It’s suppositionally possible that the Financial Times’ report becomes reality, but to be absolutely clear, this is pure guesswork and it’s much more likely that Russia won’t agree to that.
Sharp analysis on the escalation ladder embedded in the three-tier plan. The 72-hour window to WWIII is probably the point, not a bug, since it creates pressure for Russia to accept intrusive monitoring. The hypthetical trade-offs mentioned make sense if we assume Russia prioritizes strategic partnerships over territorial maximalism, but that assumption contradicts nearly everything Moscow's said publicly for two years.
What trade offs? The ceasefire will be declared. NATO troops flooded in. And they will tell Russia they are a bunch of suckers that can go f#$k themselves. How did the JCPOA work out? This is how they operate.
I agree, of course, that Russia agreeing to this proposal is unlikely; on the other hand, all wars eventually end, and the peace that follows them is invariably structured by just such compromises. The only alternatives are continuing to fight a war forever along a front that either moves one way or the other, or else escalating to the nuclear threshold and beyond. In any case, Russia has demonstrated credible deterrence to further NATO expansion along its eastern flank. Obviously NATO (in all but name) troops on the immediate other side of the LoC would be hard medicine to swallow; on the other hand, the steady encroachment essentially from 1990 to 2022 would have been emphatically kyboshed, and this would be a major achievement. Moreover, in the absence of further expansion, whither NATO? Mightn't it in time be replaced by a common European Defence Force and a more hemispheric approach?
I agree that this would not be a major achievement. On the other hand, if such a thing does indeed come to pass, it seems likely that it will take the form of a legal fudge: the first line of defence will be troops serving as part of a “coalition of the willing”, etc., while the second line will consist in the USA’s more or less credible escalation dominance. This wouldn’t exactly be a “victory”, but it wouldn’t be a lot different from the situation of the Cold War, in which the USSR also actively maintained an attitude of credible escalation dominance that effectively balanced the corresponding attitude of its adversaries.
My point is that all achievements are relative. NATO expansion put Russia in an intolerable bind. In my view, it tried all diplomatic options to free itself from this bind, but in the end, it had to demonstrate that a “red line” is what it is: one step further — and then you will see what happens. What happens is what we have seen — and it is not pretty. Obviously Russia cannot keep fighting forever, but this is also true of Ukraine and the collective west. So what gives?
I still think that the costs to Russia have overriden any benefits. For over a decade Russia failed to avert many scenarios: the Maidan coup, the Donbas’ war, and NATO’s arming of Ukraine (2014–present). The West turned Ukraine into a *de facto* NATO state even before 2022. Russia’s ‘red lines‘ did not deter the West from imposing costs on its economy or escalating further in Ukraine. Russian officials have granted that their restraint meant more Russian losses than would have been the case. Moreover, having NATO troops, advisers, etc. in Ukraine is like a foreign state occupying part of the U.S. mainland—except that Ukraine is organically rooted in Rus’ civilization and is thus much less ‘artificial’ than the U.S. ever was.
I don’t disagree; however, the choice at the time was not between “good” and “better”, but rather between “bad” and “worse”. Faced by these latter options, Russia rationally chose “bad” – and this choice has fundamentally altered the world situation. It is not possible to go back to the pre-2022 situation, so one must go forward into what will happen next.
I cordially contest this. In 2014 Russia could have sent a small number of troops to back up Yanukoyvch or oust the post-Maidan regime, which was then poorly armed, at a low cost. Doing so could have easily split NATO, given Germany and France’s still-strong ties to Russia then (i.e., North Stream); Russia would have had ‘escalation dominance’ and many political cards. In 2022 Russia could have also taken over Kiev with a limited force, but chose to ‘trust’ unreliable negotiators and withdrew. Instead, Russia entered the war unprepared due to its elites’ hopes of ‘deals’ with the West (i.e., a return to the early 2000s). At first only power asymmetries helped Russia gain an edge over Ukraine.
The EU was sending billions of euros to Russia for natural gas and Biden removed sanctions on NS2 and the pipeline was completed. So the West was more than willing to continue sending billions of euros to Russia if Putin just played by the rules. So every time you Putin defenders bring up NATO encroachment you never mention the billions of euros the West was happily sending to Russia for their gas. I personally would prefer billions of euros to North Macedonia being in my sphere of influence which was the last country admitted into NATO before Putin invaded Ukraine.
As for “Putin defenders”, I think again you are missing the point. Putin doesn’t need my defence — that’s what the Russian armed forces are for. If anything, I’m defending the future possibility of a European civilisation state, but that’s not going to happen unless there is more realistic thinking.
