Russia's long range drones don't seem to be effective enough for that to matter. Their front line drones are a problem for sure. But if the transportation system to get those drones to the front lines breaks then that's not a problem
Although I have many disagreements--some fairly serious--with your essay, I would prefer to avoid contentiousness by asking you to consider the issue from the U.S. perspective. As you clearly realize, our national interests are not the same as Europe's "national" interests, let alone Ukraine's. And as you have stated in your prior essay, NATO's day has come and gone. It may take some time for the formalities to catch up, but this administration's made it clear that the days of Europe contracting out their security to the U.S. are over.
Nor is this anything new: after all, was it not President Obama who first made explicit that the U.S. would "pivot to Asia"? So this is policy that has been executed by the last four administrations (including the current one) going back to 2009. Note also that these policies have bridged two Democratic and two Republican (again, including this one) administrations, suggesting that it is a rare example of bipartisan consensus.
Russia is no longer a peer competitor for the U.S.: China is. The Chinese are making moves that are profoundly destabilizing and the U.S. needs to make a robust and credible response. And as much as the U.S. want to keep Europe from being attacked by Russia, at the moment we need to place a higher priority on keeping Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, /e tutti quanti/ from being attacked by the PRC.
With that being said, allow me to invite you to compare the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict with the Korean War (1950-1953).
The Korean War came to an end when President Eisenhower, seeing that the war had degenerated into a "meat-grinder" phase, forced Syngman Rhee to abandon his grandiose plans to unite the Korean Peninsula under his aegis. And despite numerous provocations--mostly by the North--that "peace" (technically an armistice) has held for over seventy years. You'll note that both sides very nearly managed to achieve total victory--twice by the North and once by the UN forces on behalf of the South--but in the end it came down to a stalemate.
You might also consider the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988). That conflict ended due to the mutual exhaustion of both sides, after casualty levels comparable (time adjusted) than those currently experienced by the combatants in Ukraine.
My point is--to borrow Fred Ikle's famous phrase--"every war must end." And it can end when both sides have destroyed themselves and their adversaries--as in Iraq-Iran, or for that matter WW1--or it can end when one--or both--sides make the demarche to end it.
Will ending the Ukrainian War now be a good deal for Ukraine? The only answer I can give you is, "compared to what?"
"One thing that I’ve said before and I’ll repeat is that the real endgame for Eastern Europe has to be the partitioning of Russia into separate bits. " OK, I have to agree that was the start & the planned, desired endgame, though I don't necessarily conciser such rational or reasonable.
As to the end of it all it seems to me Zelenskyy,during his visit to Washington, created a very very narrow notch twix a rock and a hard place for his country and him to perch.
Depend on Germany for drone building? Depend on France, Germany & England for support? Looks like game over to me.
Me? At this point looking for peace in our time and, alas, President Trump seems the only one wanting/offering such.
Zelenskyy really screwed the pooch in that, he should have had at least a week of practice - or begged off and sent a diplomat - or used a "translator" to keep control of the momentum and drection. That's what Putin does - he sends Lavrov, or he has a "translator" even though he speaks perfectly good English and understands it. He's not dumb.
"Zelenskyy needed to have had answers as to why the US should support Ukraine and that Putin cannot be trusted that he could clearly articulate"
He could have done this with adequate practice, but he tried to wing it, and he allowed himself to be provoked, and he got nailed. The reasons why the US should support Ukraine are the Budapest Memorandum, in which the US and the UK (and France and Russia) conned Ukraine into giving up its nuclear forces, which were the third largest in Europe and would have been a substantial deterrent, in return for a promise to defend Ukraine's 1991 borders, including Crimea - and the various Minsk Accords - but the Budapest Memorandum should be sufficient. As to why Putin shouldn't be trusted, there are the Belovezha Accords and the Alma Ata Memorandum, which created the Commonwealth of Independent States, back in the 1990s. The main signatories included Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and numerous successor governments to the various former Soviet Socialist Republics. Those signatories agreed to respect and defend each other's borders. Putin first broke it when he invaded Chechnya, then Georgia, then Ossetia, then Crimea, then Ukraine. That CIS treaty is still in effect and the CIS has a webpage: https://e-cis.info/ - and you can see the Ukrainian flag there. Treaties are a temporary tool for Putin, worthless as used toilet paper, as are ceasefires and truces a/k/a operational pauses...
