Trump will implement a comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and military pressure campaign against Russia if Putin rejects a ceasefire, but it’s unclear whether Trump will coerce Zelensky into territorial concessions first in order to make it easier for Putin to compromise on his prior demands for this.
Trump talks a big game. And he needs to balance his own goals with the need to “appear strong” to the neocons in his party.
Kellogg’s proposal is ultimately just a show.
Things will look a lot different once Trump actually has direct talks with Putin. And once he realizes the costs that more sanctions will bring on America.
Ultimately, I think Trump will walk away and put the blame where it belongs: On Biden.
Russia cannot and will not "deal." Trump has everything to lose if he doesn't just pull out of "Biden's war." Russia is in the driver's seat and final victory is close at hand.
They're not trying to psyche the US out, they really do want talks in order to politically resolve this.
As for final victory, I don't believe that the US will completely abandon Ukraine and not try to salvage at least Western Ukraine after spending nearly $200 billion on this conflict.
If they make a move to partition the country and Russia doesn't risk WWIII over trying to get the US to back down (which I don't think it'll risk), then it won't attain its goals in full.
We've seen no evidence of Russia willing to risk WWIII even over the territory that it claims as its own, not to mention the ultra-nationalist western half of Ukraine.
To the contrary, Putin repeatedly declines to reciprocally escalate in the face of Ukrainian and Western provocations. I expect that he'll maintain this position in that scenario.
Ah yes. Given that the West MAY want to remove Elensky, then it is proper for Russia to offer this concession. Maybe this is the real reason for Putin to get into the full legal scholar mode.
Russia has no chance now of creating a new security architecture in Europe like it initially planned unless Trump agrees, and it's unclear whether he will. On the one hand, it could put more pressure on the Europeans to spend 5% of GDP on defense if he does, but on the other, he could just maintain the status quo and focus his team's full efforts on "Pivoting (back) to Asia" to more muscularly contain China instead.
To your second point, it's been nearly 1,100 days so far and Russia withstood many serious provocations without reciprocally escalating, and each example of "strategic/saintly patience" came with serious physical, reputational, and opportunity costs. I'm not saying that Russia should have necessarily escalated each time, I'm just pointing out that it already accepted huge costs to not escalate and seems largely set in its ways.
That's not hyperbole, it's an objective assessment of the facts. A lot of you all still for some reason think, or have convinced yourselves, that Russia is something (aka "always opposes the West and in the most radical way possible") that it isn't. You're all going to be very deeply disappointed.
It has been abundantly obvious from the outset of this war that the Russian leadership is desperate to be lied to once more, to do a Minsk-3. The West has no such desire, since its rulers are not hurting in any way.
So what is Russia waiting for? And why has Russia been seeking a deal since the outset of this war. And what makes you so sure regarding the Russian leadership?.They aere all ready to make a Minsk-3 at Ankara before Boris Johnson ahowed up.
In fact, the intensity of combat in Ukraine is decreasing, according to analysis of official Russian MoD reports. Hardly the way to act if Victory Is At Hand, and your throwing out nonsensical and unfalsifiable assertions doesn't change that.
Your matter of fact style appeals to me, Mr Korybko, thank you for your thoughts on this one. The result that you describe would be a deal—Zelensky agrees to this, Putin agrees to that. What I miss is what most of your beloved alt-media pro-Russia pundits—all of them—seem to agree upon: such a deal will not resolve the »root problems« of Russia, which I would resume with: NATO back to its 1997 borders. Some high Kremlin officials, Medvedev first of all, have commented in a similar way. And that seems very plausible to me since Russia meanwhile has sacrificed not only a huge amount of capital, but foremost the lives of some 80,000 soldiers plus the maimed, which might be thrice as many. A deal as you describe it, in my eyes clearly does not come close to resolving the »root cause« and would, I imagine, therefore crack the unity of the Kreml leadership, if not destroy it. A backdown of China under pressure is very well possible, they always avoid a clear (extreme) position, always chose the middle way. They might do so in this case too, hoping to find some accommodation deal with the U.S. Still, if Russia backs down they will be in trouble. Please explain why this will not be the case. Thank you!
