He wants to deter the even greater provocations that the West might now be plotting, such as destabilizing and then invading Belarus, with the intent of coercing him into freezing the existing LOC and then possibly accepting the deployment of Western/NATO peacekeepers there.
Russia has a golden opportunity to put an end to the threat that US proxy Ukraine poses by committing itself to the complete surrender of the Nazi Zelensky regime and the defeat of its AFU forces. Ukraine's total defeat would, once and for all, put an end to any notion of Ukraine being part of NATO, provide Russia with an extended buffer zone and make Ukraine responsible for reparations for its failure to abide by the Minsk accord, which only served as a hostile delaying tactic as later admitted. There is also the question of how many Russians were bombed and killed by Ukraine's ethnic cleansing campaign during the peace before the SMO. Such war crimes can't go unpunished.
However, Russia appears to want a negotiated settlement after Trump gets power. In other words, Russia is not committed to forcing Ukraine to surrender. It appears to want to make a deal even though it commands the battlefield with attrition rates of about 5 to 1. Really? Russia can destroy an enemy that tries to destroy it, but instead, it decides to make concessions. The escalation ladder that Russia is climbing is impotent. So, instead of taking it all (Ukraine), Russia will settle for a conditional settlement with the new Trump administration, only to face renewed hostilities at some time in the future instead of putting an end to it once and for all. No wonder the US doesn't take Russia seriously because it isn't. What would the US do if Russia had forces set up at the Mexican border? lol
Even if the West reaches a temporary settlement, they'll simply revert to terrorist or other asymmetric attacks on Russia, while playing stupid about who trains and sponsors those terrorists.
Here in the hegemonic West, we are lead by genocidal fascists. We put our trust in the wisdom and temperance of Russian and Chinese leaders, hoping they understand the situation and act rationally. We have no such expectations regarding our own 'leaders'. How can this situation NOT lead to disaster? I don't see it. But who knows? Miracles DO happen.
By containing the American 'pivot (back) to Asia'.
It's a (Chinese) waiting game: the more energy the Americans invest into their inevitable second (or third of forth)-time-lucky attempt (colour revolutions in the DMZ, paying for amputees in NATO-Ukraine and refugees in the NATO-West-proper, preparatory intensified militarisation of the 'New Ukraine', etc.), the less they have to expend on preparation, doing the same thing to China, in Asia.
Ditto for the West to exhaust its inventory in a military failure when Russia can withstand the cost. Then less can be sent to Israel and a better chance of settlement in the Middle East. Russia, certainly, has no obligation of any kind to wear down the Western inventory for the ME.
"Russia, certainly, has no obligation of any kind to wear down the Western inventory for the ME"
No, certainly not OBLIGED; it's just worked out as happy coincidence: win-win-win. Thank you near-sighted and otherwise (self-)restricted American 'Deep State'! It couldn't have been done, wouldn't have worked, without you.
Funny thing is, how Putin understands and expresses the irony: had the Americans not been silly and insisted they must save their intermediate range missiles from a renewed treaty to use them for their long-awaited (front-line NATO) 'decapitation (first) strike', the Russians might not have developed the new technology, which makes all the stalling to shirk the treaty even better than pointless. It makes their shirking out of the treaty counter-productive — a truly GRAND irony! If only they'd renewed the treaty, as the Russians spent so many years begging them to do, NATO wouldn't have lost its first-strike potential and the Russians wouldn't have developed the technology to defeat them. Isn't it funny, how God works?!
All the Americans (formerly NATO) have to do now is relax and continue to rely on the Russians' goodwill and mercy. Win(for China)-Win(for the ME)-Win(for Europe) + another win or two (or three) for the Ukraine and the rest of the world. Thank you, Russia!
Indeed. Russia as led by Putin, can be described as following the principle of "preparing for what your opponents are capable of doing, rather than your estimation of what your opponents are likely to do.". Putin for one, had trusted the West too much in the past and he publicly acknowledged his fault (unusual for a national leader, anytime, anywhere) In contrast, the American elites, neocons, and deep staters have not only under-estimated Russia's capability, mis-judged or ignored Russians intention, AND over-estimated themselves. It is hard to acquire satisfactory results this way.
"It is hard to acquire satisfactory results this way."
Well, the funny thing is, as I see it, it's not possible to produce satisfactory results this way consciously. It's question of honesty, who you are at heart. It's so perceptive of you to have noticed, "...he publicly acknowledged his fault...". He wouldn't have been able to do this, had he been trying to produce results consciously. It's only because he does what he thinks is best, as he feels it at heart, that he is able to be honest about it. This is why so many other politicians are unable to produce the results they would like to see: they're so busy plotting and scheming at every level, both consciously and unconsciously, that they lose track of how they've lied to themselves, not to mention others. All the energy of their hearts and minds goes into keeping track of lies.
