|
Ukraine – FT Proposes Impossible Peace Deal, Demands More Violence
By now it has become accepted wisdom that Ukraine is losing the war against Russia.
Western governments are slowly accepting that their Ukrainian proxy forces have no chance to turn the situation around. None of their own populations or military are prepared to get themselves engaged in combat. Meanwhile the war support for Ukraine is eating into their budgets.
The situation necessitates to push for an end of the war – at least a temporarily one.
The Zelenski government is officially against any talk of ceasefire or piece without it being a full Ukrainian victory. But behind close doors such talks are preceding.
That is at least what the editors of the Financial Times are telling the public:
Ukraine’s shifting war aims (archived)
In Washington and some western capitals, meanwhile — and in the corridors of Kyiv — the mood is shifting: from a determination that the war can end only with Russia’s army driven from Ukraine, to the reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement that leaves the bulk of the country intact may be the best hope. Yet Kyiv is not being given the support it needs even to achieve that scaled-back goal.
…
[G]rappling simultaneously with an escalating Middle East war, even some western capitals that previously insisted on the need to defeat Russia’s Vladimir Putin militarily are recalibrating their goals. Some Kyiv officials, too, fret in private that they lack the personnel, firepower and western support to recover all territory seized by Russia. There is talk behind closed doors of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over the roughly one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied — though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognised — while the rest of the country is allowed to join Nato or given equivalent security guarantees. Under that umbrella, it could rebuild and integrate with the EU, akin to West Germany in the cold war.
The plan is to concede some land to Russia while giving a NATO protection cover to a rump Ukraine.
There are at least four groups involved here who will not agree to such a solution.
All NATO countries have to agree to take up new members. If the western parts of Ukraine are allowed to join NATO who is going to keep Ukraine under control? What would happen if it provokes another war with Russia? Will all current NATO countries find that agreeing to Ukraine's NATO membership will increase their own security?
Some countries, like the Russo-phobe Baltic ones, would probably support that step. But I do no believe that any of the more sane NATO members will be willing to risk a war with Russia over an issue, Ukraine, that is only of marginal interest to them.
An Ukrainian membership in the EU will see similar hurdles. Two-third of the EU budget are agricultural subsidies designed to allow for a common market without destroying the farming communities in this or that country. The largest share of those subsidies currently goes to Poland. Ukrainian land is extremely fertile. It can produce crops at much lower costs than its EU neighbors. The EU does not have and will not have the budget to compensate for that. Any entering of Ukraine into the EU would thereby lead to losses for farmers in any if not all current EU member states.
The price advantage of Ukrainian agricultural products is the reason why Polish farmers have just restarted their blocking of border crossings with Ukraine (machine translation):
Polish farmers blocked traffic at several checkpoints last winter and spring. They demanded that the Polish government suspend the transit of Ukrainian agricultural products, the import of which was previously prohibited.
The farmers of Poland have an unusually big influence on the country's policies. Poland will thereby likely be the country most opposed to a EU membership of Ukraine. Others will agree with it.
Ukraine itself would of course also have to agree to a ceasefire or peace agreement that would lead to a loss of some 25% of its land. While the average Ukrainian may well favor a land for peace deal a distinct minority on the radical right is adamant against it. As a previous FT piece noted (archived):
“If you get into any negotiation, it could be a trigger for social instability,” says a Ukrainian official. “Zelenskyy knows this very well.”
“There will always be a radical segment of Ukrainian society that will call any negotiation capitulation. The far right in Ukraine is growing. The right wing is a danger to democracy,” says Merezhko, who is an MP for Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.
The radical segment in Ukraine's society, aka the Nazis, are heavily armed and experienced in combat. They do have sympathy in the higher ranks of the Ukrainian army. The former Chief of Staff General Zaluzny is known for good relations with it as is General Budanov, the current head of the military intelligence service.
A civil government of Ukraine which wants to engage in serious peace negotiations will first have to neutralize those radical forces. Without that it will have little chance to survive their onslaught.
The fourth party that would have to agree to such a ceasefire, and NATO membership for a rump Ukraine, is of course Russia.
Russia was, is, and will be against any membership in NATO of any part of Ukraine:
In January 2008, William Burns, the U. S. Ambassador to Russia at the time, sent a classified cable to Washington in which he summarized Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion. The subject line, “Nyet means Nyet,” or “No means No,” conveyed in a single word Burns’ belief that NATO expansion into Ukraine was “brightest of all redlines” for Russia.
Russia largely launched its special military operation in 2022 to prevent a NATO membership for Ukraine. It was and is sure that any encroachment of NATO in Ukraine will be used to weaken Russia. It is now winning the war in Ukraine. To now agree on some form of NATO membership for a rump of Ukraine would contradict the war's purpose.
