President Trump's neocon advisors continue to misinform him into believing Putin doesn't want peace, Russia is losing the war and that a peace deal would take several months to negotiate.
Yes I completely agree! If Ukraine refuses peace, then Trump should withdraw all US personnel from Ukraine, close all our CIA spy bases and biolabs and cut off all economic and military aid to Ukraine and tell Zelensky he is on his own! Ukraine can't keep fighting Russia for very long without US support. He would probably opt to flee Ukraine so General Zaluzhny could restore democracy and make Ukraine great again!
If the Ukes were smart, they would figure out a way to technically lose the war so that they would break up the agreements with Blackstone and the banks.
No way Ukraine can win this war. The truth is they lost the war three years ago and have just refused to admit it and stop fighting. Instead of fighting for their independence and sovereignty, they are now more dependent and more of a vassal state to the US than they have ever been before.
That is true. But what's more daming is that the U.S. knew this before it started this war. As S.S. Rubio just admitted.
It was an act of pure evil and outright murder of both Ukrainians and Russians on the part of the U.S. to ignite the spark of the coup de 'tat.
Putin warned about this for years. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Bill Burns, also warned of this in the infamous cable that Julian Assange published.
If anyone 2 people deserved the Noble Peace Prize it is Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin. Not Donald Trump who is stomping around the world threatening countries with economic warfare if they join BRICS.
Oh, the ideal that NATO should remain and that the Germans, or any NATO country, should head it is more than just historically insensitive. It is exactly the wrong message you want to send to the Russians if you want them to talk with Trump.
A refusal to admit that the time for NATO to go is the intellectual equivalent of being a hoarder. You've got all of this accumulated floatsam filling your diplomacy room and its all decaying, rotting useless crap but it's way too dear to your heart even though it threatens your health and serves as a clear sign of your own mental illness.
Holding on to the Cold War and its institutions long after the Cold War has ended is a clear sign that the West is in need of an intervention.
A security agreement that encompasses all of Europe, including Russia, cannot not have any place for the feces of Russophobia and that means no NATO, security agreements with Ukraine, DMZ, travel bans on Russian citizens, attempts to kneecap the Russian presence.
Europe doesn't need a guardian anymore.
Diplomacy becomes impossible when it gets personal. You can't have a chip on your shoulde when you're r at the negotiating table.
Regarding point 3 - the ICC is going to have to rescind the arrest warrant for Putin to make good the part about no war crimes prosecutions. How can the ICC be forced to do that?
Trump can't threaten to leave something the U.S. isn't part of. The hypocrisy of the U.S. to kindly offer up an empty promise to not do something it isn't contracted to do in the first place is glaring.
The U.S. isn't a signatory to the I.C.J. either. As a matter of fact the U.S. has promised to send its army into the Hague, which is in the sovereign territory of the Netherlands, and forcibly take away any U.S. citizen that is before the court.
So in the end the ploy that Mr. Pyne offers up as a negotiating term, is a nothing burger and he either knows it or should know it.
That is true. However, I have little doubt that Biden would have threatened to arrest Putin under the ICC mandate had Putin come to visit the US before his regime was ousted from power earlier this month.
I agree. However Putin would not have been so foolosh. Travel to the U.S. isn't a cherished privilege so Putin isn't diminished in stature.
The U.S. is the one that is looking like the hypocrite that it is. It is behaving like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
I still contend that Trump's offer was of no value to an intelligent man with self respect. Those are 2 qualities that Trump and Biden both lack.
I've had many experiences with bullies and the only way to deal with them is to not submit. Trump is a bully and U.S. diplomacy is governed by being a bully.
There comes a time when you have to call the bully on his "S".
That might be true but what Mr. Pyne is pointing towards is that which in outlined in the first paper (after the 7 classes in my “course”) which goes over the concept that in order to be a good president the person has to be honest, logical and they have to do the right thing.
Just as John Mearsheimer stated way before this disaster started and everyday since it’s begun the best thing to do is to find a way to shut it down - period.
That’s what needs to be done and Mr. Pyne articulately laid out the terms by which Russia will allow that to happen.