The pearl-clutching going on in the West is ridiculous, Putin is unable to gain full control over territory which the Russians had declared as theirs after more than two years of hard (for them) effort. They still don’t control Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast after working at it for over three months of concerted effort. It’s just ridiculous - just look at the map: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-22-2025 You’d think that Putin would catch a clue after all of this time, that even up against Ukraine alone, without the US or Europe, he’s pretty much going to be lucky to keep what he has. If they can’t fight successfully in the Donbass, they sure as hell won’t be able to do anything anyplace else - if China marched into Russia’s Far East, he’d be lucky to push them out - as the Soviet Army did when China crossed the Amur River in 1969.
Note that Russia at the outset of the war had about the GDP of Italy and nearly no manufacturing economy - it's had to get its materiel and ammunition and the like from abroad and from old Soviet stocks, and the latter are running out. If Europe stepped into the shoes of the US in this conflict, it could do enough to ensure a win for Ukraine - and the way things are going for Russia, that may not take very long. And as a threat to the rest of Europe, Putin may talk big, but his army has been stopped cold for nearly 2 1/2 years, having gotten 50% of Donetsk Oblast, and 70% of Zaporhizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts - and that's about it. And Russia hasn't been able to run the Ukrainians out of Kursk Oblast, either - after six months. The people who have been jailed for discrediting the Russian Army should be freed and given medals, and they should be replaced by that stupid, incompetent ass Gerasimov, and that thief, Shoigu - and others like them.
Putin is probably pretty close to exhaustion, like a punch drunk fighter, and really poses no credible threat to anyone else, at this point if he bothered to attack Finland, they could probably finish him off in a month. All it takes now is for Europe to get together and deliver the knockout punch - if they can muster the will to do so.
A couple more points - hit pipelines in Siberia with drones or missiles, then they have to stop pumping, and when they do that, the wells that pipeline serves are screwed - because of the permafrost, the oil turns into thick sludge, then something like concrete mixed with epoxy. Those wells have to be re-drilled.
Europe needs to step up right away and revitalize Ukraine's air defense systems, that's number one - an immediate priority. If there's an Iron Dome over Ukraine, that helps tremendously. The second thing is to supply long range missiles to take out the Kerch Bridge - really nail it so it can't be fixed - dump the span in the Kerch Strait. And then find railroad bridges on the Azov line coming from Rostov-na-Donu and Taganrog, and obliterate them. That screws Russian logistics in Donetsk and on down south. Interdict those supply lines and Russia is done.
"Treaties are a temporary tool for Putin, worthless as used toilet paper, as are ceasefires and truces a/k/a operational pauses..."
Agreed. Absolutely true. But here's the question: who does an "operational pause" help more: Russia, whose industrial infrastructure is in the toilet and is largely bereft of allies (I mean...North Korea and Iran? Please...), or Ukraine, who--in any of these scenarios--would be backstopped by the EU, a grouping of countries whose total GDP is an order of magnitude greater than Russia's?
It seems to me that to ask the question is to answer it. But of course, it's premised on the Ukes getting their act together and working as hard as they can--with EU support--to turn themselves into a porcupine, an armed camp on the Switzerland model (it would of course help if they had Switzerland's physical geography).
So I beg leave to respectfully disagree with your suggestion that a cease-fire is good for Russia and bad for Ukraine. I'll invoke the Korean War once again: who's better off from the 73-year "operational pause" that's currently in place? But again...the implication of that is that Ukraine would have to follow the South Korean model and give up on being a corruptocracy.
Can they do it? I do not know. But that's the path they have to follow if they are to survive.
I think the Ukrainians will do better if there's a ceasefire in a few months not now, assuming they have the supplies needed to continue. If their European allies are unable to supply them then they need a ceasefire now.