I’d have thought the salient factor here was not the billions of euros, but the gas. It’s easy enough to print more euros, after all, but gas is a finite resource with plenty of other willing customers. If German chemical companies want to build factories in China that have easier access to Russian gas, that’s up to them — and China — but it isn’t necessarily a guarantee of continuing German economic strength.
No, because Russia’s gas and Saudi Arabia’s oil and Qatar’s gas is worthless without a party that wants to buy it. Now Europe is paying more for American LNG and Qatari LNG. In fact Saudi Arabia knows its oil will be worthless one day which is why it exports it now.
But there always will be a party that wants to buy it because human civilisation needs it as a chemical feedstock (as well as, for now, an energy vector). Ever tried to maintain a reasonable standard of material wellbeing off-grid? I have!
Now that LNG exists another party always exists…but before Qatar and Australia developed the global LNG market pipelines were necessary to make natural gas valuable. In fact in America we have natural gas all over the place but it is only valuable if is close to a pipeline that already exists because new pipelines are difficult to get built. Also wasn’t Putin’s interest in Syria about preventing a pipeline to Europe being built??
Obviously lots of things happen that make previous plans unviable. For example, who’d have thought Germany’s domestic chemical industry would become uncompetitive so quickly?
We know the U.S. doesn't follow through on agreements specially if Dems get back in power. Obama made a deal with Iran Trump did away with it same thing if Trump makes a deal. The Dems love the white on white violence
Nuland started this shit off. The Americans had been planning this for decades.... hell even before WW2 ended when the OSS/CIA reached out and formed a relationship with the banderites. Larry Johnson listed the increasing NATO exeercises in Ukraine going back a couple decades. They even tried to do exercises on Crimea but the local population drove them out in 2006. In 2016 US marines simulated crimea invasion tactics with Ukrainian troops near Odessa. In Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard he is wringing his hands over what to do about the "russification" of Eastern Ukraine. This is what they came up with.
Of course the Americans and their european catamites started it. Doesn't matter if they win. If Russia loses, there are no consolation prizes for being nice guys.
If you're talking about the Poles, the Balts, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavians, then yes.
But if you're talking about the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Slovaks, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and the Romanians, then no, you're wrong.
We can't say "the Europeans," that doesn't exist. We can say "some Europeans," but not "the European" in terms of strategic vision or economic interests.
On the one hand, it doesn't matter what european attitudes were in 2014, as the european political class has no priority other than The War On Russia, namely getting Americans to fight for them.
Again.
So you've basically conceded my point. That said, it's not as if eu leaders weren't loudly and publicly cheering on the Maidan coup, it was france and germany conducting the Minsk-2 charade, all with a wink and a nudge towards Ukraine that they need not follow any of it and france and germany would do nothing to force them to keep their word.
Europeans, of course, are crap soldiers, but they are very good at pageantry, at whispering campaigns, simpering flattery, at bending the ears of senile monarchs.
Oddly, the so-called ‘enforcement‘ regime *presumes* Russian guilt from the start (i.e., any ‘violation’ ipso facto is to be treated as Russian in origin), and its brief time-slot does not seem to allow for an inquiry. If so, then this is hardly a neutral arbitration method. If NATO is set on WWIII and seeking a pretext, this setup seems tailor-made for just that. This alone would be reason enough for a Russian rejection, though Russia ostensibly (per Trump and Witkoff) has endorsed Western monitors *somewhere* in Ukraine. At any rate, this deal would, as noted, legalize NATO’s presence in Ukraine, a clear setback for Russia’s aim(s) there. Also, given Russia’s hypersonic and other assets, Trump would be mad to countenance WWIII before the Golden Dome is ready, which will take at least a few years.
40:52 (Hegseth): “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. ... Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRdydQV53nQ (Trump, 3:20): “European troops may go into Ukraine as peacemakers, so when the agreement is done they can watch that everything’s followed properly. I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. ... Well, we’re going to have a (U.S.—ed.) backing of some kind, and obviously, the European countries are going to be involved, and I don’t think you’re going to need much backing…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT_EmmysebY (Trump, 7:45–51): “With Ukraine and this minerals deal, what does Ukraine get in return, Mr. President?” “Uh, $350 billion, and lots of equipment, military equipment, and the right to fight on.”
Wow, way to put some lipstick on the West's prize pig, that is, the farcical negotiations with Russia. What Russia wants, Russia will get. Because until the security architecture of Europe is indivisible, the West will attack Russia, either directly or through proxies, again and again and again and again. Do you not see this?