Anything short of that will mean that the senseless killing will continue.
Once the genie is out of the bottle you can't just shut it down. The U.S. lost all power to shut it down after it proceeded to conduct 2 separate Color Revolutions, a coup detat against a democratically elected government and deliberately provoked, dared Russia to go into Ukraine in defense of its former citizens against whom Russia was conducting a genocide with the blessing and full empowerment of the U.S.A. Putin issued repeated warnings of what the outcome would be if the U.S. continued on its path of subverting the Ukrainian government. And his warnings came true.
If we tell the truth we would have to recognize that no justice system allows the perpetrator of a crime to play any role in softening his/her sentencing unless there's important relevant information to the resolution of the crime to be given and is accompanied by sincere repentance. The U.S. is offering neither.
It's actually worse than that though. The U.S. is only offering the cessation of its legal activities in exchange for Russia giving uo its legal right of self defense and leaving its people vulnerable to future hybrid warfare by the U.S. and its sovereignty in tatters.
It's like my lawyer told me when I was going through a divorce. It's better that you and your wife settle these things then that you go to court because you never know how the judge will rule. Well, the U.S. choose to go to the court of issuing a strategic defeat of Russia. The thing though is that the Russian judge is delivering a different verdict.
A quick decision to stop the war while U.S. policy against Russia remains intact and not subjected to any internal examination by the U.S. is foolish. Trump just wants a win because he's a winner in his own eyes.
We know that Putin has engaged in deep introspection and feels he's failed his people and his mandate. He's said it and he's pointed out where he failed. That is called critical thinking.
He knows that U.S. policy doesn't change. He's not going to roll the dice on Yrump whose already proven to be unreliable and emotionally unstable. He also wants an all encompassing agreement where Russian security interests are also enshrined. And he wants it to pass Congress.
The U.S. has proven to not be trustworthy. That is an irrefutable fact.
Points taken from Putin’s speech just before inauguration of Trump: We have never refused dialogue. No Truce! The goal is long term peace based on respect for all nations living in this area. Settlement not truce. It is the same goal as with the special military intervention.
Quote from Trump’s inaugural address. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier."
Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have been talking clearly to the world about their valid position since the "special military operation" began on 24 February 2022. If Trump has to answer to his advisors we can forget peace. Putin has been dealing patiently with the dishonesty of the West for the last ten years. His patients is extraordinary. His rhetoric is truthful and open. He is trustworthy. Trump’s job is to be the grease on the rails and make a settlement happen. But Putin has no illusions. He will sink his cleats into the dirt and defend Russia against the deceitful forces that have been trying to make war … which is nothing to be afraid of because his defense of Russia is valid. Putin hates war. He is not after land or riches or power. If only Scott Ritter could be the one to advise Trump. Trump could have the fun of a lifetime making peace.
Putin: We see Trump's statements about the desire to restore contacts with Russia!
Putin is willing to accept a cease-fire but only if the prospects for a permanent peace settlement are high. The Kellogg plan offers zero chance of a final peace agreement so its unlikely that Russia will accept a cease-fire unless its terms are revised by President Trump in Russia's favor. Putin can be trusted to keep a peace agreement with acceptable terms for Russia because that was the whole point of Russia's Special Military Operation! Not to conquer Ukraine but to get the US and Ukraine to sign an agreement getting NATO out of Ukraine and demilitarizing it along the Finnish Cold War model--ie Finlandization.
I've watched and listened most of Putins speeches and also those who comment on Putin. At no time have its I read or heard Putin or Lavarov say that Russia will accept any ceasefire. They are rightfully convinced that a ceasefire is what got them deeper into this mess and that it is a trap. That it is just an opportunity for the West to rearm Ukraine and prolong the killing.
They look at what happened to Syria as a lesson in what will result from a ceasefire.
The West only wants a ceasefire because Ukraine is losing. You can be sure the West wouldn't seek a ceasefire if it's proxy was winning.
There's also the reality that Merkel, Holland and Petro Poroshenko all said that the sole purpose of the Minsk Accords was to arm Ukraine.