It's a religious-type thing: the discipline of training yourself from an early age to try and be good: do unto others, etc. and don't try to hide from your mistakes because doing that (and oh-such a wide variety of other things) will trip you up. I don't go to church but I do understand how churches (or temples or mosques or whatever you want to call religious discipline) would like people to make themselves.
Another part of the GRAND irony, which I find so gratifying here, is that the Americans, e.g. Lindsay Graham, would pretend they have instilled religious discipline in themselves. Putin, of course, would never say such a thing. He just is. You'd need to draw your own conclusions about the Americans.
A different matter: The Confucius school of thought focuses on doing the right things and good things based on human nature and human wills. Confucius talked nothing about divine guidance or theology. He would not go to a church to find his strength then or now. But we do have to acknowledge that many people will need that extra boost from a mysterious source.
The question remains whether NATO will listen. The problem is that NATO has already gone (and been allowed to go) so far that they cannot be seen to back down, now. This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
Even if NATO does back off on missile attacks (and Russia's response shows that yes, they kind of were a big deal), they'll likely resort to terrorist attacks or other responses that cannot readily be dealt with using ICBMs.
While Andrew's proposal may be more acceptable to the West, I think the boundary of Ukraine/western control has to be pushed back further. The neutral zone should include all Oblasts bordering on the Dnieper ((minus what has been annexed into Russia and Minus Kiev and area west of Kiev)), Nikolaev Oblast, and Odesa Oblast. Ukraine can control mostly everything in the TransDnieper region if sufficient autonomy is granted to individual Oblasts, the buffer zone totally de-militarized, de-banderalized, no western forces of any kind, no MIC. The issue is that the western bank of Dnieper is higher than the eastern bank from around Kremenchuk to the Sea, if not an even larger area.
IMHO, it is not too difficult for Trump to have a quick withdrawal of US involvement from Ukraine Given the Afghanistan experience. But chances are Russia has to deal with meddling from UK, France, Germany, and Poland. Germany may get softened soon enough; Poles are stubborn but not foolish, and UK/France is too far. However, there shall be no cease-fire during the negotiation: every trick used by CCP and NK during the Korean War will now be copied by the West.
Totally agree with you but I would go further: the Oblasts you mention should be annexed back into Russia.
That is the only way to ward off a resumption of hot war a few years down the line. The Anglos, especially, the UK's deepstate and the US jewish neocons simply cannot be trusted.
The only concessions for Russia to make would be in special rights and status for some if these regions, Odessa for instance.
You have a point. The neutral zone is rarely neutral enough. My own proposal is Russian owns everything east of Dnieper (except Kiev City proper) and the buffer zone are completely west of the river. A safe passage to Transnistria through the Odesa Oblast must be secured.
I am afraid it's too late and to little of Russian response to be taken seriously by the West. To the contrary, it may even be a welcome excuse for the NATO to deploy still more deadly weapons of still larger range to Ukraine.
I also don't understand why you, Andrew, write about "Putin's" instead of "Russian" response. Putin does not determine this policy alone. The leadership of Russian Federation - certainly in such existential matters - is much broader.
“NATO can always conventionally intervene in Ukraine west of the Dnieper to salvage some of its geopolitical project so Russia should assume that it won’t be able to demilitarize or denazify that part of the country.”
Given that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are stronger than almost any NATO military, besides Türkiye or the United States perhaps, and haven’t been faring well against the Russian military; and given that they have already been supplied with extensive NATO equipment, wouldn’t any conventional conflict between NATO and Russian forces in the Ukraine west of the Dnieper be a toss-up at most?
I'm afraid a single NATO soldier anywhere in the Ukraine is a defeat for Russia. Lvov was part of the ancient Rus, after all. Putin might be able to spin it otherwise for a while, but make no mistake, this would be a strategic defeat for Russia.
Hi Andrew. Thanks for the article. Can you discuss the business side of this war? How important are the western deals made with the Ukraine? Do you think part of Russia's objective is to deny the west the natural resources that have been allegedly mortgaged to western corporations? Is it a security risk to Russia if western corporations are operating and exploiting agriculture and energy in Ukraine next to the Russian LOC? Many thanks, hope you can give us an article on the above.
There is a credible scenario that has historical precedent, in which the Moldovan and Romanian Parliaments vote for the reunification of R of Moldova with Romania. Third time lucky. As such, Moldova can be brought in NATO in a matter of days...
Also, the electric war against western Ukraine could continue, making the population not willing to rezist. Already 52% of Ukrainians want peace and want it now...