NAVO is there on Ukraine front . This same scenario door Kremlin boljschevik as in Kosovo airport of Pristina ( Serbia ) wen Russia trope take airport end deliver to NATO . End Kremlin puppet are knecht of Chabad Lubovic extreem 🤡 that there think chooses above rest of humanity in this world.
A peace-keeping force from NATO would never be accepted.
There are plenty of other countries. Turkiye is an obvious choice, but India would be possible.
But it does seem that they are edging towards a deal.
One possibility is they get it all in place apart from conceding secession. And then Zelensky is removed by the corrupt Kiev parliament and a new President accepts it.
Russia will NEVER allow foreign troops on its land which is how they regad Ukraine. Flunky empires like UK & France count for NOTHING. Thje idea that the USA would risk WWIII with Russia makes no sense. Russia = USA in nuclear weapons. The war is almost over ,Russia will win. The WEST ,USA is frustrated in not having won a war in the past 75 years and the proxy war initiated and financed by the USA will be another defeat. WWII in EUROPE was won by Russia where 95% of the German/Axis troops were killed.
Sharp analysis on the escalation ladder embedded in the three-tier plan. The 72-hour window to WWIII is probably the point, not a bug, since it creates pressure for Russia to accept intrusive monitoring. The hypthetical trade-offs mentioned make sense if we assume Russia prioritizes strategic partnerships over territorial maximalism, but that assumption contradicts nearly everything Moscow's said publicly for two years.
What trade offs? The ceasefire will be declared. NATO troops flooded in. And they will tell Russia they are a bunch of suckers that can go f#$k themselves. How did the JCPOA work out? This is how they operate.
I agree, of course, that Russia agreeing to this proposal is unlikely; on the other hand, all wars eventually end, and the peace that follows them is invariably structured by just such compromises. The only alternatives are continuing to fight a war forever along a front that either moves one way or the other, or else escalating to the nuclear threshold and beyond. In any case, Russia has demonstrated credible deterrence to further NATO expansion along its eastern flank. Obviously NATO (in all but name) troops on the immediate other side of the LoC would be hard medicine to swallow; on the other hand, the steady encroachment essentially from 1990 to 2022 would have been emphatically kyboshed, and this would be a major achievement. Moreover, in the absence of further expansion, whither NATO? Mightn't it in time be replaced by a common European Defence Force and a more hemispheric approach?
Legalizing NATO troops in Ukraine would hardly be a ‘major achievement’ for Russia. Indeed, it would clash with its stated aims there.
Hell, an admission of defeat.
I agree that this would not be a major achievement. On the other hand, if such a thing does indeed come to pass, it seems likely that it will take the form of a legal fudge: the first line of defence will be troops serving as part of a “coalition of the willing”, etc., while the second line will consist in the USA’s more or less credible escalation dominance. This wouldn’t exactly be a “victory”, but it wouldn’t be a lot different from the situation of the Cold War, in which the USSR also actively maintained an attitude of credible escalation dominance that effectively balanced the corresponding attitude of its adversaries.
My point is that all achievements are relative. NATO expansion put Russia in an intolerable bind. In my view, it tried all diplomatic options to free itself from this bind, but in the end, it had to demonstrate that a “red line” is what it is: one step further — and then you will see what happens. What happens is what we have seen — and it is not pretty. Obviously Russia cannot keep fighting forever, but this is also true of Ukraine and the collective west. So what gives?
I still think that the costs to Russia have overriden any benefits. For over a decade Russia failed to avert many scenarios: the Maidan coup, the Donbas’ war, and NATO’s arming of Ukraine (2014–present). The West turned Ukraine into a *de facto* NATO state even before 2022. Russia’s ‘red lines‘ did not deter the West from imposing costs on its economy or escalating further in Ukraine. Russian officials have granted that their restraint meant more Russian losses than would have been the case. Moreover, having NATO troops, advisers, etc. in Ukraine is like a foreign state occupying part of the U.S. mainland—except that Ukraine is organically rooted in Rus’ civilization and is thus much less ‘artificial’ than the U.S. ever was.
I don’t disagree; however, the choice at the time was not between “good” and “better”, but rather between “bad” and “worse”. Faced by these latter options, Russia rationally chose “bad” – and this choice has fundamentally altered the world situation. It is not possible to go back to the pre-2022 situation, so one must go forward into what will happen next.
