The significance of Kaja Kallas’ statement is that it represents the first signal from the West’s most hawkish anti-Russian faction that they might be willing to freeze the conflict instead of continuing to fight until the last Ukrainian at the risk of sparking World War III by miscalculation.
Dear Mr. Korybko, In appreciation for your excellent briefings, I have today subscribed. You comment on Kallas’s recent statement as a message from the West. Is Russia really the intended recipient? Or the Western public and their elite? I can imagine a reply from Dmitry Medvedev: A spicy variant of “The West is not agreement capable.” It is hard to imagine that Kallas’s statement could have any credibility with the Russians as a serious proposal or even as maskirovka, a delay tactic. (Not to mention the Russians’ lack of urgency to agree to a ‘freeze’.) The Western press are trying to unwind their over optimistic narratives they’ve sold Western publics over the past two years. But, however we might calculate Western motives, it represents a “crack in the armor,” a niggling distraction for the West, a preoccupation with vulnerability.
I never interpreted it as signifying an imminent intent to take cooperation in all spheres as far as possible, especially militarily, but more as a platitude for reinforcing the fact that each side trusts the other enough to explore expanding cooperation in them.
Here are three pieces where I explain their relations more in detail:
“Escalate to de-escalate” has been on the agenda for a while now. Ultimately, the West wants to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, knowing Putin has a good track record of proportional responses and would not go "all in" with strategic weapons against NATO, and use that as an opportunity to seek political gains despite military setbacks.
Regarding Kaja Kallas’s words, NATO membership for any remaining part of Ukraine would be celebrated in the West and a bitter pill for Russia. The main cause of the conflict, NATO expansion, would remain unaddressed with potential to bite back again in the future.
Moscow might need to spell out their red lines more clearly, as ambiguity has been used against them by the West to escalate. At what point will Russia say enough is enough?
Dear B., Russia's red lines couldn't be more clear (or their aims in the SMO). But the means--their conduct as an attrition war--aims to save the lives of Russian soldiers. They are in it for the long haul and need to conserve resources. It is a sensible, if unpopular, approach.
I don't think NATO can assemble troops fast enough, I see NATO as an extended arm of the USA
America wants to be uni-polar and will not accept that the world can be multi-polar
There will be war, and god help us all
Dear Mr. Korybko, In appreciation for your excellent briefings, I have today subscribed. You comment on Kallas’s recent statement as a message from the West. Is Russia really the intended recipient? Or the Western public and their elite? I can imagine a reply from Dmitry Medvedev: A spicy variant of “The West is not agreement capable.” It is hard to imagine that Kallas’s statement could have any credibility with the Russians as a serious proposal or even as maskirovka, a delay tactic. (Not to mention the Russians’ lack of urgency to agree to a ‘freeze’.) The Western press are trying to unwind their over optimistic narratives they’ve sold Western publics over the past two years. But, however we might calculate Western motives, it represents a “crack in the armor,” a niggling distraction for the West, a preoccupation with vulnerability.
Andrew, It might be interesting to see your take on China's statement about unlimited support for Russia and what that means for the West.
I never interpreted it as signifying an imminent intent to take cooperation in all spheres as far as possible, especially militarily, but more as a platitude for reinforcing the fact that each side trusts the other enough to explore expanding cooperation in them.
Here are three pieces where I explain their relations more in detail:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/towards-tri-multipolarity-the-golden
https://korybko.substack.com/p/korybko-to-shyam-saran-the-sino-russo
https://korybko.substack.com/p/rics-differences-should-be-candidly
“Escalate to de-escalate” has been on the agenda for a while now. Ultimately, the West wants to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, knowing Putin has a good track record of proportional responses and would not go "all in" with strategic weapons against NATO, and use that as an opportunity to seek political gains despite military setbacks.
Regarding Kaja Kallas’s words, NATO membership for any remaining part of Ukraine would be celebrated in the West and a bitter pill for Russia. The main cause of the conflict, NATO expansion, would remain unaddressed with potential to bite back again in the future.
Moscow might need to spell out their red lines more clearly, as ambiguity has been used against them by the West to escalate. At what point will Russia say enough is enough?
Dear B., Russia's red lines couldn't be more clear (or their aims in the SMO). But the means--their conduct as an attrition war--aims to save the lives of Russian soldiers. They are in it for the long haul and need to conserve resources. It is a sensible, if unpopular, approach.
It's interesting that NATO is now opening land corridors to rush 300,000 US troops to the front lines if a European war breaks out against Russia.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/04/nato-land-corridors-us-troops-european-war/