While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end.
Meanwhile the 'West' is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate.
Discussions continue about 'security guarantees' for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give.
The confused arguments about 'guarantees' are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense:
A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.
If Russia ends the war NATO like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?
How is that supposed to compute? Russia started this war to prevent a further extension of NATO into Ukraine. Why should it end the fighting if, in consequence, Ukraine would end up as a quasi-member of that pact?
All the 'security guarantees' talk is just obfuscation of the attempt by some European leaders to prolong the war by further dragging the U.S. into it:
Days before the [sanctions] deadline expired, Putin invited Witkoff to Moscow and offered a proposal, seen by the White House as sufficient grounds to set up last week’s Alaska summit meeting. There, Putin succeeded in convincing Trump that an immediate ceasefire to allow for complex peace negotiations was not required, allowing Russia to continue its attacks on Ukraine, without the risk of new U.S. sanctions.
The move alarmed European leaders, who raced to Washington on Monday to back up Zelensky during a meeting at the White House. After the meeting, they appeared satisfied by Trump’s openness to security guarantees. If Putin does not accept the terms, that could make the Kremlin the obstacle to Trump’s peace deal, insulating Ukraine from having to choose between untenable concessions of territory and inviting Trump’s ire.
Russia is not going to allow any of this:
[O]n Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov struck a blow at another major part of Trump’s peace effort, downplaying expectations for a swift bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian president, and further blocking the prospects for any deal on security guarantees for Ukraine. He said Russia would only agree to the measures if it had an effective veto over future efforts to defend Kyiv.
Russia will simply stick to its plan:
Russia’s conditions to end its war would essentially subvert Ukraine’s sovereignty, neuter its military and seize territory in eastern Ukraine that it has not captured in battle. Moscow wants to also permanently bar Ukraine from NATO and other international groupings and prevent it from hosting foreign troops — terms that would force Ukraine into a close, unwanted economic and political partnership with Russia.
A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine.
Some Ukrainians, like the former presidential advisor Alexander Arestovich, do understand that:
The key task for Ukraine today in all these Alaskan tales is to preserve political independence in the long term.
…
Ukraine has only one way to preserve it: acknowledging the shared symbolic capital with Russia and Belarus, adopting a neutral status, and building good-neighborly relations with Russia and Belarus while maintaining political independence and the unique role of a “crossroads of worlds”- between Russia and Europe.Economically, the most promising role is that of a “steppe corridor” – between Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the EU.
In short, this is about a fundamental shift in project orientation – from a narrow, nationalist one to a broad, transit-oriented one.In a sense, this could be called a “Great Return” – to Ukraine’s natural historical and cultural role.
By way of analogy – modern Kazakhstan.
…
In conclusion, the fundamental challenge for Ukraine lies not in tactical maneuvers but in recognizing the strategic perspective: the necessity of reimagining its role as a neutral, transit-oriented state in order to preserve independence in the emerging geopolitical order.
