sweden and Finland, or even Moldova these days. Basically we will be back to a Cold War era (hopefully only cold...).
If the Russian don't have a very, very short memory, they will try to take control of as much as they can. If they don't take more, it means that their internal weaknesses are more than they let transpire.
What's the point of allowing Ukraine to be unfriendly to Russia after making war? Europe is the cuba if it comes to a Cuban crisis not Ukraine.Russia should go all the way to Ukraine and Moldova borders.
I must say, though, with Rutte now asking Trump what he meant when he said (long, long ago, even before the 2016 election, I believe it was) 'NATO was not fit for purpose...' I DO wish they'd put a few 'Hazelnuts' down in a long line from Moldova to Kiev, just to make the point quite abundantly clear.
What's the point of allowing Ukraine to be unfriendly to Russia after making war? Europe is the cuba if it comes to a Cuban crisis not Ukraine.Russia should go all the way to Ukraine and Moldova borders.
While the Scenario is indeed probably a fake, it nevertheless is worth considering.
Wirh certain modifications it could actually solve the conflict!
The "disputed areas" in the West - aka. Ruthenia - could be left to the West, allowing an expansion of NATO and/or EU. Either as parts of it's neighbours, ideally however as a sovereign nation, "Ruthenia".
The middle territories - the "DMZ" - could equally be organised as a nation "Ukraine". Not necessarily "friendly" to Russia, but at least statutorily "neutral" on the lines of Switzerland at the time of the Vienna Congress and the beginning of the 20th Century. With the international and obligatory Statute that it may never enter a military alliance with Russia or the "west".
Technically an armed but neutral buffer zone - not necessarily a DMZ - just as was agreed upon in Vienna by the Russian led commission after the quarrelsome Swiss delegation had been expelled from the congress!
And last, the eastern zone, Russian by culture and ethnicity could join the Russian Federation. Or at least ally wirh Russia and Belarus.
The setup would reflect the current realities, appease all parties involved and clean up the frontiers of the two blocs!
Quite a clever idea, in fact, once the troublesome and corrupt current regime in Kiev has been removed from the proceedings.
"Quite a clever idea, in fact, once the troublesome and corrupt current regime in Kiev has been removed from the proceedings."
Not just 'clever' but, in fact, sensible and realistic; and I happen to believe far more likely than this analysis might indicate.
Interesting to note how no attention seems to have been paid in this analysis to the Russians' demonstration of their new 'Oreshnik' ('Hazel') weapon on Thursday. It was exactly the same here (in the UK): on the Thursday lunchtime (BBC) news (at 1:00) there were the usual horror reports about how awful Russia is and dastardly their most recent attack on the plucky, fierce, clever, etc. etc. etc, Ukrainians (in Dnepropetrovsk) was, as usual. The difference was that the newsreader specifically stated there would be more detail in the evening news (at 10:00) and detailed analysis on 'Newnight' (after the news, at 10:30). Not another word was said about it that day, nor anything new the next (Friday).
On the other hand, NATO's new chief Groveller/BullyBoy (Rutte) dropped everything to hire a plane as fast as possible and zoom off to meet with Trump (in Florida) NOT Biden et al. (in Washington). So, it would seem, although the various analysists might have managed to ignore the latest developments, NATO and Trump haven't. This leads me to consider previous analyses, like the ones referenced in this analysis, e.g. of 7 Nov. ('The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict') as outdated and moot; it seems most analysists haven't quite caught up with Trump and Rutte yet.
This might be somewhat disappointing for those reporting far from the centre of events but it's as surprising as it is disappointing from one who should be aware of how the facts about the 'Hazel' weapon were presented to the Russian people (by video presentation on national television) by the Russian President himself. Very surprising.
This article is full of nothing more than guesses, surmises, possibles, maybes, whatifs,etc. I.e., nothing concrete. Not worth reading...people want facts. Period. BTW, there wasn't a "failed" peace treaty; it was sabotaged by the US/UK. Russia has won this war and will decide how it ends. Mc Ddd, a Sec. Gen. of NATO has ZERO power in decisions...ZERO. The guy running off to see Trump, therefore, is an idiot.
Gee, thanks for your opinion, Rob — unique and very rare, I'm sure; so kind of you to reply. The only fly in to ointment, as far as I can see, regarding how your opinion relates to me, though, is it has nothing to very little to do with anything i've commented on.(!)
"Mc Ddd, a Sec. Gen. of NATO has ZERO power in decisions...ZERO. The guy running off to see Trump, therefore, is an idiot."
OK... So what? What's that got to do with me. (That's something like a rhetorical question. Please don't feel obliged to answer.)
