Friends, DJT and ole Vladimir had their powwow in Alaska, and no definitive results were obtained. In other words, the war in Ukraine goes on. When you consider that some Western nations, notably Britain and France, seem to be itching to send troops to Ukraine to "police" any ceasefire or settlement, you can see why Russia might be inclined to continue fighting. Western forces encamped in Ukraine, next to the Russian border, would arguably be WORSE, from the Russian perspective, than the formal admission of Ukraine to NATO. In any case, Putin may still feel as though he can beat Ukraine, and, if he can have the whole enchilada, why settle for just one bite? Possibly Russia's intention in showing up for this summit was to keep the West, and Trump in particular, talking, so that further and stiffer sanctions don't materalize. What will Trump's next move be? Darned if I know!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyvd3gkg1po?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteBut you know as well as I do, if not better, that what is released to the media about the Trump and Putin meeting, is very , very general, and does not reflect what they really talked about. What we know, is everything, and nothing at all.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Ukraine situation is manifesting new developments by the moment it seems.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC article describes the UK's offer of "boots on the ground" in Ukraine , under the aegis of the "Coalition of the Willing Group" the core of which is described as the UK and France. The purpose of this would be to help secure an agreed to cease fire.
Fox News says "Article 5" type security for Ukraine was discussed within the last two days.
Some ways to look at such proposals: Germany is said to disagree with the need for "boots on the ground". One would think that German troops in Ukraine would be anathema to Russia. But Brit troops could well also be very unwelcomed by Russia. The U. K. has nukes.
Article 5 is the agreement among all Nato nations that if one is attacked, all will come to its aid. A security agreement outside of Nato (under the umbrellas of the "Coalition of the Willing Group" or the E.U. )incorporating such a pact, might well be beyond Russian endurance. But then. . .
NATO is a long lasting organization which has had the time since 1948 to set up a formidably creditable alliance but Russia might not think the same of new and completely untested alliances even if they were to talk Article 5 type guarantees. Perhaps Russia would consider accepting such new alliance(s )because it would not fear them as it would Nato.
Dr. Waddy from Jack" Moscow Times: Independent News from Russia" today said Putin mentioned "root causes " in his speech at the news conference. The "Times" comments that this no doubt was a referral to Russia's firm refusal to ever accept Ukrainian membership.
ReplyDeleteI think history, geography, Nato's astonishing advance to Russia's border in increasingly powerful Poland and common sense point directly to the above resolve on Russia's part as one of the very salient, if not the KEY factor in Russia's attack on Ukraine. Russia was not about to let Nato summarily incorporate Ukraine and make it practically invulnerable.
This overt recognition of this vital factor is a very constructive development and I hope to see it discussed widely in our media. Up until now it has apparently been "the thing which dares not speak its name"even though it should be obvious to all. It must be critical to the negotiations.
". . . Ukrainian membership in Nato. " Jack
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: President Trump was right to demur on Putin's suggestion that the next meeting be in Moscow.Why, should it be only the two of them, let it be in Vladivostock . Each man traveled to the very periphery of his nation on Friday; let that courtesy continue. Of course, should President Zelensky be invited to the next meeting it would warrant a shift to the West. I would guess Zelensky would not be comfortable traveling to Russia, nor Putin to Ukraine. How about Istanbul or Athens?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Much of the commentary I have been seeing is that Russia's economy is ailing and that Russia is critically dependent upon export of gas and oil. President Trump has declared his intent to seriously limit Russia's ability to do this by imposing "secondary tariffs" on countries such as India which buy these resources from Russia. I expect that at the same time he honestly trumpets America's ability and willingness to satisfy the requirements for resources so intercepted.
ReplyDeleteThis may be a decisive factor in denying Putin the choice to go on with the war until such an unpredictable time as he MAY triumph militarily. Putin must, by now
have sized DJT up as a man who follows through on his declared purposes. He may then decide that it is best to accept a face saving peace involving some kind of Nato free ersatz "guarantee " of Ukraine's security (including an unmistakeable declaration of Russia's resolve never to allow Nato into Ukraine),final acceptance of Russian reacquisition of Crimea and some manner of limited Russian economic access to the Donbass region, including also protections for the Russian cultured majority there.
The object must be to end the fighting on bases somewhat acceptable to both sides. We outside the Russia/Ukraine dichotomy lack sufficient understanding of and empathy for the centuries old relationship between these lands to referee the conflict beyond this.
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of German troops in Ukraine, that reminds me of something to do with "The Great Patriotic War" which is what the Russians call World War II. The Ukrainians back then welcomed them (the Germans) into their territory, and especially the SS people, since this is where The Holocaust started. They were, as documented, the biggest collaborators with the Nazis anywhere in Europe. They were so enthusiastic, that they also willingly provided the guards for the death camps over in Poland after they were set up. Great bunch of people don't you think?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Quoting an 8/16 Wall St. Journal article by Marcus Walker, reprinted in RealClearPolitics: "His (Putin's) emphasis(in the news conference)on 'root causes' - his standard litany of grievances about Ukraine's Western oriented political trajectory and Nato's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe - show he hasn't given up his overarching goals of restoring Russian political sway over Ukraine , rebuilding Moscow's sphere of influence in Europe's east and regaining the status of a great world power. That is what he went to war for in 2022. "
ReplyDeleteAgain, this article makes no direct mention of Russia's probably unshakeable determination that Ukraine must never join Nato. But if Putin's overall purpose is as Mr. Walker says, then it could go without saying that Ukraine in Nato would be the absolute antithesis of what Putin intends. I've always thought the possibility of that fundamental affront and threat to Russia was the sole reason for the war. But most commentators see additional reasons and that makes a lot of sense to me now. The precipitate accession to Nato of hard fighting Sweden and Finland , countries historically and geographically deeply involved with Russia, is also a compelling reason to think that yes, Putin does have long harbored "expansive"intent of some sort. I still think the reasonable possibility of Ukrainian membership in Nato was the immediate cause and an unbearable provocation, by Russia's lights.