Russia has a golden opportunity to put an end to the threat that US proxy Ukraine poses by committing itself to the complete surrender of the Nazi Zelensky regime and the defeat of its AFU forces. Ukraine's total defeat would, once and for all, put an end to any notion of Ukraine being part of NATO, provide Russia with an extended buffer zone and make Ukraine responsible for reparations for its failure to abide by the Minsk accord, which only served as a hostile delaying tactic as later admitted. There is also the question of how many Russians were bombed and killed by Ukraine's ethnic cleansing campaign during the peace before the SMO. Such war crimes can't go unpunished.
However, Russia appears to want a negotiated settlement after Trump gets power. In other words, Russia is not committed to forcing Ukraine to surrender. It appears to want to make a deal even though it commands the battlefield with attrition rates of about 5 to 1. Really? Russia can destroy an enemy that tries to destroy it, but instead, it decides to make concessions. The escalation ladder that Russia is climbing is impotent. So, instead of taking it all (Ukraine), Russia will settle for a conditional settlement with the new Trump administration, only to face renewed hostilities at some time in the future instead of putting an end to it once and for all. No wonder the US doesn't take Russia seriously because it isn't. What would the US do if Russia had forces set up at the Mexican border? lol
Even if the West reaches a temporary settlement, they'll simply revert to terrorist or other asymmetric attacks on Russia, while playing stupid about who trains and sponsors those terrorists.
Here in the hegemonic West, we are lead by genocidal fascists. We put our trust in the wisdom and temperance of Russian and Chinese leaders, hoping they understand the situation and act rationally. We have no such expectations regarding our own 'leaders'. How can this situation NOT lead to disaster? I don't see it. But who knows? Miracles DO happen.
"How can this situation NOT lead to disaster?"
By containing the American 'pivot (back) to Asia'.
It's a (Chinese) waiting game: the more energy the Americans invest into their inevitable second (or third of forth)-time-lucky attempt (colour revolutions in the DMZ, paying for amputees in NATO-Ukraine and refugees in the NATO-West-proper, preparatory intensified militarisation of the 'New Ukraine', etc.), the less they have to expend on preparation, doing the same thing to China, in Asia.
Ditto for the West to exhaust its inventory in a military failure when Russia can withstand the cost. Then less can be sent to Israel and a better chance of settlement in the Middle East. Russia, certainly, has no obligation of any kind to wear down the Western inventory for the ME.
"Russia, certainly, has no obligation of any kind to wear down the Western inventory for the ME"
No, certainly not OBLIGED; it's just worked out as happy coincidence: win-win-win. Thank you near-sighted and otherwise (self-)restricted American 'Deep State'! It couldn't have been done, wouldn't have worked, without you.
Funny thing is, how Putin understands and expresses the irony: had the Americans not been silly and insisted they must save their intermediate range missiles from a renewed treaty to use them for their long-awaited (front-line NATO) 'decapitation (first) strike', the Russians might not have developed the new technology, which makes all the stalling to shirk the treaty even better than pointless. It makes their shirking out of the treaty counter-productive — a truly GRAND irony! If only they'd renewed the treaty, as the Russians spent so many years begging them to do, NATO wouldn't have lost its first-strike potential and the Russians wouldn't have developed the technology to defeat them. Isn't it funny, how God works?!
All the Americans (formerly NATO) have to do now is relax and continue to rely on the Russians' goodwill and mercy. Win(for China)-Win(for the ME)-Win(for Europe) + another win or two (or three) for the Ukraine and the rest of the world. Thank you, Russia!
Indeed. Russia as led by Putin, can be described as following the principle of "preparing for what your opponents are capable of doing, rather than your estimation of what your opponents are likely to do.". Putin for one, had trusted the West too much in the past and he publicly acknowledged his fault (unusual for a national leader, anytime, anywhere) In contrast, the American elites, neocons, and deep staters have not only under-estimated Russia's capability, mis-judged or ignored Russians intention, AND over-estimated themselves. It is hard to acquire satisfactory results this way.
"It is hard to acquire satisfactory results this way."
Well, the funny thing is, as I see it, it's not possible to produce satisfactory results this way consciously. It's question of honesty, who you are at heart. It's so perceptive of you to have noticed, "...he publicly acknowledged his fault...". He wouldn't have been able to do this, had he been trying to produce results consciously. It's only because he does what he thinks is best, as he feels it at heart, that he is able to be honest about it. This is why so many other politicians are unable to produce the results they would like to see: they're so busy plotting and scheming at every level, both consciously and unconsciously, that they lose track of how they've lied to themselves, not to mention others. All the energy of their hearts and minds goes into keeping track of lies.
It's a religious-type thing: the discipline of training yourself from an early age to try and be good: do unto others, etc. and don't try to hide from your mistakes because doing that (and oh-such a wide variety of other things) will trip you up. I don't go to church but I do understand how churches (or temples or mosques or whatever you want to call religious discipline) would like people to make themselves.
