As Trump said to Z, you have no cards. Trump doesn’t have any either. Russia has already won, and unless Putin’s conditions are met there’s no reason not to finish the mopping up job. The US has amply proven that it cannot be trusted, especially with respect to honoring ceasefires. There’s no difference between Trump and Netanyahu in this regard. The sanctions have backfired. The battles have been lost in the proxy war. The US has all but admitted defeat, and Z isn’t invited to the table. He’s not legitimate governor of anything. Yes, it’s too bad, especially for most Ukrainians who didn’t ask for this. If Trump wants peace he could offer the heads of Z, Nuland and Starmer (figuratively speaking, of course). Escalating to de-escalate is just a path to WWIII.
Well, V.Putin is not under a pressure of freeing the hostages and surely knows of ceasefires Israel pushed in because of need to free citizens kidnapped by Islamisation bandits of Gaza.
With ceasefires, Netanyahu works on the principle if you break ceasefire, he isn't going to the US for green light, he will respond as is. So if Hamas or Hezbollah militants break the ceasefire as Israelis see it they are eliminated and that is it.
With Putin, he has a much longer fuse, and that is known everywhere. So there is a much bigger potential for Ukrainian provocation and testing.
The main point for Trump is that he is several degrees more efficient than Biden. So if he does want to increase the lethality of the US army, or production of cheap but cutting edge material he can probably do it. Of course MSM don't talk about that because of TDS. This is also the reason why Putin wanted Ms Harris to win.
That europeans are cheering the idea of a "truce" as an opportunity for Ukraine to rearm and regroup tells you all that you need to know. Doesn't mean Russia will not take the bait. Again. See, e.g. Minsk, Minsk-2, Istanbul.
Anyway, Trump immediately resumed arms and intelligence to Ukraine.
Well, it has long been abundantly obvious that Russia does not want this war and never has wanted this war, and was seeking any excuses to get out of this war. Even at cost of a Minsk-3.
Needless to say, the West sees this, not as reasonableness or humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness and smells blood.
Nyet means nyet. No cease fire. Putin has already made that clear and the US has resumed military aid and intelligence. The US just wants time to rearm Ukraine.
The intention of this agreement seems to be to provoke a Russian refusal, in order to make Russia looking bad. Even the wording is provocative. So, for instance, it mentions "the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children." That will not go down well with the Russians.
The "Ukrainian children" nonsense is a poison pill. So, if I assume that the ceasefire was expected to be rejected, how does that help Trump? Why send nonsense proposals and why restore satellite telemetry for Ukrainian attacks into Russia? All this chaos seems much more Marco than Donald.
Trump really wants to stop this war, and Russia’s input into the ceasefire process will be allowed soon. As usual, the devil will be in the details. There are a lot of things Russia will try to secure but what will Russia settle for?
Allowing the rearmament of Ukraine during the ceasefire is a NO!
Exposing large numbers of ethnic Russians to Ukraine authorities in the border regions, NO!
Standing by while U.S./NATO floods Ukraine with soldiers on the ground, NO!
Any process that aims to break the momentum of forward movement of the Russian Army for 30 days of peace and pat on the shoulder by Trump, NO!
Generally, Trump and U.S./NATO has zero credit in this process. That all went down the drain with NATO advances, Minsk, etc. The Russia-China relations are lot more stable than they seem on the surface and neither country will risk this relationship for a U.S. smile. They fully understand that behind the sudden Trump turn there is Giant Mountain of insecurity. Four years from now the ship can turn again. Trump’s execution of the promised domestic changes are already breaking up. China and Russia, these two large nations were living together, sharing a long border while keeping their conflicts minor and well managed going back to the Stalin era. There was even a degree of military cooperation during the Korean War. Putin can simply not afford to give up his gains on the battlefields for a theatrical event.