The ceasefire or peace plan the FT editorial foresees depends on the agreement of all NATO and EU member states as well as the approval by the Ukrainian and Russian government. Neither of the four groups is likely to sign off on it.
The FT editors know this well:
This scenario relies, however, on ambitious assumptions. One is that the US and its allies must be prepared to offer Nato membership or the necessary guarantees, when they have so far been reluctant to grant Kyiv a binding path into the alliance.
…
A second assumption is that Russia’s president can be induced to negotiate and accept such a scenario. But preventing Ukraine from joining Nato was one of his ostensible war aims.
But instead of rejecting the plan because it is obviously infeasible the editors demand to apply more violence to achieve its acceptance:
Whether the goal is outright victory or bringing Russia to the table, western allies need to strengthen Ukraine’s hand. The Kremlin can only be pushed into talks on a deal that might be satisfactory for Kyiv, and the west, if it feels the costs of fighting on are too high. And any resolution to the war that enables all or part of Ukraine to survive and prosper will need guarantees of its security.
…
We cannot yet know how the war will end. But it is within the west’s power — and interest — to help Ukraine regain the upper hand over its foe.
The editorial is a demonstration of the childish naivety that is predominant in western government thinking: Ukraine is losing. Propose a peace agreement that has no chance of getting implemented. Demand to intensify and prolong the war to -may be- make the infeasible peace plan less infeasible.
But Ukraine and the west have lost the war. Negotiating a ceasefire of peace deal with oneself, as the FT editors do, does no make it plausible. All ways to a deal that is "satisfactory for Kyiv, and the west" have long been foreclosed – by the west. There will simply be no deal like that – ever.
Denying that reality will only lead to higher losses for Ukraine and for the west.
It’s more a lot more deliberate than all that, Ukraine is “Euro-Afghanistan Reloaded”. Even abject “failure” will be a laughing matter for the residents of Empire’s Labyrinth.
https://t.me/NeoficialniyBeZsonoV/40409
#news
The US will be forced to bring back the draft, according to The American Conservative. There are more and more conflicts, fewer and fewer recruits, the US Armed Forces are already working to the point of exhaustion, so what can we expect if the States actually enters the war, the author asks.
The US Army has been suffering from a terrible shortage of recruits for several years now, and the situation is unlikely to improve anytime soon, especially given the widespread tendency among career military personnel to leave for civilian life, the article notes. The same Navy is discussing a plan to mothball 17 auxiliary ships because there are not enough sailors to crew them.
Against this background, there is increasing talk about the need to reinstate the draft. The issue is being worked on by various agencies at different levels. Among the many proposals is the launch of a national database with information on potential conscripts in order to accurately select people with the required skills if necessary. And some versions of the laws propose that women also register for military service.
https://t.me/pintofmind/3939
NATO’s large-scale plans to create new brigades may indicate that Ukraine will now only receive minimal supplies of weapons and ammunition from its Western allies. Kiev now simply needs to buy time to strengthen the alliance’s military potential . Apparently, this is what the enemy’s military campaign in 2025 will be aimed at.
https://t.me/pintofmind/3941
^^^^ NATO’s defensive strategy is already beginning to be built on the assumption that Ukraine will play its role in the next few years. Apparently, at the turn of 2028-2029, the main line of defense of the alliance will be Poland, the Baltic countries and Finland in the north and Romania in the south . At the same time, it is assumed that the number of armed forces of the North Atlantic bloc will increase by about a third and the capabilities of air defense will be significantly expanded.
In these conditions, Ukraine can only stubbornly defend itself until the last opportunity. And on its western borders, the baton will be taken up by Poland, which will become the core of the new Eastern Wall and with rear cover in the form of Germany and the Czech Republic . Apparently, this is exactly the pessimistic scenario that Ukraine’s Western allies are considering.
It means a gradual curtailment of military aid to Kiev and a redistribution of resources in favor of the development of NATO’s armed forces . Because, despite the gradual promotion of NATO’s military industry, it is clearly not enough to solve three problems at once : restoring the alliance’s arsenals (compensation for what was transferred to Ukraine), providing for its own growing armies, and maintaining the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Something will have to be sacrificed, and it seems that it will be the Ukrainian direction that will be cut. Moreover, it was clearly not possible to inflict a military defeat on Russia with the help of Ukraine. It is easier to drop the ballast and focus on strengthening its own military potential . Moreover, Ukraine will still allow NATO to gain some time. At least a year or two.
https://ssp.mit.edu/publications/2022/a-1994-defense-concept-for-ukraine
In 1994, SSP professor Barry Posen published “A Defense Concept for Ukraine” in the Russian language journal Ukraine: Issues of Security.
Today, for the first time, Dr. Posen and SSP are publishing that plan in English. Given the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the apparent sturdiness of Ukrainian defense forces, it is a timely piece of analysis from the twilight of the Cold War.