"My statement on NATO being obsolete and disproportionately too expensive (and unfair) for the U.S. are now, finally, receiving plaudits!"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2016
(https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/714095595888238592)
The idea that Poland would want a territory inhabited by millions of fractious and well-armed Ukrainians, who not only are by no stretch of the imagination Polish, but who also have committed a genocide against Poles within living memory, is dubious at best.
This isn't "Risk".
"escalate to de-escalate" . What does this really mean? It implies the US can go to a military confrontation with the aim of forcing its opponent to accept its terms. Whether that would work or not depends on who the opponent is. If Russia is the opponent, it's a misleading idea.
The US under Trump, cannot enter a new war on its electoral pledge to stay out of wars. It also has limited capacity to generate new debt, let alone to create an escalation of new debt from the present demands of interest costs, military budgets, reindustrialisation costs, and welfare liabilities, funded and unfunded. Adding such pressures to the existing package of debt could risk collapsing the currency.
Yes of course, it can make its citizens own the new debt, but that would be coercive in nature. If thought about rationally, the term "escalate to de-escalate" is in my opinion, utter nonsense.
Neutrality agreement with the west or current Ukraine is not meaningful. (1) Ruthenia can do whatever they want. Russia only need to help relocate ethnic Russians who want to leave that area. (2) Russian must have a territory west of Dnieper to counter-balance any political flip of the "new Ukraine". Holding only the west bank of Dnieper of the Kherson Oblast is NOT enough for military purposes. IMHO, Russia must also hold Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, and Odesa Oblasts to have a sound geographical holding for a strategic defense. To the minimal, these five Oblasts should be allowed to have a referendum on their choice -> Russia, or the new Ukraine. Every poll station can have a 3-party monitor team. (3) I simply do not believe a neutrality agreement for the "new Ukraine" can last. The West do not have hypersonic weapons now. But that does NOT mean the West will never have Hypersonic weapons. Any area not controlled by Russian military can become a potential launch point for long-range stand-off weapons.
"That would be a herculean feat for Russia to pull off, but it would represent the best possible compromise for all parties. Russia’s security would be ensured through the withdrawal of all heavy equipment east of the Dnieper while Ukraine would retain sovereignty within this massive DMZ. Ukraine would be deterred from breaking the ceasefire due to the DMZ while Russia would be deterred by the “security guarantees” that Ukraine clinched with a bunch of NATO countries throughout this year."
The best possible compromise moment was in Minsk, perhaps in Istanbul. Now the only possible compromise is far from anything involving untrustworthy military force (NATO) presence anywhere.
The compromise Putin could make is that Central and eastern part of above map are denazified, unified (except Crimea) and free to associate outside Nato, but totally demilitarised with Russian forces present on its borders.
Trump/NATO can invade UA but it makes them sitting ducks on a turf where can't involve the joint defence. Ruskies may be lacking balls but are far from the ilks like Serbia or Iraq, Syria etc.
I would say Russian forces must be stationed at the border of the New Ukraine and all its non-Russian neighbors, and Russian Security forces to perform Id and cargo checks. Ditto for its international air/sea ports. Russian forces on the east side of the new Ukraine is not enough.
Any area which will not remain under allied RF military control will not be "russian friendly". Also, history demonstrated that any agreement over "neutrality" will not be reliable: see Austria, Sweden and Finland, or even Moldova these days. Basically we will be back to a Cold War era (hopefully only cold...).
If the Russian don't have a very, very short memory, they will try to take control of as much as they can. If they don't take more, it means that their internal weaknesses are more than they let transpire.
What's the point of allowing Ukraine to be unfriendly to Russia after making war? Europe is the cuba if it comes to a Cuban crisis not Ukraine.Russia should go all the way to Ukraine and Moldova borders.
"Russia should go all the way to Ukraine and Moldova borders."
'Gently, slowly catchee monkey.' (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/softly,_softly,_catchee_monkey)
I must say, though, with Rutte now asking Trump what he meant when he said (long, long ago, even before the 2016 election, I believe it was) 'NATO was not fit for purpose...' I DO wish they'd put a few 'Hazelnuts' down in a long line from Moldova to Kiev, just to make the point quite abundantly clear.
"My statement on NATO being obsolete and disproportionately too expensive (and unfair) for the U.S. are now, finally, receiving plaudits!"
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 27, 2016 (https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/714095595888238592)
What's the point of allowing Ukraine to be unfriendly to Russia after making war? Europe is the cuba if it comes to a Cuban crisis not Ukraine.Russia should go all the way to Ukraine and Moldova borders.