I cordially contest this. In 2014 Russia could have sent a small number of troops to back up Yanukoyvch or oust the post-Maidan regime, which was then poorly armed, at a low cost. Doing so could have easily split NATO, given Germany and France’s still-strong ties to Russia then (i.e., North Stream); Russia would have had ‘escalation dominance’ and many political cards. In 2022 Russia could have also taken over Kiev with a limited force, but chose to ‘trust’ unreliable negotiators and withdrew. Instead, Russia entered the war unprepared due to its elites’ hopes of ‘deals’ with the West (i.e., a return to the early 2000s). At first only power asymmetries helped Russia gain an edge over Ukraine.
Disgusting or foolish. Choose.
The EU was sending billions of euros to Russia for natural gas and Biden removed sanctions on NS2 and the pipeline was completed. So the West was more than willing to continue sending billions of euros to Russia if Putin just played by the rules. So every time you Putin defenders bring up NATO encroachment you never mention the billions of euros the West was happily sending to Russia for their gas. I personally would prefer billions of euros to North Macedonia being in my sphere of influence which was the last country admitted into NATO before Putin invaded Ukraine.
As for “Putin defenders”, I think again you are missing the point. Putin doesn’t need my defence — that’s what the Russian armed forces are for. If anything, I’m defending the future possibility of a European civilisation state, but that’s not going to happen unless there is more realistic thinking.
I’d have thought the salient factor here was not the billions of euros, but the gas. It’s easy enough to print more euros, after all, but gas is a finite resource with plenty of other willing customers. If German chemical companies want to build factories in China that have easier access to Russian gas, that’s up to them — and China — but it isn’t necessarily a guarantee of continuing German economic strength.
No, because Russia’s gas and Saudi Arabia’s oil and Qatar’s gas is worthless without a party that wants to buy it. Now Europe is paying more for American LNG and Qatari LNG. In fact Saudi Arabia knows its oil will be worthless one day which is why it exports it now.
But there always will be a party that wants to buy it because human civilisation needs it as a chemical feedstock (as well as, for now, an energy vector). Ever tried to maintain a reasonable standard of material wellbeing off-grid? I have!
Now that LNG exists another party always exists…but before Qatar and Australia developed the global LNG market pipelines were necessary to make natural gas valuable. In fact in America we have natural gas all over the place but it is only valuable if is close to a pipeline that already exists because new pipelines are difficult to get built. Also wasn’t Putin’s interest in Syria about preventing a pipeline to Europe being built??
Obviously lots of things happen that make previous plans unviable. For example, who’d have thought Germany’s domestic chemical industry would become uncompetitive so quickly?
Thank you Andrew.
I'm a simple man. And I have a memory.
Few months ago , Poutine, Lavrov and Medvedev said, repeated and again that a cease fire was unacceptable.
If today Russia accept a ceasefire, it would be the proof of a terrible strategic defeat and that SMO was an appalling mess.
I don't know russian mind but I imagine easily that a lot of Russians would not forgive Poutine for that.
What Are The Odds Of Russia Agreeing To A Three-Tiered Ceasefire Enforcement Plan In Ukraine?
This is not going to happen as Russia is better off to keep going with the war.
I don't know if Russia has interest to continue this war. But I know that such a ceasefire would mean a terrible defeat and another war soon.
We know the U.S. doesn't follow through on agreements specially if Dems get back in power. Obama made a deal with Iran Trump did away with it same thing if Trump makes a deal. The Dems love the white on white violence
Since the beginning of this war, europe and Ukraine planned to mousetrap the Americans into going to war for them.
Their goal is now in sight.
Nuland started this shit off. The Americans had been planning this for decades.... hell even before WW2 ended when the OSS/CIA reached out and formed a relationship with the banderites. Larry Johnson listed the increasing NATO exeercises in Ukraine going back a couple decades. They even tried to do exercises on Crimea but the local population drove them out in 2006. In 2016 US marines simulated crimea invasion tactics with Ukrainian troops near Odessa. In Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard he is wringing his hands over what to do about the "russification" of Eastern Ukraine. This is what they came up with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_anti-NATO_protests_in_Feodosia
https://www.unian.info/society/1497233-nato-releases-video-of-us-marines-first-ever-amphibious-landing-in-ukraine.html
Of course the Americans and their european catamites started it. Doesn't matter if they win. If Russia loses, there are no consolation prizes for being nice guys.
If you're talking about the Poles, the Balts, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavians, then yes.
But if you're talking about the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Slovaks, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and the Romanians, then no, you're wrong.
We can't say "the Europeans," that doesn't exist. We can say "some Europeans," but not "the European" in terms of strategic vision or economic interests.
As a reminder, Russia is also European.
Since the french and british are itching to get this mousetrap set up, sorry , but you're wrong.