Putin regrets trusting the West. He chastised himself for not having gone into Ukraine sooner when it wouldn't have cost so many lives.
As a matter of fact he's the only national leader involved in this who has expressed real sorrow over his failures, the loss of life and to have worked hard to miminize the death toll.
Trump has mouthed the words of regret over loss of life but his actions have only engendered more death. Holding out for leverage or sending in more arms in order to buy time is spitting on the graves and wounds of the men.
I'm 66 years old and I can't recall a single promise the U.S. government has made that it hasn't found a way to break if it served its purpose.
I never said they would accept any cease-fire but after all it was Putin who first proposed a cease-fire in March 2022 and again in September and December 2022. He has on record supporting a cease-fire ever since but once the Kellogg peace plan terms became public has now placed conditions as to what would make a cease-fire acceptable to Moscow. Trump is very sincere in wanting the war to stop and to end the immediate threat of nuclear escalation. It makes sense that the US should support an immediate and permanent cease-fire ending the war in Ukraine before a final peace deal is signed. That is what I proposed back in September 2022 in The National Interest after my original June 2022 peace plan became impractical following the Russian annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts. The Ukrainian reaction to my June 2022 peace plan was hysterical because I proposed a popular referendum for the Donbass to decide whether to remain with Ukraine or not. Putin has done a great job minimizing the civilian death toll in Ukraine which is infinitely lower than the average daily German and Japanese civilian death rate incurred at US and UK hands during WW2. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/proposed-peace-plan-end-russo-ukrainian-war-203009/
Putin, Lavarov, and Maria Zakharova have made it very clear why they are no longer going to accept a ceasefire. And the reason is justified because it is of the West own making.
It's because they have been duped before by ceasefires. They won't be fooled again.
They will fight as long as there's no agreement in place.
That's the right thing to do. Once you've lost all credibility you've got no influence.
Remember. The U.S. isn't a neutral 3rd party. Te U.S. is to blame.for this whole war. It's rather absurd for Russia to even be talking with the protagonist. The U.S. certainly isn't on an equal footing with Russia.
Trump has to decide if he is more interested in saving face or lives. Is he more interested in how he wants to look or does he care that this war is truly ridiculous and face that he had a hand in it?
Can he accept his own culpability? This war isn't just Biden's war. Every president whose hands have touched this war is responsible. And that includes Trump.
Yes that claim has no basis in fact nor does his claim that Putin doesn't want a peace deal. I would have thought that Trump would have sent a US peace delegation to Moscow on Day One of his presidency to sound out the Russians on their peace terms but strangely it seems the administration has made no effort to contact the Russians to discuss peace as yet.
Trump can't be taken seriously when it comes to wanting peace. This is a man who never once talked about working to end the war when he was in office the first time. He rather did everything to exacerbate the war.
This is a man who still believes and talks about America in terms of the U.S. having been endowed by God with some heavenly Manifest Destiny. And Mike Huckabee, his ambassador to Israel talks about Israel having a God given right that is 3500yrs old, to occupy the O.T. land of Israel. Even though the Romans destroyed the Jewish state of Israel and sent the Jews packing.
These people aren't very smart and they have a horrible understanding of Biblical theology. The Jews aren't God's chosen people.
They have zero right to the former land of Israel that they can prove. The O.T. isn't valid proof of their claim since the promises of a deity aren't acceptable as evidence.
Whereas Biden clearly had dementia that rendered him unqualified to be president. Trump's problem is that he lives in an alternate reality of his own making.
Not true. Trump is very grounded in strategic reality overall. That's exactly why he has been adamant in demanding an end to Biden's war in Ukraine. Even anti-war leftists are cheering on his efforts. Trump campaigned on a grand bargain with Russia in 2016 but the Russophobic globalists conspired to engage in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax in order to derail it and prolong the conflict. They even impeached him over suspending military aid to Ukraine and basically refusing to start WW3 with Russia. If he had been President, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine because Trump would have issued a written guarantee to Russia that Ukraine would never join NATO and would never have signed any strategic partnership agreements with Kyiv.