The U.S. public might not remember but the Chinese leadership does: On June 28, 2010 three U.S. nuclear submarines surfaced simultaneously around China, as an unmistakable argument for U.S. “exceptionalism”. A course was set for China that day that they keep following ever since.
Given your long history of (almost) daily analysis and predictions about Russia, I am surprised and disappointed you neglected to use your knowledge of Putin and the goals of the Russian leadership and people to predict what DECISION WILL be made about the 30-day cease fire.
I was hoping you would explain to us WHY YOU made your choice, or in this case, neglected to make a prediction.
If I have to guess, from the content of today's essay, I have to guess that you must think the two alternatives are approximately equal in probability.
I am very surprised that anyone who has followed the many explicit speeches of Putin, Lavrov and others could think that, after explicitly and publicly rejecting cease fires without a long list of preconditions, that the Russian leadership will take an action that labels all of its serious Red Lines as just Red Lies.
This makes me all the more interested why you listed reasons, with no assessment.
I find it very odd, given VVP himself has taken himself to task, repeatedly, for believing US and Western politicians given how often they change their tune and go back on their word.
Do you really think Russia will act to confirm its critics' view that they have no Red Lines that mean anything?
Your first 5 reasons (for Russia to refuse the ceasefire offer) will likely make much more sense to Russia than the contrary argument. Besides, given that Russia has been pursuing a war of attrition rather than a territorial war, why on earth would they want to stop now, when the long slog to get to the Ukrainian military's breaking point is so close? The West can do very little at this point to prolong the agony--if a resort to military force alone could have done the job, it would have been done long ago.
Some recent convincing analysis about the UK's current and future positions in Odessa and how London is already entrenched there, having received the OK in the 100-year UK Support Deal, which gives UK control of port facilities and other Ukrainian infrastructure.
If Russia allows that to happen, by agreeing to a Peace, with Odessa in Ukrainian/UK hands, the probability of significant problems is surely enhanced. If Russia agrees to a Cease Fire that allows Ukraine to be rearmed and their army re-populated, how long do they have to drag out the war after the 30-days, to take Odessa?
Russia resuming the war after the 30 days ceasefire will likely invite US sanction escalation on Russia and more US support for Ukraine in what will then have truly become Trump's Proxy War against Russia, adding Trump Saving Face as a deterrent to eventual Peace.
> "Everyone will soon find out whether or not Putin agrees to a ceasefire..." I respectfully disagree. In my assessment, Putin understands the optics of rejecting a ceasefire and also understands the dangers of a ceasefire, so I expect him to delay and distract while Western opinion's focus on the ceasefire deal slowly decays.
Putin's policy of "fight while talking" is his obvious strong card and I expect him to play this card at least until Russia has gained most, if not all, Novorossiya.
As a matter of statecraft, the task is to avoid a hard boil and keep diplomacy at a warm simmer so as not to embarrass Trump.
Putin understands that his most hardened enemies are among the professional managerial class in Europe. These PMCs are also Trump's most determined enemies, so there is a community of interest between Trump and Putin, but the relationship is asymmetrical in that success of the "new detente" between Russia and the US would garner laurels for Putin domestically but would only empower Trump's domestic and European PMC enemies.
In my opinion, Trump has made a strategic error in emphasizing Ukrainian security as a US strategic interest. This leaves the door open to him being pushed through it with more proxy arms and more diplomatically wasted capital in a new tit for tat proxy escalation. The error in this policy is that proxy escalation while harmful to Russia cannot change Russian policy because Russian policy is based on existential realities and a tit for tat US proxy strategy is only based on Trump's need for prestige in his struggle against the international PMC.
Therefore, Trump's "proxy war while talking" is handicapped because Russia has escalatory dominance. Why? Because Putin's "fight while talking" has no political cost and Trump's "proxy war while talking" risks making Trump adopt the same flawed strategy that his PMC enemies advocate. At some level Trump knows this, and that makes the current US ceasefire offer very strange.
The Ukrainian proverb is "If there is no fish, let's talk of fish".