And no, they don't see Russia as "european"at all, any more than did the Third Reich.
It's not what I said. And for French and British, you say what they do now not what they did at the beginning, 2014.
Speaking about USA as a small foolish victim of vicious Europeans is a little bit funny and a few childish.
On the one hand, it doesn't matter what european attitudes were in 2014, as the european political class has no priority other than The War On Russia, namely getting Americans to fight for them.
Again.
So you've basically conceded my point. That said, it's not as if eu leaders weren't loudly and publicly cheering on the Maidan coup, it was france and germany conducting the Minsk-2 charade, all with a wink and a nudge towards Ukraine that they need not follow any of it and france and germany would do nothing to force them to keep their word.
Europeans, of course, are crap soldiers, but they are very good at pageantry, at whispering campaigns, simpering flattery, at bending the ears of senile monarchs.
Bla, bla, bla
I repeat, when you speak about USA as a poor foolish victim of vicious Europeans it's simply grotesque.
I made specific representations of fact. Which do you dispute and what is your basis for doing so?
The Americans are thugs, do doubt. Europeans look at that and seek to use it to their advantage.
Oddly, the so-called ‘enforcement‘ regime *presumes* Russian guilt from the start (i.e., any ‘violation’ ipso facto is to be treated as Russian in origin), and its brief time-slot does not seem to allow for an inquiry. If so, then this is hardly a neutral arbitration method. If NATO is set on WWIII and seeking a pretext, this setup seems tailor-made for just that. This alone would be reason enough for a Russian rejection, though Russia ostensibly (per Trump and Witkoff) has endorsed Western monitors *somewhere* in Ukraine. At any rate, this deal would, as noted, legalize NATO’s presence in Ukraine, a clear setback for Russia’s aim(s) there. Also, given Russia’s hypersonic and other assets, Trump would be mad to countenance WWIII before the Golden Dome is ready, which will take at least a few years.
Re: the ‘ceasefire’, the U.S. already outlined this very format a year ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gaqJR-Daw8):
40:52 (Hegseth): “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. ... Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRdydQV53nQ (Trump, 3:20): “European troops may go into Ukraine as peacemakers, so when the agreement is done they can watch that everything’s followed properly. I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. ... Well, we’re going to have a (U.S.—ed.) backing of some kind, and obviously, the European countries are going to be involved, and I don’t think you’re going to need much backing…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT_EmmysebY (Trump, 7:45–51): “With Ukraine and this minerals deal, what does Ukraine get in return, Mr. President?” “Uh, $350 billion, and lots of equipment, military equipment, and the right to fight on.”
Personally, I don't ask anymore because he's dealing with the evils of the West. It's a task with 24/7 pressure that none of us could even imagine.
Wow, way to put some lipstick on the West's prize pig, that is, the farcical negotiations with Russia. What Russia wants, Russia will get. Because until the security architecture of Europe is indivisible, the West will attack Russia, either directly or through proxies, again and again and again and again. Do you not see this?
NAVO is there on Ukraine front . This same scenario door Kremlin boljschevik as in Kosovo airport of Pristina ( Serbia ) wen Russia trope take airport end deliver to NATO . End Kremlin puppet are knecht of Chabad Lubovic extreem 🤡 that there think chooses above rest of humanity in this world.
Russia is under no apparent pressure to swallow such a poison-pill.
Russia - " Iran has full right to hold a Uranium stockpile" also Russia " Give us your Uranium stockpile Iran "
Russia has already surrendered.
https://www.rt.com/news/632008-russia-willing-to-remove-enriched-uranium-from-iran/
I think that you have not read this article of RT.
As usual, you speak without having read.
As usual, your opinion is in the minority.
Russia will not agree to any cease fire.
A peace-keeping force from NATO would never be accepted.
There are plenty of other countries. Turkiye is an obvious choice, but India would be possible.
But it does seem that they are edging towards a deal.
One possibility is they get it all in place apart from conceding secession. And then Zelensky is removed by the corrupt Kiev parliament and a new President accepts it.
Russia will NEVER allow foreign troops on its land which is how they regad Ukraine. Flunky empires like UK & France count for NOTHING. Thje idea that the USA would risk WWIII with Russia makes no sense. Russia = USA in nuclear weapons. The war is almost over ,Russia will win. The WEST ,USA is frustrated in not having won a war in the past 75 years and the proxy war initiated and financed by the USA will be another defeat. WWII in EUROPE was won by Russia where 95% of the German/Axis troops were killed.
How can Russia get the West to follow any agreeement? The West isn't agreement capable.