I don't know what Trump really thinks. However, the evidence in DJT's second term is that DJT's diplomatic moves are all notorious threats. Yet when the opponent made a small concession, Trump immediately switched to the "everything can be negotiated" mode. I think if the USA does not want to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, then the USA needs a large-scale mobilization, like calling up all reservists discharged in the last 20 years to get enough manpower. Then there is the issue of weapons production. That approach will bring back a lot of bodies in bags yet still lose the war. Other than direct conventional military confrontation, the USA can have a total embargo against Russia, including secondary and tertiary sanctions. Some of Russia's partners and most of the neutrals will bend, but some will bundle up tighter to form a clear block. By then, nuclear war will be the only "solution".
If Putin is willing to give DJT some "face" for whatever reason, Russians will try to find an insignificant aspect to yield. I am ignorant about what can be used as the sacrificial lamb for this purpose. Any yield, even symbolic ones, may give DJT the wrong idea that his threats work again, albeit to a smaller extent when applied to a stronger opponent. The neocons in the USA will always bad-mouth Putin, the Russian people, and any other nationalistic Russian leader no matter what Russians do.
Trump can't use nukes FIRST in Ukraine - Russia will reciprocate, and it looks that current Russian nuclear arsenal is more reliable than the US one. So the US' first use options are limited to non-nuclear.
Obviously, Trump doesn't want to put the US own troops in harm's way. There is a question (again) how many he could mobilize and there is no evidence the woke and DEI army could fight better than the Ukrainians themselves.
Jan 26, 2025 Putin: If Trump Had Won in 2020 There Might Not Have Been War in Ukraine
In a short interview with Pavel Zarubin, at Moscow State University, Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the topic of U.S. President Donald Trump wanting a meeting to talk about Ukraine.
The American economy is badly damaged, this is not the 1990s. The sanctions they impose on others hurt disproportionately average Americans as well. How much they can pressure India and China then if the pain goes both ways?!
If Trump wants Putin to "come to the table" then Trump should concentrate on neutralising Putin's primary obstacle to detente - that is remove Zelensky and his acolytes from the decision making process in Ukraine and replace him/them with Ukrainians of integrity and authority to represent the majority of Ukrainians who genuinely want to talk about how to end the killing.
Sanctions are, in the long term, dramatically opposed to US interests, a colossal mistake, and actually in the interests of the world outside the West. They will force China, Russia, and India to cooperate.
In the short term they will harm the people of those nations' livelihoods and standard of living, but this is rapidly changing. The USA is now only responsible for 15% of China's exports, and this is continuing to decline in favor of emerging markets. If you expand this to all countries which would be expected to slavishly comply with US sanctions that expands to around 36.3% of China's exports, and these figures are 2 years out of date.
Russia, India, and Hong Kong alone are about the same amount of exports for China as the USA.
China and Russia's priority should be expanding BRICS in the interests of its members, and expanding trade between them. Indonesia is a crucial addition.
If you look closely, all nations involved in South China Sea disputes are now either in BRICS, partners, invited or have asked to join, expect for Brunei and the Philippines. Taiwan is a special case, and they have the exact same claims as the PRC anyway. Where does this leave Western pretexts for war in SE Asia?
Interesting times ahead. I adore my native West, but we have completely lost our way and need healthy competition to get back on track. As an Australian, I will be visting Indonesia this year to do my bit to foster good will with our BRICS friends to the north, to make it clear we are not so different, and that if we apply ourselves we can have peace and prosperity in our lifetimes, despite our political differences.
If China and India were to yield to the US, and they might, what would be the point of the BRICS?
BRICS came into existence as a means of protecting national interests from a unipolar overlord that sets the rules and breaks them at will, while enjoying full control the financial system.
Failure to continue to trade based on fear of US sanctions could easily disillusion the smaller nations that are in line to join for their protection.
Does Mr Korybko view the BRICS simply as a posturing exercise? US threats to China and India would be the perfect test that it is more than posturing.
May the test happen; we all surely want to know how serious the BRICS partnerships really are.
Would it not be simpler [but not politically expedient of course] to simply stop funding the war and to stop supplying weaponry to the Ukraine on the part of the US, UK and NATO? What I see now now is just more political machination on the part the collective West.