It is unclear to me (and this is obviously deliberate) how much materiel they have and how much they can expect to get in addition in the near future. But as I say, assuming they have the ability to continue as they have in the last ~3 months or so for a few more months they are likely to make Russia's recovery exponentially harder and slower
In Korean terms this is like accepting the current line which has Seoul in easy range of Nork artillery and one where the line is 20 miles further north.
The pledges from the EU need to be real - in terms of materiel and munitions - and perhaps troops - but air defense and counterlogistic long range strikes as I've mentioned are *absolutely* vital - like right away. The UK has done quite well with the Storm Shadows, but Europe simply has got to get cracking and stop screwing around. Putin should not be given an operational pause if there is *any* way to avoid it.
You have given an extensive description of WHAT and HOW, but I've yet to fully understand the WHY.
What is the U.S.--or for that matter the EU--strategic interest in Ukraine?
Having articulated whatever you think that might be, what are the U.S./EU objectives in the conflict?
So far all I hear is "we have to keep supporting Ukraine because we need to deter Russian aggression!" Well, deterrence has failed. We are now in a different place on the conflict ladder and I've yet to hear from anyone what the endgame is.
I'll say it again--"every war must end." If you believe--as evidently you do--that the time is not yet ripe for this particular war to end, when will it be? Under what conditions do you believe we could--and should--end our (and the EU their) support for Ukraine?
Ukraine has significant rare earth minerals deposits - China and Russia do, too - which are in the vital national security interest of the US. The US gets about $1 billion worth of uranium alone from Russia - and has been for quite a while. This isn't a very good arrangement, for any number of reasons you could think of - see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/guess-what-ukraine-has-that-russia - so there's that. That's a pretty good strategic interest...
...And we proposed an arrangement that would have leveraged that and provided an implied assurance of our interest in maintaining Ukraine's independence. That got torpedoed on live television by Ukraine's leader, because his objectives are not our objectives. It's gonna take a lot of work to fix that, and in the meantime, Ukraine won't be getting one thin dime in aid from the US.
Incidentally, you've made the--impeccably correct--argument that we can't trust Putin because he still lives by the old Leninist maxim that "treaties are like pie-crusts, made to be broken." Meanwhile, our prospective strategic partner makes a deal with us and before there's even any ink to dry, he publicly gets into a fight with us and blows the whole thing up. Surely by your logic we can no longer trust Ukraine, right?
Anyhow, that's just the first question of the two I asked. Even assuming I accept your premises--which I'll stipulate for purposes of the conversation--I've yet to hear how and under what arrangements you propose to bring the war to an end.
b) having a secure trading partner in Ukraine which has lots of things Europe wants and wants lots of things Europe can sell
My endgame is partition Russia so the bits aren't big enough to threaten anyone. Russia is the only 19th C European empire still standing and it shouldn't be still standing as it is very much Moscow and St P exploiting the rest of the nation
I'll take a significant Russia withdrawal as a first step that allows for a cease fire though because without a significant withdrawal Putin still has the incentive to try again, with it he probably gets civil war which gets me to my endgame
Well, as I said earlier, we are not Europe. And the Euros are big boys who've got the means to achieve those goals without our help. I'm still not clear that the US is implicated in managing a regional threat that their neighbors have the wherewithal to deal with if they so choose.
At the moment, Russia is no more of a threat than Iran or North Korea. If the Euros can't deal with that, I'm very sorry for them, but it's not our job. In fact I categorically reject your implied suggestion that it is our job. We face a much more severe threat environment in the Pacific and that's where we need to redirect our attention.
The United States--with great reluctance, I might add--accepted the mantle of "cops of the world" after the War, when Britain and France were no longer up to the task. Over a forty-year period, we held the line. The Soviet Union broke up into fifteen pieces and at this point there is no longer a "Russian Empire."
History informs us that the United States does not relish this role and has gone to considerable lengths to avoid assuming it. It has now been a quarter-century since the fall of the Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Mission accomplished.
I do not see us having any strategic interest in further destabilizing a country that has--however rusty and dysfunctional it may be--an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads. To the contrary. No matter how few of their missiles and warheads are functional, allow me to remind you that--as the old bumper sticker would have it--"one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day."
If you think we should put Washington and New York in play for the sake of this ambitious project of breaking up the remaining shards of the Russian state, I must respectfully but firmly dissent.