Really, will Russia authorise stationing NATO troops disguised into peacekeeping camouflage while some NATO countries already consider sending their jets ,1000+, not on NATO, but "own merits" :) , to close a sky over L'viv and Odessa recently?
The Russians could agree to a short ceasefire that would allow Ukraine to hold elections? It's in Russia's best interest to get rid of Zelenksy. I think Trump agrees here as well. I argue Zelensky can't afford peace because everyone would find out pretty soon how many Ukrainians have died and those numbers will be shocking.
It's not in Russia's interest to remove Zelensky. Doing that would have been easy peasy. Instead Putin gave word to Naftali Bennett that he won't do it early in 2022. And has stuck to that word given almost 3 years ago even if Bennett is currently not even a Knesset member.
Removing someone by vote is different from assassination. I agree that Zelenksy was somewhat useful for Russia because he made a lot of blunders in the war. Failed counter offensive, failed Kursk excursion etc. But he's blocking legitimate negotiations and lost all legitimacy as well. Eventually he will need to go, one way or the other.
It's a bit like the golden snitch's "I open at the close" - ie not until Russia has won completely. Russia knows that his replacement won't be any more Russia friendly. So no reason to do it. For the US all the more reason to replace him. But then, the S Vietnam's experience in the 1960s with that is not encouraging for the US either.
As Trump said to Z, you have no cards. Trump doesn’t have any either. Russia has already won, and unless Putin’s conditions are met there’s no reason not to finish the mopping up job. The US has amply proven that it cannot be trusted, especially with respect to honoring ceasefires. There’s no difference between Trump and Netanyahu in this regard. The sanctions have backfired. The battles have been lost in the proxy war. The US has all but admitted defeat, and Z isn’t invited to the table. He’s not legitimate governor of anything. Yes, it’s too bad, especially for most Ukrainians who didn’t ask for this. If Trump wants peace he could offer the heads of Z, Nuland and Starmer (figuratively speaking, of course). Escalating to de-escalate is just a path to WWIII.
"Escalating to de-escalate is just a path to WWIII."
This is why the europeans are cheering on the "ceasefire" just as they were lauding the "rare earths deal" a couple weeks ago.
Make no mistake.
Well, V.Putin is not under a pressure of freeing the hostages and surely knows of ceasefires Israel pushed in because of need to free citizens kidnapped by Islamisation bandits of Gaza.
With ceasefires, Netanyahu works on the principle if you break ceasefire, he isn't going to the US for green light, he will respond as is. So if Hamas or Hezbollah militants break the ceasefire as Israelis see it they are eliminated and that is it.
With Putin, he has a much longer fuse, and that is known everywhere. So there is a much bigger potential for Ukrainian provocation and testing.
The main point for Trump is that he is several degrees more efficient than Biden. So if he does want to increase the lethality of the US army, or production of cheap but cutting edge material he can probably do it. Of course MSM don't talk about that because of TDS. This is also the reason why Putin wanted Ms Harris to win.
That europeans are cheering the idea of a "truce" as an opportunity for Ukraine to rearm and regroup tells you all that you need to know. Doesn't mean Russia will not take the bait. Again. See, e.g. Minsk, Minsk-2, Istanbul.
Anyway, Trump immediately resumed arms and intelligence to Ukraine.
Minsk - III
Well, it has long been abundantly obvious that Russia does not want this war and never has wanted this war, and was seeking any excuses to get out of this war. Even at cost of a Minsk-3.
Needless to say, the West sees this, not as reasonableness or humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness and smells blood.
Perhaps the ceasefire offer is Marco's idea that Trump may eventually regret.
Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Nyet means nyet. No cease fire. Putin has already made that clear and the US has resumed military aid and intelligence. The US just wants time to rearm Ukraine.
There will be NO Minsk 3.
The intention of this agreement seems to be to provoke a Russian refusal, in order to make Russia looking bad. Even the wording is provocative. So, for instance, it mentions "the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children." That will not go down well with the Russians.