Another part of the GRAND irony, which I find so gratifying here, is that the Americans, e.g. Lindsay Graham, would pretend they have instilled religious discipline in themselves. Putin, of course, would never say such a thing. He just is. You'd need to draw your own conclusions about the Americans.
An excellent point.
A different matter: The Confucius school of thought focuses on doing the right things and good things based on human nature and human wills. Confucius talked nothing about divine guidance or theology. He would not go to a church to find his strength then or now. But we do have to acknowledge that many people will need that extra boost from a mysterious source.
Well, Starmer is signaling that the attacks will continue, even if that means WWIII.
Finally.
The question remains whether NATO will listen. The problem is that NATO has already gone (and been allowed to go) so far that they cannot be seen to back down, now. This abuse of The Sunk Cost Fallacy is entirely intentional.
Even if NATO does back off on missile attacks (and Russia's response shows that yes, they kind of were a big deal), they'll likely resort to terrorist attacks or other responses that cannot readily be dealt with using ICBMs.
While Andrew's proposal may be more acceptable to the West, I think the boundary of Ukraine/western control has to be pushed back further. The neutral zone should include all Oblasts bordering on the Dnieper ((minus what has been annexed into Russia and Minus Kiev and area west of Kiev)), Nikolaev Oblast, and Odesa Oblast. Ukraine can control mostly everything in the TransDnieper region if sufficient autonomy is granted to individual Oblasts, the buffer zone totally de-militarized, de-banderalized, no western forces of any kind, no MIC. The issue is that the western bank of Dnieper is higher than the eastern bank from around Kremenchuk to the Sea, if not an even larger area.
IMHO, it is not too difficult for Trump to have a quick withdrawal of US involvement from Ukraine Given the Afghanistan experience. But chances are Russia has to deal with meddling from UK, France, Germany, and Poland. Germany may get softened soon enough; Poles are stubborn but not foolish, and UK/France is too far. However, there shall be no cease-fire during the negotiation: every trick used by CCP and NK during the Korean War will now be copied by the West.
Totally agree with you but I would go further: the Oblasts you mention should be annexed back into Russia.
That is the only way to ward off a resumption of hot war a few years down the line. The Anglos, especially, the UK's deepstate and the US jewish neocons simply cannot be trusted.
The only concessions for Russia to make would be in special rights and status for some if these regions, Odessa for instance.
You have a point. The neutral zone is rarely neutral enough. My own proposal is Russian owns everything east of Dnieper (except Kiev City proper) and the buffer zone are completely west of the river. A safe passage to Transnistria through the Odesa Oblast must be secured.
I am afraid it's too late and to little of Russian response to be taken seriously by the West. To the contrary, it may even be a welcome excuse for the NATO to deploy still more deadly weapons of still larger range to Ukraine.
I also don't understand why you, Andrew, write about "Putin's" instead of "Russian" response. Putin does not determine this policy alone. The leadership of Russian Federation - certainly in such existential matters - is much broader.
The city of Zaporozhye was called Aleksandrovsk before 1921 - named after General Aleksander Golitsyn, a favourite of Catherine the Great.
“NATO can always conventionally intervene in Ukraine west of the Dnieper to salvage some of its geopolitical project so Russia should assume that it won’t be able to demilitarize or denazify that part of the country.”
Given that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are stronger than almost any NATO military, besides Türkiye or the United States perhaps, and haven’t been faring well against the Russian military; and given that they have already been supplied with extensive NATO equipment, wouldn’t any conventional conflict between NATO and Russian forces in the Ukraine west of the Dnieper be a toss-up at most?
I'm afraid a single NATO soldier anywhere in the Ukraine is a defeat for Russia. Lvov was part of the ancient Rus, after all. Putin might be able to spin it otherwise for a while, but make no mistake, this would be a strategic defeat for Russia.
Well…FINALLY! They must be consuming a lot of Pepto-Bizmol in the Pentagon.
Hi Andrew. Thanks for the article. Can you discuss the business side of this war? How important are the western deals made with the Ukraine? Do you think part of Russia's objective is to deny the west the natural resources that have been allegedly mortgaged to western corporations? Is it a security risk to Russia if western corporations are operating and exploiting agriculture and energy in Ukraine next to the Russian LOC? Many thanks, hope you can give us an article on the above.
There is a credible scenario that has historical precedent, in which the Moldovan and Romanian Parliaments vote for the reunification of R of Moldova with Romania. Third time lucky. As such, Moldova can be brought in NATO in a matter of days...
Also, the electric war against western Ukraine could continue, making the population not willing to rezist. Already 52% of Ukrainians want peace and want it now...
Would the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian fores inside Kursk, that is, on Russian territory, ...?
:(