I strongly agree with Francis and adopt his reply as my answer to David, above. Putin won't stop until he is stopped - effectively defeated, then removed from power. And the US won't do it - unless they're able to get a minerals deal signed.
I would think countries would be clamoring to work with Ukraine to put up drone production lines. They would gain state of the art knowledge from Ukraine and have a production line not just for Ukraine but for themselves and for exports. Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Czechs, I’d think they would all be bidding for this. Especially of course if Ukraine gets the impounded Russian money to spend.
I’m with you on the partition of Russia: Muscovite back to Muscovy, free the Novgorod Republic. Now to ponder a strategy to keep Siberia from falling to China. Trump needs to progress on privateering. Next step, buccaneering in Siberia. Er, I mean, self-defending corporations cooperating with new host states in Siberia …
What was Zelensky thinking? Remember he came all the way to Washington to turn down a deal
Rubio and Vance were led to believe he would accept. Were all the Americans involved in negotiations deceived or did they misunderstand? Trump would not have agreed to this meeting if there were not agreement, and if there was no agreement the events would have been handled far differently. This will be portrayed as a failure for Trump, but it was really a gigantic mistake by Zelensky. With his background one would think he could put on a better performance. But if Zelenky's goal was to antagonize Americans, he certainly played the role well. And this is what really concerns me -- why would he act out so publicly when there were so many alternative ways to handle this? What did Zelenskyt gain for his country?
I can't see President Trump sanctioning Ukraine or going more hostile than turning off the cash flow. Ukraine is after all the invaded party and Russia is a threat. I might suspect that President Trump will revive the concept of "Lend Lease". Anyway I'll bet on no sanctions for Ukraine but I won't bet on much else.
I notice you aren't saying how many drones Russia can produce, with either Iranian or ChiCom help.
Russia's long range drones don't seem to be effective enough for that to matter. Their front line drones are a problem for sure. But if the transportation system to get those drones to the front lines breaks then that's not a problem
Wait, you think that the Russians are losing 4 guys to every 1 that Ukraine does? Really?
Yes. Somewhere between 3 and 6 Russians for every Ukrainian. If you have counter-evidence I'd love to see it
Although I have many disagreements--some fairly serious--with your essay, I would prefer to avoid contentiousness by asking you to consider the issue from the U.S. perspective. As you clearly realize, our national interests are not the same as Europe's "national" interests, let alone Ukraine's. And as you have stated in your prior essay, NATO's day has come and gone. It may take some time for the formalities to catch up, but this administration's made it clear that the days of Europe contracting out their security to the U.S. are over.
Nor is this anything new: after all, was it not President Obama who first made explicit that the U.S. would "pivot to Asia"? So this is policy that has been executed by the last four administrations (including the current one) going back to 2009. Note also that these policies have bridged two Democratic and two Republican (again, including this one) administrations, suggesting that it is a rare example of bipartisan consensus.
Russia is no longer a peer competitor for the U.S.: China is. The Chinese are making moves that are profoundly destabilizing and the U.S. needs to make a robust and credible response. And as much as the U.S. want to keep Europe from being attacked by Russia, at the moment we need to place a higher priority on keeping Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, /e tutti quanti/ from being attacked by the PRC.
With that being said, allow me to invite you to compare the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict with the Korean War (1950-1953).
The Korean War came to an end when President Eisenhower, seeing that the war had degenerated into a "meat-grinder" phase, forced Syngman Rhee to abandon his grandiose plans to unite the Korean Peninsula under his aegis. And despite numerous provocations--mostly by the North--that "peace" (technically an armistice) has held for over seventy years. You'll note that both sides very nearly managed to achieve total victory--twice by the North and once by the UN forces on behalf of the South--but in the end it came down to a stalemate.
You might also consider the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988). That conflict ended due to the mutual exhaustion of both sides, after casualty levels comparable (time adjusted) than those currently experienced by the combatants in Ukraine.
My point is--to borrow Fred Ikle's famous phrase--"every war must end." And it can end when both sides have destroyed themselves and their adversaries--as in Iraq-Iran, or for that matter WW1--or it can end when one--or both--sides make the demarche to end it.