Yes, exactly. Russian leaders aren't fooled by DJT's machinations & bluster. Ultimately, it's all to make Russia look like the bad guy, as usual.
The "Ukrainian children" nonsense is a poison pill. So, if I assume that the ceasefire was expected to be rejected, how does that help Trump? Why send nonsense proposals and why restore satellite telemetry for Ukrainian attacks into Russia? All this chaos seems much more Marco than Donald.
Nyet means nyet.
Trump really wants to stop this war, and Russia’s input into the ceasefire process will be allowed soon. As usual, the devil will be in the details. There are a lot of things Russia will try to secure but what will Russia settle for?
Allowing the rearmament of Ukraine during the ceasefire is a NO!
Exposing large numbers of ethnic Russians to Ukraine authorities in the border regions, NO!
Standing by while U.S./NATO floods Ukraine with soldiers on the ground, NO!
Any process that aims to break the momentum of forward movement of the Russian Army for 30 days of peace and pat on the shoulder by Trump, NO!
Generally, Trump and U.S./NATO has zero credit in this process. That all went down the drain with NATO advances, Minsk, etc. The Russia-China relations are lot more stable than they seem on the surface and neither country will risk this relationship for a U.S. smile. They fully understand that behind the sudden Trump turn there is Giant Mountain of insecurity. Four years from now the ship can turn again. Trump’s execution of the promised domestic changes are already breaking up. China and Russia, these two large nations were living together, sharing a long border while keeping their conflicts minor and well managed going back to the Stalin era. There was even a degree of military cooperation during the Korean War. Putin can simply not afford to give up his gains on the battlefields for a theatrical event.
The U.S. public might not remember but the Chinese leadership does: On June 28, 2010 three U.S. nuclear submarines surfaced simultaneously around China, as an unmistakable argument for U.S. “exceptionalism”. A course was set for China that day that they keep following ever since.
https://time.com/archive/6916302/u-s-missiles-deployed-near-china-send-a-message/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-freaked-navy-surfaced-3-missile-subs-once-send-clear-warning-208924
> "Putin can simply not afford to give up his gains on the battlefields for a theatrical event."
Yes.
Given your long history of (almost) daily analysis and predictions about Russia, I am surprised and disappointed you neglected to use your knowledge of Putin and the goals of the Russian leadership and people to predict what DECISION WILL be made about the 30-day cease fire.
I was hoping you would explain to us WHY YOU made your choice, or in this case, neglected to make a prediction.
If I have to guess, from the content of today's essay, I have to guess that you must think the two alternatives are approximately equal in probability.
I am very surprised that anyone who has followed the many explicit speeches of Putin, Lavrov and others could think that, after explicitly and publicly rejecting cease fires without a long list of preconditions, that the Russian leadership will take an action that labels all of its serious Red Lines as just Red Lies.
This makes me all the more interested why you listed reasons, with no assessment.
I find it very odd, given VVP himself has taken himself to task, repeatedly, for believing US and Western politicians given how often they change their tune and go back on their word.
Do you really think Russia will act to confirm its critics' view that they have no Red Lines that mean anything?
Your first 5 reasons (for Russia to refuse the ceasefire offer) will likely make much more sense to Russia than the contrary argument. Besides, given that Russia has been pursuing a war of attrition rather than a territorial war, why on earth would they want to stop now, when the long slog to get to the Ukrainian military's breaking point is so close? The West can do very little at this point to prolong the agony--if a resort to military force alone could have done the job, it would have been done long ago.
Great summary thank you
There is a good reason Putin, and others, call the West the “Empire of Lies”.
For details the first 70 or so pages of Scott Horton’s book, “Provoked” lays it out.
Some recent convincing analysis about the UK's current and future positions in Odessa and how London is already entrenched there, having received the OK in the 100-year UK Support Deal, which gives UK control of port facilities and other Ukrainian infrastructure.