This analysis leaves out the fact of trade being done beyond the knowledge & oversight of USA/EU. Using national currency & other workarounds, Russia has insulated itself from much tariff & sanction harm the USA can bring. Ditto for China. India, ever the colonized state, is in a different category & ultimately will have to find its way. Trump will find out the limits of USA strong-arm tactics. Russian leadership has gone too far down sovereignty's path to back down on most of its stated aims in Ukraine. China, too, is ready for whatever USA throws at it.
Zelensky is one of the last liberal globalists left and once Trump gets the ceasefire he’s looking for then he can get rid of Zelensky. Giving the land bridge to Crimea over to Russia should be enough to bring peace in the region. Any more escalation would lead to more sanctions which in itself wouldn’t be the worst thing because a wedge between China and Russia achieves the US plan to keep them apart and keeps the world at peace. Walking away and blaming Biden would be anathema to Trump because he wants to be known as a peacemaker. Which in his first presidency he should have won the Nobel prize for peace with his Abraham Accords but the globalist leftists wouldn’t allow that. The truth will most likely never come out why this war started which truthfully is the CIA fucked up too many times and Russia had enough and Zelensky listening to Johnson and Biden that they would fund the war and our hedge funds would come in after and reconstruct the country. Zelensky being hailed as Churchill was all made for TV bullshit as I’d love to see a full accounting for the billions of my tax dollars that help destroy this country and kill far too many innocent and young Ukrainians. A war that NEVER should have begun in the first place. Ukraine could never have won and why they believed they could was delusional for Zelensky to think. I’d be checking his bank accounts too.
Trump talks a big game. And he needs to balance his own goals with the need to “appear strong” to the neocons in his party.
Kellogg’s proposal is ultimately just a show.
Things will look a lot different once Trump actually has direct talks with Putin. And once he realizes the costs that more sanctions will bring on America.
Ultimately, I think Trump will walk away and put the blame where it belongs: On Biden.
Russia cannot and will not "deal." Trump has everything to lose if he doesn't just pull out of "Biden's war." Russia is in the driver's seat and final victory is close at hand.
We've seen several signals from high-level Russian officials of their country's willingness to deal:
https://www.rt.com/russia/612212-kremlin-comments-talks-zelensky/
https://www.rt.com/russia/612218-russia-us-contacts-trump/
https://www.rt.com/russia/612260-russia-us-tough-talks-ukraine/
They're not trying to psyche the US out, they really do want talks in order to politically resolve this.
As for final victory, I don't believe that the US will completely abandon Ukraine and not try to salvage at least Western Ukraine after spending nearly $200 billion on this conflict.
If they make a move to partition the country and Russia doesn't risk WWIII over trying to get the US to back down (which I don't think it'll risk), then it won't attain its goals in full.
We've seen no evidence of Russia willing to risk WWIII even over the territory that it claims as its own, not to mention the ultra-nationalist western half of Ukraine.
To the contrary, Putin repeatedly declines to reciprocally escalate in the face of Ukrainian and Western provocations. I expect that he'll maintain this position in that scenario.
Peskov just reaffirmed Russia's willingness for negotiations over Ukraine, particularly at the leadership level:
https://tass.com/politics/1909943
Ah yes. Given that the West MAY want to remove Elensky, then it is proper for Russia to offer this concession. Maybe this is the real reason for Putin to get into the full legal scholar mode.
Russia has no chance now of creating a new security architecture in Europe like it initially planned unless Trump agrees, and it's unclear whether he will. On the one hand, it could put more pressure on the Europeans to spend 5% of GDP on defense if he does, but on the other, he could just maintain the status quo and focus his team's full efforts on "Pivoting (back) to Asia" to more muscularly contain China instead.
To your second point, it's been nearly 1,100 days so far and Russia withstood many serious provocations without reciprocally escalating, and each example of "strategic/saintly patience" came with serious physical, reputational, and opportunity costs. I'm not saying that Russia should have necessarily escalated each time, I'm just pointing out that it already accepted huge costs to not escalate and seems largely set in its ways.
That's not hyperbole, it's an objective assessment of the facts. A lot of you all still for some reason think, or have convinced yourselves, that Russia is something (aka "always opposes the West and in the most radical way possible") that it isn't. You're all going to be very deeply disappointed.