Will ending the Ukrainian War now be a good deal for Ukraine? The only answer I can give you is, "compared to what?"
"One thing that I’ve said before and I’ll repeat is that the real endgame for Eastern Europe has to be the partitioning of Russia into separate bits. " OK, I have to agree that was the start & the planned, desired endgame, though I don't necessarily conciser such rational or reasonable.
As to the end of it all it seems to me Zelenskyy,during his visit to Washington, created a very very narrow notch twix a rock and a hard place for his country and him to perch.
Depend on Germany for drone building? Depend on France, Germany & England for support? Looks like game over to me.
Me? At this point looking for peace in our time and, alas, President Trump seems the only one wanting/offering such.
There is no peace with Putin, only operational pauses - figure about six months. And yeah, Putin *definitely* needs an operational pause.
Zelenskyy really screwed the pooch in that, he should have had at least a week of practice - or begged off and sent a diplomat - or used a "translator" to keep control of the momentum and drection. That's what Putin does - he sends Lavrov, or he has a "translator" even though he speaks perfectly good English and understands it. He's not dumb.
"Zelenskyy needed to have had answers as to why the US should support Ukraine and that Putin cannot be trusted that he could clearly articulate"
He could have done this with adequate practice, but he tried to wing it, and he allowed himself to be provoked, and he got nailed. The reasons why the US should support Ukraine are the Budapest Memorandum, in which the US and the UK (and France and Russia) conned Ukraine into giving up its nuclear forces, which were the third largest in Europe and would have been a substantial deterrent, in return for a promise to defend Ukraine's 1991 borders, including Crimea - and the various Minsk Accords - but the Budapest Memorandum should be sufficient. As to why Putin shouldn't be trusted, there are the Belovezha Accords and the Alma Ata Memorandum, which created the Commonwealth of Independent States, back in the 1990s. The main signatories included Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and numerous successor governments to the various former Soviet Socialist Republics. Those signatories agreed to respect and defend each other's borders. Putin first broke it when he invaded Chechnya, then Georgia, then Ossetia, then Crimea, then Ukraine. That CIS treaty is still in effect and the CIS has a webpage: https://e-cis.info/ - and you can see the Ukrainian flag there. Treaties are a temporary tool for Putin, worthless as used toilet paper, as are ceasefires and truces a/k/a operational pauses...
The pearl-clutching going on in the West is ridiculous, Putin is unable to gain full control over territory which the Russians had declared as theirs after more than two years of hard (for them) effort. They still don’t control Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast after working at it for over three months of concerted effort. It’s just ridiculous - just look at the map: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-22-2025 You’d think that Putin would catch a clue after all of this time, that even up against Ukraine alone, without the US or Europe, he’s pretty much going to be lucky to keep what he has. If they can’t fight successfully in the Donbass, they sure as hell won’t be able to do anything anyplace else - if China marched into Russia’s Far East, he’d be lucky to push them out - as the Soviet Army did when China crossed the Amur River in 1969.
Note that Russia at the outset of the war had about the GDP of Italy and nearly no manufacturing economy - it's had to get its materiel and ammunition and the like from abroad and from old Soviet stocks, and the latter are running out. If Europe stepped into the shoes of the US in this conflict, it could do enough to ensure a win for Ukraine - and the way things are going for Russia, that may not take very long. And as a threat to the rest of Europe, Putin may talk big, but his army has been stopped cold for nearly 2 1/2 years, having gotten 50% of Donetsk Oblast, and 70% of Zaporhizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts - and that's about it. And Russia hasn't been able to run the Ukrainians out of Kursk Oblast, either - after six months. The people who have been jailed for discrediting the Russian Army should be freed and given medals, and they should be replaced by that stupid, incompetent ass Gerasimov, and that thief, Shoigu - and others like them.
Putin is probably pretty close to exhaustion, like a punch drunk fighter, and really poses no credible threat to anyone else, at this point if he bothered to attack Finland, they could probably finish him off in a month. All it takes now is for Europe to get together and deliver the knockout punch - if they can muster the will to do so.