If Russia allows that to happen, by agreeing to a Peace, with Odessa in Ukrainian/UK hands, the probability of significant problems is surely enhanced. If Russia agrees to a Cease Fire that allows Ukraine to be rearmed and their army re-populated, how long do they have to drag out the war after the 30-days, to take Odessa?
Russia resuming the war after the 30 days ceasefire will likely invite US sanction escalation on Russia and more US support for Ukraine in what will then have truly become Trump's Proxy War against Russia, adding Trump Saving Face as a deterrent to eventual Peace.
A bird in hand beats ten birds in the woods.
> "Everyone will soon find out whether or not Putin agrees to a ceasefire..." I respectfully disagree. In my assessment, Putin understands the optics of rejecting a ceasefire and also understands the dangers of a ceasefire, so I expect him to delay and distract while Western opinion's focus on the ceasefire deal slowly decays.
Putin's policy of "fight while talking" is his obvious strong card and I expect him to play this card at least until Russia has gained most, if not all, Novorossiya.
As a matter of statecraft, the task is to avoid a hard boil and keep diplomacy at a warm simmer so as not to embarrass Trump.
Putin understands that his most hardened enemies are among the professional managerial class in Europe. These PMCs are also Trump's most determined enemies, so there is a community of interest between Trump and Putin, but the relationship is asymmetrical in that success of the "new detente" between Russia and the US would garner laurels for Putin domestically but would only empower Trump's domestic and European PMC enemies.
In my opinion, Trump has made a strategic error in emphasizing Ukrainian security as a US strategic interest. This leaves the door open to him being pushed through it with more proxy arms and more diplomatically wasted capital in a new tit for tat proxy escalation. The error in this policy is that proxy escalation while harmful to Russia cannot change Russian policy because Russian policy is based on existential realities and a tit for tat US proxy strategy is only based on Trump's need for prestige in his struggle against the international PMC.
Therefore, Trump's "proxy war while talking" is handicapped because Russia has escalatory dominance. Why? Because Putin's "fight while talking" has no political cost and Trump's "proxy war while talking" risks making Trump adopt the same flawed strategy that his PMC enemies advocate. At some level Trump knows this, and that makes the current US ceasefire offer very strange.
The Ukrainian proverb is "If there is no fish, let's talk of fish".
Really, will Russia authorise stationing NATO troops disguised into peacekeeping camouflage while some NATO countries already consider sending their jets ,1000+, not on NATO, but "own merits" :) , to close a sky over L'viv and Odessa recently?
The Russians could agree to a short ceasefire that would allow Ukraine to hold elections? It's in Russia's best interest to get rid of Zelenksy. I think Trump agrees here as well. I argue Zelensky can't afford peace because everyone would find out pretty soon how many Ukrainians have died and those numbers will be shocking.
I dont think Ukraine has anyone who wouldn't be just as bad as Zelensky.
It's not in Russia's interest to remove Zelensky. Doing that would have been easy peasy. Instead Putin gave word to Naftali Bennett that he won't do it early in 2022. And has stuck to that word given almost 3 years ago even if Bennett is currently not even a Knesset member.
Removing someone by vote is different from assassination. I agree that Zelenksy was somewhat useful for Russia because he made a lot of blunders in the war. Failed counter offensive, failed Kursk excursion etc. But he's blocking legitimate negotiations and lost all legitimacy as well. Eventually he will need to go, one way or the other.
It's a bit like the golden snitch's "I open at the close" - ie not until Russia has won completely. Russia knows that his replacement won't be any more Russia friendly. So no reason to do it. For the US all the more reason to replace him. But then, the S Vietnam's experience in the 1960s with that is not encouraging for the US either.
In general, it's USA/UK tactic to remove leaders. Removing Zelensky & replacing with another puppet is in USA interest & is likely on its way.
Now that Z signed the minerals deal plus agreed to a ceasefire, that's not likely.