|
U.S. Questions For European Governments – Another Wake-up Call
U.S. Vice President JD Vance has held up a mirror to Europe's 'elite' which did not like to acknowledge what could be seen in it: Minions, a lot of minions.
"But our common values?" cried Christoph Heusgen, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference.
What values Mr. Heusgen? Those displayed daily, with your applause, by the European colonists in Palestine?
"Like a headless chicken," is what the German broadsheet Frankfurter Allgemeine called the reaction of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The descriptions fits to (nearly) all European leader.
Today U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Saudi Arabia. They will talk like grownups, EU be damned, and find ways to achieve peace in Ukraine and elsewhere.
The Europeans are aghast that they are not invited to take part in the talks.
But why would one invite parties to peace talks when they want nothing more than to sabotage those? The EU's foreign representative Kaja Kallas, a former mayor of Baltic villages, dreams of breaking up Russia into smaller states. How could Russia ever seriously negotiate with such people?
Today the Europeans will huddle in Paris to find some, any, way to get out of the mess. It won't work unless they acknowledge that the war in Ukraine has been lost.
The U.S. has recognized that there aren't enough troops, money or will to achieve a better negotiation position for what's left of Ukraine. The European 'elite' still fails to get that.
Any prolongation of the war will lead to more losses of land to Russia. Will it take the fall of Odessa for the Europeans to be finally ready for talks?
There are still dreams of 'security guarantees' which would be given to Ukraine after it files for peace or surrenders.
No such guarantees would make any sense. When peace is achieved there will be only one manner that can prevent a new outbreak of war: good behavior towards Russians and Russia by what will be left of Ukraine.
Failing that no European battalions strewn over Ukraine could prevent or even hinder another special military operation.
The U.S. negotiation team handed the Europeans a list of questions that will hopefully help them to come to grips with that:
The United States has sent European governments a set of questions about what they would need from the U.S. in order to provide Ukraine with security guarantees.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson said that Washington "has been clear that we expect European partners to take the lead in establishing a durable security framework and look forward to their proposals."
Here are the questions with answers by me in Italic:
1) What do you view as a Europe-backed security guarantee or assurance that would serve as a sufficient deterrent to Russia while also ensuring this conflict ends with an enduring peace settlement?
There is no Europe-backed guarantee possible that would be a 'sufficient deterrent'.
2) Which European and/or third countries do you believe could or would participate in such an arrangement?
Each could provide a few dozen soldiers (plus rotations). None has the size of forces and/or stamina to really commit to the mission.
Are there any countries you believe would be indispensable?
The U.S. – if it would give nuclear guarantees to prevent the eventual annihilation of any 'security guarantee' force.
Would your country be willing to deploy its troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement?
No!
3) If third country military forces were to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a peace arrangement, what would you consider to be the necessary size of such a European-led force?
500,000 men, i.e. about the same size as the Russian forces in that theater.
How and where would these forces be deployed and for how long?
No idea. Any stationary deployment would be open to a Russian surprise attack. A forever roving force is thinkable but not practicable.
4) What actions do U.S., allies and partners need to be prepared to take if Russia attacks these forces?
Nuke Russia and risk being nuked back.
5) What, if any, U.S. support requirements would your government consider necessary for its participation in these security arrangements?
Nukes and the will to use them. Plus satellite based intelligence to have at least some warning.
Specifically, which short-term and long-term resources do you think will be required from the U.S.?
See above.
6) What additional capabilities, equipment and maintenance sustainment options is your government prepared to provide to Ukraine to improve its negotiating hand and increase pressure on Russia?
Never ending bickering.
I am sure the questions above, as cited by Reuters, are not meant to really be answered.
They are supposed to induce some realist thinking.
Applying such one will come to the conclusion that nothing but a long term peace agreement, which does not necessitate 'guarantees', makes any sense.
@Roger Boyd, several posts:
Roger, you are a well-researched, thoughtful, helpful person. It’s your duty to “do your best”, and that’s all you can do. You have little control over what others, including Yves Smith, or even Bernhard, do.
NC is a vehicle to get your ideas out there, and sometimes you can (if they happen to agree with you) and sometimes not.
While I have certainly experienced – to some degree – the issues others complain about Yves Smith in the past, I’ll say definitively that I learned a great deal when I used to read NC (for several years).
And I certainly do respect Yves Smith’s intellect. She’s quite often right, and when she’s not …. she isn’t. And she’s not always gracious while “not right”. Remember, that’s not puff-talk; I got whacked with the Yves-swatter many and many a time, and it ain’t no fun. Especially when you’re pretty sure you’re right.
But I resolved to take the good from NC, ignore the not-so-hot, and keep the feet moving in the right direction.
That said, I don’t read NC any longer. Why not?
Marginal returns. I’ve learned a good bit of what I can learn from NC. I know what their viewpoint is, and what they’re good at, and what they’re not. NC served its purpose, I’m grateful to them, and now it’s on to new battlefields.