A couple more points - hit pipelines in Siberia with drones or missiles, then they have to stop pumping, and when they do that, the wells that pipeline serves are screwed - because of the permafrost, the oil turns into thick sludge, then something like concrete mixed with epoxy. Those wells have to be re-drilled.
Europe needs to step up right away and revitalize Ukraine's air defense systems, that's number one - an immediate priority. If there's an Iron Dome over Ukraine, that helps tremendously. The second thing is to supply long range missiles to take out the Kerch Bridge - really nail it so it can't be fixed - dump the span in the Kerch Strait. And then find railroad bridges on the Azov line coming from Rostov-na-Donu and Taganrog, and obliterate them. That screws Russian logistics in Donetsk and on down south. Interdict those supply lines and Russia is done.
I have an earlier post where I identified 4 rail junctions that will screw Russia if destroyed - https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/four-key-russian-rail-junctions?r=7yrqz
"Treaties are a temporary tool for Putin, worthless as used toilet paper, as are ceasefires and truces a/k/a operational pauses..."
Agreed. Absolutely true. But here's the question: who does an "operational pause" help more: Russia, whose industrial infrastructure is in the toilet and is largely bereft of allies (I mean...North Korea and Iran? Please...), or Ukraine, who--in any of these scenarios--would be backstopped by the EU, a grouping of countries whose total GDP is an order of magnitude greater than Russia's?
It seems to me that to ask the question is to answer it. But of course, it's premised on the Ukes getting their act together and working as hard as they can--with EU support--to turn themselves into a porcupine, an armed camp on the Switzerland model (it would of course help if they had Switzerland's physical geography).
So I beg leave to respectfully disagree with your suggestion that a cease-fire is good for Russia and bad for Ukraine. I'll invoke the Korean War once again: who's better off from the 73-year "operational pause" that's currently in place? But again...the implication of that is that Ukraine would have to follow the South Korean model and give up on being a corruptocracy.
Can they do it? I do not know. But that's the path they have to follow if they are to survive.
I think the Ukrainians will do better if there's a ceasefire in a few months not now, assuming they have the supplies needed to continue. If their European allies are unable to supply them then they need a ceasefire now.
It is unclear to me (and this is obviously deliberate) how much materiel they have and how much they can expect to get in addition in the near future. But as I say, assuming they have the ability to continue as they have in the last ~3 months or so for a few more months they are likely to make Russia's recovery exponentially harder and slower
In Korean terms this is like accepting the current line which has Seoul in easy range of Nork artillery and one where the line is 20 miles further north.
The pledges from the EU need to be real - in terms of materiel and munitions - and perhaps troops - but air defense and counterlogistic long range strikes as I've mentioned are *absolutely* vital - like right away. The UK has done quite well with the Storm Shadows, but Europe simply has got to get cracking and stop screwing around. Putin should not be given an operational pause if there is *any* way to avoid it.
I think we're in violent agreement
You have given an extensive description of WHAT and HOW, but I've yet to fully understand the WHY.
What is the U.S.--or for that matter the EU--strategic interest in Ukraine?
Having articulated whatever you think that might be, what are the U.S./EU objectives in the conflict?
So far all I hear is "we have to keep supporting Ukraine because we need to deter Russian aggression!" Well, deterrence has failed. We are now in a different place on the conflict ladder and I've yet to hear from anyone what the endgame is.
I'll say it again--"every war must end." If you believe--as evidently you do--that the time is not yet ripe for this particular war to end, when will it be? Under what conditions do you believe we could--and should--end our (and the EU their) support for Ukraine?
Ukraine has significant rare earth minerals deposits - China and Russia do, too - which are in the vital national security interest of the US. The US gets about $1 billion worth of uranium alone from Russia - and has been for quite a while. This isn't a very good arrangement, for any number of reasons you could think of - see https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/guess-what-ukraine-has-that-russia - so there's that. That's a pretty good strategic interest...
...And we proposed an arrangement that would have leveraged that and provided an implied assurance of our interest in maintaining Ukraine's independence. That got torpedoed on live television by Ukraine's leader, because his objectives are not our objectives. It's gonna take a lot of work to fix that, and in the meantime, Ukraine won't be getting one thin dime in aid from the US.