An excerpt from the first section of the essay reads:
“I will argue that Ukraine can address most of its plausible threat scenarios, with modest effectiveness, through a military strategy that could be termed a ‘strategic defense in depth.’ This strategy cannot hope actually to hold all of Ukraine against all challenges, but it can pose an impressive array of probable costs and plausible risks to a future aggressor. If properly organized, Ukrainian forces should be able to fight a tough delaying action in the eastern half of the country.
Ukrainian forces should then be able to mount a positional defense of the other half of the country, west of the Dnipro, against a very strong attack. This defense could impose very high costs on an attacker, though it too would ultimately fail if Ukrainian forces cannot produce or, more realistically, receive as military aid, the fuel, replacement weaponry, and munitions necessary to sustain modern warfare.”
The full, downloadable article PDF, is available here: ….
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
Overextending and Unbalancing Russia | Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options
This brief summarizes a report that comprehensively examines nonviolent, cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress—overextend and unbalance—Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad. Some of the options examined are clearly more promising than others, but any would need to be evaluated in terms of the overall U.S. strategy for dealing with Russia, which neither the report nor this brief has attempted to do.
Today’s Russia suffers from many vulnerabilities—oil and gas prices well below peak that have caused a drop in living standards, economic sanctions that have furthered that decline, an aging and soon-to-be-declining population, and increasing authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin’s now-continued rule. Such vulnerabilities are coupled with deep-seated (if exaggerated) anxieties about the possibility of Western-inspired regime change, loss of great power status, and even military attack.
(continued) …
Posted by: anon2020 | Oct 9 2024 8:31 utc | 177
Zelensky is worse than a hurricane for the White House, by Alexey Nechaev, political scientist, for VZGLYAD. 10.09.2024.
The crazy activity of Yermak-Zelensky began to further harm not only “strategic stability” but also the Democratic Party’s election campaign. Therefore, Biden postponed his visit to Germany, and Zelensky’s office announced the cancellation of the second “peace summit” in November.
“Rammstein” without Joe Biden is the same as a Rammstein concert without Till Lindemann, a meaningless event. Although the expectations (especially on Bankova Street in Kyiv) were completely different.
And the situation, as it seems to me, is as follows.
After the failure of the summit in Switzerland, the Yermak-Zelensky team began preparations for a second summit, but with the participation of Russia – this was the demand of the lion’s share of representatives from other countries.
The Russian representatives, of course, had no intention of going anywhere. Therefore, the task was to lure them out under any pretext.
The set of prepositions is clear:
– the operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region with the seizure of a nuclear power plant, panic-hysteria in the media and unrest in high offices in Moscow;
– the threat of long-range strikes, the consequences of which could intensify the negative phenomena listed above;
– Well, and to the Americans, or more precisely to the Democratic Party, they tried to sell this plan as a “successful success” within the framework of the election campaign. This also includes public rhetoric about “there are no more red lines”, “forcing Russia” – and all that.
Moscow responded politely to this by actively advancing in Donbass, crushing the enemy in the Kursk region, announcing changes to the nuclear doctrine, and convincing opponents that it intends to strike where it has not struck before – because the very nature of the conflict may change.
The White House took the Kremlin’s position into account, so the decision on “long-haulers” was either postponed until after the US elections, or the idea was scrapped. But could Yermak, Zelensky and their London advisers agree with this? No.
That’s why Zelensky took the “Victory Plan” to the US, which he didn’t show to the citizens of Ukraine, but showed to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Of course, there was no plan there and couldn’t have been – where would a non-subjective character get a plan from?
Instead, the Americans were shown a list of “wants”, to which the US reacted in the traditional way: a couple of buckets of criticism were poured out in the controlled media, and the intention to discuss this list in Germany in the “Rammstein” format was publicly announced.
It seemed that the main goal of the meeting in Germany, where the leaders of the US, France and Britain were also invited, was not so much to discuss “long-haul” as:
– to discuss the “German option” for ending the conflict in Ukraine ( I described the fallacy of this scheme a year ago);
– and if the topic doesn’t work, then agree on uninterrupted supplies of money and weapons for 2025 in order to continue the conflict in Ukraine, regardless of who becomes the new US president.
But in the end, Yermak-Zelensky’s crazy activity began to do even more harm not only to “strategic stability” but also to the Democratic Party’s election campaign.
That’s why Biden postponed his visit to Germany, and Zelensky’s office announced the cancellation of the second “peace summit” in November.
Biden’s reason for canceling his visit to Germany was Hurricane Milton – he supposedly needs to prepare the country to deal with the aftermath of the cataclysm. Old Joe can be understood: a toxic meeting with Zelensky is now much more dangerous for his team than a hurricane, so it’s better to stay home.
Posted by: guest | Oct 9 2024 10:13 utc | 188
|