We've been hearing that one for years now.
It has been abundantly obvious from the outset of this war that the Russian leadership is desperate to be lied to once more, to do a Minsk-3. The West has no such desire, since its rulers are not hurting in any way.
So what is Russia waiting for? And why has Russia been seeking a deal since the outset of this war. And what makes you so sure regarding the Russian leadership?.They aere all ready to make a Minsk-3 at Ankara before Boris Johnson ahowed up.
Wishful thinking won't help.
No. Then europeans will get tossed in. At every stage of this war, Russia has underestimated the West's desire to do them harm.
In fact, the intensity of combat in Ukraine is decreasing, according to analysis of official Russian MoD reports. Hardly the way to act if Victory Is At Hand, and your throwing out nonsensical and unfalsifiable assertions doesn't change that.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/02/ukraine-war-has-become-less-intense.html#more
As to what gives you any special insight into Russian motivation or intent?.
Your matter of fact style appeals to me, Mr Korybko, thank you for your thoughts on this one. The result that you describe would be a deal—Zelensky agrees to this, Putin agrees to that. What I miss is what most of your beloved alt-media pro-Russia pundits—all of them—seem to agree upon: such a deal will not resolve the »root problems« of Russia, which I would resume with: NATO back to its 1997 borders. Some high Kremlin officials, Medvedev first of all, have commented in a similar way. And that seems very plausible to me since Russia meanwhile has sacrificed not only a huge amount of capital, but foremost the lives of some 80,000 soldiers plus the maimed, which might be thrice as many. A deal as you describe it, in my eyes clearly does not come close to resolving the »root cause« and would, I imagine, therefore crack the unity of the Kreml leadership, if not destroy it. A backdown of China under pressure is very well possible, they always avoid a clear (extreme) position, always chose the middle way. They might do so in this case too, hoping to find some accommodation deal with the U.S. Still, if Russia backs down they will be in trouble. Please explain why this will not be the case. Thank you!
I don't know what Trump really thinks. However, the evidence in DJT's second term is that DJT's diplomatic moves are all notorious threats. Yet when the opponent made a small concession, Trump immediately switched to the "everything can be negotiated" mode. I think if the USA does not want to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, then the USA needs a large-scale mobilization, like calling up all reservists discharged in the last 20 years to get enough manpower. Then there is the issue of weapons production. That approach will bring back a lot of bodies in bags yet still lose the war. Other than direct conventional military confrontation, the USA can have a total embargo against Russia, including secondary and tertiary sanctions. Some of Russia's partners and most of the neutrals will bend, but some will bundle up tighter to form a clear block. By then, nuclear war will be the only "solution".
If Putin is willing to give DJT some "face" for whatever reason, Russians will try to find an insignificant aspect to yield. I am ignorant about what can be used as the sacrificial lamb for this purpose. Any yield, even symbolic ones, may give DJT the wrong idea that his threats work again, albeit to a smaller extent when applied to a stronger opponent. The neocons in the USA will always bad-mouth Putin, the Russian people, and any other nationalistic Russian leader no matter what Russians do.
Trump can't use nukes FIRST in Ukraine - Russia will reciprocate, and it looks that current Russian nuclear arsenal is more reliable than the US one. So the US' first use options are limited to non-nuclear.
Obviously, Trump doesn't want to put the US own troops in harm's way. There is a question (again) how many he could mobilize and there is no evidence the woke and DEI army could fight better than the Ukrainians themselves.
Jan 26, 2025 Putin: If Trump Had Won in 2020 There Might Not Have Been War in Ukraine
In a short interview with Pavel Zarubin, at Moscow State University, Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the topic of U.S. President Donald Trump wanting a meeting to talk about Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/Yzwoyp6rFo8?si=Pomi_GJZoooawRyk
The American economy is badly damaged, this is not the 1990s. The sanctions they impose on others hurt disproportionately average Americans as well. How much they can pressure India and China then if the pain goes both ways?!
If Trump wants Putin to "come to the table" then Trump should concentrate on neutralising Putin's primary obstacle to detente - that is remove Zelensky and his acolytes from the decision making process in Ukraine and replace him/them with Ukrainians of integrity and authority to represent the majority of Ukrainians who genuinely want to talk about how to end the killing.