Incidentally, you've made the--impeccably correct--argument that we can't trust Putin because he still lives by the old Leninist maxim that "treaties are like pie-crusts, made to be broken." Meanwhile, our prospective strategic partner makes a deal with us and before there's even any ink to dry, he publicly gets into a fight with us and blows the whole thing up. Surely by your logic we can no longer trust Ukraine, right?
Anyhow, that's just the first question of the two I asked. Even assuming I accept your premises--which I'll stipulate for purposes of the conversation--I've yet to hear how and under what arrangements you propose to bring the war to an end.
The strategic interest for Europe is
a) having a non-threatening Eastern neighbor
b) having a secure trading partner in Ukraine which has lots of things Europe wants and wants lots of things Europe can sell
My endgame is partition Russia so the bits aren't big enough to threaten anyone. Russia is the only 19th C European empire still standing and it shouldn't be still standing as it is very much Moscow and St P exploiting the rest of the nation
I'll take a significant Russia withdrawal as a first step that allows for a cease fire though because without a significant withdrawal Putin still has the incentive to try again, with it he probably gets civil war which gets me to my endgame
Well, as I said earlier, we are not Europe. And the Euros are big boys who've got the means to achieve those goals without our help. I'm still not clear that the US is implicated in managing a regional threat that their neighbors have the wherewithal to deal with if they so choose.
At the moment, Russia is no more of a threat than Iran or North Korea. If the Euros can't deal with that, I'm very sorry for them, but it's not our job. In fact I categorically reject your implied suggestion that it is our job. We face a much more severe threat environment in the Pacific and that's where we need to redirect our attention.
The United States--with great reluctance, I might add--accepted the mantle of "cops of the world" after the War, when Britain and France were no longer up to the task. Over a forty-year period, we held the line. The Soviet Union broke up into fifteen pieces and at this point there is no longer a "Russian Empire."
History informs us that the United States does not relish this role and has gone to considerable lengths to avoid assuming it. It has now been a quarter-century since the fall of the Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Mission accomplished.
I do not see us having any strategic interest in further destabilizing a country that has--however rusty and dysfunctional it may be--an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads. To the contrary. No matter how few of their missiles and warheads are functional, allow me to remind you that--as the old bumper sticker would have it--"one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day."
If you think we should put Washington and New York in play for the sake of this ambitious project of breaking up the remaining shards of the Russian state, I must respectfully but firmly dissent.
I strongly agree with Francis and adopt his reply as my answer to David, above. Putin won't stop until he is stopped - effectively defeated, then removed from power. And the US won't do it - unless they're able to get a minerals deal signed.
I would think countries would be clamoring to work with Ukraine to put up drone production lines. They would gain state of the art knowledge from Ukraine and have a production line not just for Ukraine but for themselves and for exports. Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Czechs, I’d think they would all be bidding for this. Especially of course if Ukraine gets the impounded Russian money to spend.
I’m with you on the partition of Russia: Muscovite back to Muscovy, free the Novgorod Republic. Now to ponder a strategy to keep Siberia from falling to China. Trump needs to progress on privateering. Next step, buccaneering in Siberia. Er, I mean, self-defending corporations cooperating with new host states in Siberia …
What was Zelensky thinking? Remember he came all the way to Washington to turn down a deal
Rubio and Vance were led to believe he would accept. Were all the Americans involved in negotiations deceived or did they misunderstand? Trump would not have agreed to this meeting if there were not agreement, and if there was no agreement the events would have been handled far differently. This will be portrayed as a failure for Trump, but it was really a gigantic mistake by Zelensky. With his background one would think he could put on a better performance. But if Zelenky's goal was to antagonize Americans, he certainly played the role well. And this is what really concerns me -- why would he act out so publicly when there were so many alternative ways to handle this? What did Zelenskyt gain for his country?
I can't see President Trump sanctioning Ukraine or going more hostile than turning off the cash flow. Ukraine is after all the invaded party and Russia is a threat. I might suspect that President Trump will revive the concept of "Lend Lease". Anyway I'll bet on no sanctions for Ukraine but I won't bet on much else.