The reasons well summarized in the WSJ article are no doubt vital factors in the negotiations.
One proposal being speculated upon in this dramatic meeting of Western powers on Monday is the possibility of U.S. military participation together with some European forces , in some manner of non Nato security guarantee to Ukraine, even maybe analogous to Nato's article 5 and placing Western forces in Ukraine. I hope we refrain from putting any U.S. forces in Ukraine:
I am glad our President is a very effective catalyst for a possible end to Ukraine's agony . But this war resulted from the tragic encouragement Western powers gave to an understandably hopeful Ukraine that its age old vulnerability to Great Russian oppression would, like Poland's blessed final deliverance from the same, be ended by its embrace by Nato. It was a terrible miscalculation by a West which may have been convinced that Russia's astonishing acquiesence to Nato's eastward expansion had no limit; we, along with Nato ,owe Ukraine a debt for our overconfidence and in brokering this possible peace the U.S. helps to redeem it. I trust also we will help to rebuild Ukraine. But our support for Ukraine has made that war a national security issue for us; we can alleviate that by refraining from putting any U.S. forces in Ukraine for any reason. Let the Europeans do that. American boots on the ground would indefinitely continue the hazard to our national security which this war has needlessly presented us. Let's be free of it!
Would Putin eventually have invaded Ukraine anyway or might he have used other coercive methods? Will he still do sometime? War often takes on a life of its own and this one may well have schooled Putin to some extent. He now faces a Nato with its previous strength very much enhanced by the addition of Sweden and Finland. NATO does not need Ukraine. Russia's performance in this war strongly supports the idea that Nato would best it if it ever came to that. Putin probably knows that and that he can never militarily coerce Eastern Europe's Nato members again. Won't be any new Warsaw Pact.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Solzhenitsyn wrote in the journal Commentary that the cooperation with the Nazis shown by many Ukrainians was a condemnation of Stalin's policy toward Ukraine in the '30s. No words can adequately describe the savagery of Stalin's misuse of Ukraine's agricultural fertility. I do not doubt that many Ukrainians knew how terrible the Nazi's were but they were reduced to absolute desperation by Stalin's fantastic, murderous oppression which still in retrospect beggars any conceptions of human conduct.
ReplyDeleteYes, some Ukrainians became SS cadre ; I think many of them met with Soviet revenge for their offenses against Soviet citizens; the Nazis were as devoted to the complete extinction of all Slavs(after extraction of hard labor) as they were that of Jews. A massive Ukrainian force did serve in the Wehrmacht in Russia. Again, in the unimaginablely insane maelstrom of the clash of the Nazi and Soviet monster powers , who could clearly fault them? Oh well, at any rate Stalin did for them by populating the Gulag with them, along with Soviet POWs of the Nazis, for whom his hellish anxieties bade him consign them to the Soviet version of hell on earth. What an indescribably inhuman hold on vast populations was forced by the analogous 20th century totalitarian doctrines of Naziism and Marxism.
RAY TO JACK
DeleteWell said.
Ray, no argument here: there are factors and forms of leverage operating in this Russia-Ukraine kerfuffle that you and I can only guess at.
ReplyDeleteJack, if I were Russia (and technically I am not), I would regard the presence of ANY Western troops in (rump) Ukraine as far, far worse than Ukraine's membership in NATO. But...but! Maybe Russia is desperate enough to end this long nightmare that it would let the Europeans strut around the neighborhood for a while?
Jack, you suggest that Putin must know that Trump means business on secondary tariffs. I certainly don't know that. Much of the world lampoons Trump as President TACO ("Trump Always Chickens Out"), and, it must be said, sometimes he does, or at the very least he changes direction quickly and not always with much explanation.
Ray, you're right that many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans, but to be fair they were a quarrelsome bunch who ended up on ALL sides of that conflict (and there were more than two).
I concur: let's keep American troops out of Ukraine...and, as soon as possible, let's bring them home from Western Europe too.
Dr. Wady from Jack: I agree in return. Let's get our forces out of Europe. They are not needed and we needlessly expose ourselves to the unlikely possibility (though appalling if it did occur) of war with brutal, atavistic and yet nuclear armed Russia. Western Europe is strong enough now to deter Russia.
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, we might also consider withdrawing from Nato. We saved them thereby after WWII when they were almost prostrate and we owe them nothing. That would not rule out a continuing well taken alliance with the U.K. but I do not think an advance of the now much discredited Russian horde to the Bay of Biscay need be much feared. And I think our North American defenses , especially together with Canada, are enough to preserve our homeland.
Hear hear! The question is: does Trump have the intestinal fortitude to provoke the Deep State to this degree???
ReplyDelete