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.