Sanctions are, in the long term, dramatically opposed to US interests, a colossal mistake, and actually in the interests of the world outside the West. They will force China, Russia, and India to cooperate.
In the short term they will harm the people of those nations' livelihoods and standard of living, but this is rapidly changing. The USA is now only responsible for 15% of China's exports, and this is continuing to decline in favor of emerging markets. If you expand this to all countries which would be expected to slavishly comply with US sanctions that expands to around 36.3% of China's exports, and these figures are 2 years out of date.
Russia, India, and Hong Kong alone are about the same amount of exports for China as the USA.
China and Russia's priority should be expanding BRICS in the interests of its members, and expanding trade between them. Indonesia is a crucial addition.
If you look closely, all nations involved in South China Sea disputes are now either in BRICS, partners, invited or have asked to join, expect for Brunei and the Philippines. Taiwan is a special case, and they have the exact same claims as the PRC anyway. Where does this leave Western pretexts for war in SE Asia?
Interesting times ahead. I adore my native West, but we have completely lost our way and need healthy competition to get back on track. As an Australian, I will be visting Indonesia this year to do my bit to foster good will with our BRICS friends to the north, to make it clear we are not so different, and that if we apply ourselves we can have peace and prosperity in our lifetimes, despite our political differences.
If China and India were to yield to the US, and they might, what would be the point of the BRICS?
BRICS came into existence as a means of protecting national interests from a unipolar overlord that sets the rules and breaks them at will, while enjoying full control the financial system.
Failure to continue to trade based on fear of US sanctions could easily disillusion the smaller nations that are in line to join for their protection.
Does Mr Korybko view the BRICS simply as a posturing exercise? US threats to China and India would be the perfect test that it is more than posturing.
May the test happen; we all surely want to know how serious the BRICS partnerships really are.
Anecdotes on the conveyor belt....the world power USA needs war....
Would it not be simpler [but not politically expedient of course] to simply stop funding the war and to stop supplying weaponry to the Ukraine on the part of the US, UK and NATO? What I see now now is just more political machination on the part the collective West.
More of the same? But - massive changes domestically:
US-AID Truman Show -- A MUST see — Mike Benz at his BEST !!!—Feb 6, 2025
The USAIDTruman Show, Interview with Mike Benz (A.I.D. = Agency for Int’l Development – not “aid”)
https://rumble.com/v6hqx9a-the-usaid-truman-show-interview-with-mike-benz-triggered-ep.214.html
This analysis leaves out the fact of trade being done beyond the knowledge & oversight of USA/EU. Using national currency & other workarounds, Russia has insulated itself from much tariff & sanction harm the USA can bring. Ditto for China. India, ever the colonized state, is in a different category & ultimately will have to find its way. Trump will find out the limits of USA strong-arm tactics. Russian leadership has gone too far down sovereignty's path to back down on most of its stated aims in Ukraine. China, too, is ready for whatever USA throws at it.
Zelensky is one of the last liberal globalists left and once Trump gets the ceasefire he’s looking for then he can get rid of Zelensky. Giving the land bridge to Crimea over to Russia should be enough to bring peace in the region. Any more escalation would lead to more sanctions which in itself wouldn’t be the worst thing because a wedge between China and Russia achieves the US plan to keep them apart and keeps the world at peace. Walking away and blaming Biden would be anathema to Trump because he wants to be known as a peacemaker. Which in his first presidency he should have won the Nobel prize for peace with his Abraham Accords but the globalist leftists wouldn’t allow that. The truth will most likely never come out why this war started which truthfully is the CIA fucked up too many times and Russia had enough and Zelensky listening to Johnson and Biden that they would fund the war and our hedge funds would come in after and reconstruct the country. Zelensky being hailed as Churchill was all made for TV bullshit as I’d love to see a full accounting for the billions of my tax dollars that help destroy this country and kill far too many innocent and young Ukrainians. A war that NEVER should have begun in the first place. Ukraine could never have won and why they believed they could was delusional for Zelensky to think. I’d be checking his bank accounts too.
Russia’s real win condition is to have Elensky and his goons out of Ukraine. The rest is not as much important as this.