NC is not run by, nor read (very much) by engineers, or entrepreneurs, or farmers, or construction people, or metal-workers. NC people think a lot (to their credit) but the thinking doesn’t often get converted to implementation, and the dialog @ NC rarely comes round to “how to put this into practice”. There are few new product developers among the NC crowd. That is indeed a generalization, but it’s fairly accurate.
That is _not_ criticism. NC can’t be all things to all people. NC did a great job educating me about some of the main forces affecting economics here in the U.S. That was quite valuable. NC people are ethically well-evolved. What’s missing is the power(s) necessary to convert ethos to facts-on-the-ground.
What changes things is what people do, what they build, how well they play on a team, and what they’re willing to get bloodied over (figuratively and literally).
This is what that infamous “we don’t sit around analyzing history; we make our own history” comment was about, and to a large degree it’s true.
The do-ers own the game. The critics are and always will be on the sidelines pouting.
And that right there, just to get into the “China is on the ropes” thing, is exactly why China is not on the ropes. China is smart, tough, and well-directed. They’ll deal with whatever happens; GDP ebbs and flows, ideas come and go, but character endures.
Roger, please don’t invest any additional emotion on the NC tiff. Apply your talents where they’ll be generally appreciated. You’re good; you’ve got your finger on the cultural and technical factors that make a people great … or not so great.
And thanks for all your great posts these past few months.
=====
Here’s something to ponder: How is MoA audience different than NC? That’s an interesting question, isn’t it?
Is it just moderated .vs. not, or is there something else about the Barflies that gives MoA it’s mojo?
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Feb 17 2025 19:20 utc | 140
good talking points via z and v telegram
🇷🇺 🇷🇺 🆚 🏁 Against the backdrop of sharply increased news on the topic of the possible end of the SMO, we discuss threats in the post-war world
If such an option does become real in the near future ( which is unlikely ), it will not mean the end of the West’s confrontational path towards Russia🇷🇺. This is clearly indicated by the statements of senior officials of the new US administration🇺🇸, the message of which means that the affairs of European security now largely lie with them. In this context, Britain’s chairmanship 🇬🇧 of the meeting of the Ramstein contact group in Germany (12-14 February), which was previously headed by the United States, is indicative. Britain has also already announced an additional aid package for Ukraine for 2025 in the amount of 4.5 billion pounds instead of the previously planned 3.5 billion for the period 2024-2025 .)
Many leaders of EU countries🇪🇺 openly declare preparations for war with Russia by 2027-2029 . This stimulates the growth of military budgets. In Europe, among NATO countries, the top five in terms of contribution to defense are Poland 🇵🇱 (4.12% of GDP), Estonia🇪🇪 (3.43%), Latvia🇱🇻 (3.15%) and Greece🇬🇷 (3.08%), three of which are representatives of the “eastern flank” aimed at Russia . From 2025, Poland will increase its defense spending to 4.7% of GDP, and Lithuania🇱🇹 to at least 5% (from 2.85% in 2024). The Estonian authorities🇪🇪 have set a similar spending goal. In 2024, Germany 🇩🇪, Britain 🇬🇧, France 🇫🇷, Italy 🇮🇹, Spain 🇪🇸, Poland 🇵🇱 and the Netherlands 🇳🇱 spent 282.5 billion euros on military needs.
At the same time, conditions are being created in the Baltic to impede Russian shipping, which could have a significant impact on the country’s economy, as it will close or make dangerous the passage of ships from the largest port in Russia – Ust-Luga (Leningrad region). Two NATO missions have already been created for this purpose – Baltic Sentry and Nordic Warden , within the framework of which 🏴☠️ vessels with Russian cargo are being pursued. The formal reason is alleged involvement in damage to underwater infrastructure and violation of the sanctions regime, which directly violates international maritime law . In Poland🇵🇱, they announced the creation by the alliance of a third mission in the Baltic region – Navy Policing , which will involve forces and assets of non-regional NATO countries on a rotational basis to patrol maritime areas.
It is also obvious that in a few years of peacetime Ukraine will be able to restore and even increase the potential of its armed forces. At the same time , in the absence of constant losses, the amount of weapons and military equipment required for restoration will be much smaller. The leading countries of the alliance have already announced the long-term nature of their intentions to continue arming Ukraine after the end of military operations.
In addition, this process will be facilitated by Western military-industrial complexes, which have already included investments and profits from sales to Ukraine in their budgets. German Rheinmetall 🇩🇪 has announced its readiness to place a third military production plant in Ukraine. French company Thales 🇫🇷 will create a joint venture with Ukroboronprom to develop air defense systems, radars, tactical communications, optical-electronic and RES systems. Ukraine itself will be able to produce and stockpile attack drones in large quantities, which in a short time will create conditions for delivering a potential massive strike across the entire territory of western Russia .
In addition, in the long term, a threat-forming factor will be the deployment of air defense/missile defense systems ( Patriot SAM, NASAMS , IRIS-T ) near the Russian borders, which will be integrated with the NATO NATINAMDS system, which will effectively bring NATO infrastructure closer to Russia . Testing of this scenario is taking place during the SMO.
Posted by: Jo | Feb 17 2025 20:26 utc | 161
|