I know that Trump is very fond of saying that the war never would've happened if he were President but he was President for 4 years during which the war was going on and he did nothing to stop it.
I know all about the Russian collusion hoax and the attacks that were thrown his way of being a Putin lover but rather than confront those accusations head on he capitulsted by turning into an ardent Russo-phobe.
Never once did he talk about those things you mention. He threw javelin missles into the war and claimed he did more than Obama to equip Ukraine in the fight.
I wasn't a Trump hater. I actually was looking forward to Trump running but I wasn't optimistic that he would be elected.
My support of him was based on all the things he said prior to running. Things like wanting to bring the soldiers home, close overseas military bases, that wars are horrible. Even when he was campaigning he said there was no reason the U.S. and Russia couldn't be friends. Well, all of that went out the windows after Russiagate.
Even his wanting to close NATO bases and leave Europe disappeared from his dialog. He went from wanting to leave NATO to saying that the Europeans must raise their contribution. In other words he made the whole issue of staying in NATO a matter of finding an acceptable deal. He was a complete sellout.
Trump is obsessed with his view of himself as the ultimate deal maker and this compromises his ability to stand on principle.
Even recently he said that the U.S. and China could solve many of the world's problems if they worked together. But, he totally contradicts himself when he says that China is America's number one enemy. And, that the U.S. must do everything to retard China's development. Plus he is okay with waging hybrid war against China. He appoints anti China and anti Russian Hawks to leading positions in his administration.
He talks about U.S. Manifest Destiny, doesn't repudiate U.S. expansionism, falsely accuses Panama of harboring Chinese soldiers, wants to take control of Greenland.
He's no different than Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton. And he certainly doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize as some are now claiming. Just like Obama didn't deserve his.
I think Presidents are unusually dependent on their advisors for the information they get. It takes a President of iron will and a deep understanding of foreign policy to go against them. I think Trump has the ability to override their bad advice in furtherance of achieving his noble goal of peace with Russia but the question is how long will it take before it does so. It might be 3-6 months from now.
Trump's not a victim of bad advice since he chose his advisors and is free to fire them at anytime. Therefore his continued employment of them proves he agrees with them and that he doesn't have the required intelligence to see they are wrong.
Trump's moves on Greenland, Canada and Panam and, his shameful intimidating conversation with the leader of Denmark are all pure Trump.
Trump has a quick answer to everything which is to erupt in anger. Tariffs, Manifest Destiny, outright imperialism, playing the victim etc. all point to a man who is ill tempered and psychotic.
When Putin went into Ukraine in a clear act to stop genocide of the Russian speaking population the U.S. said that it was proof that Putin wanted to re-estabish the USSR and the whole discredited Dominoe Theory was dragged out to justify this proxy war. Rutte has fear mongering the E.U. members by saying their citizens must pay more for defense or else they will end up learning to speak Russian.
Russia has been around for a thousand years and in all that time there have been many European languages that have flourished right alongside it.
Meanwhile Trump states unequivocally that te U.S. territory will expand but no one forcefully objects. The response of the E.U. is that they will send E.U. troops to work right alongside U.S. troops as a way to keep the U.S. in Europe and state off a direct U.S. takeover of Greenland.
One more double standard. Who's the acquisition party now? Russia never had any intentions of takingover all of Ukraine. Russia's focus has always been equal rights for Russians in Ukraine. That was the purpose of the 2 Minsk Accords that they U.S., France, Germany, and Ukraine welched on.
Now Russia has annexed the former territories of Ukraine that appealed to it for protection and Ukraine won't get them back nor should it. Ukraine gave up its right to govern them when it attacked them and when the coup government was installed.
If I’m not mistaken, what you’ve said is more or less what John Mearsheimer has been saying over and over again for a long time. And as far as I can tell it’s exactly spot on.
Beyond that, since you’re well educated, smart, articulate and reasonable you might be interested in taking my “course”. My course gets at the root of why these type of problems persist and how best to overcome them.
It’s a “course” which is made up of 7 “classes”, a quick review of my 3 papers, and then if it were to be presented to a live audience or class there would be a discussion, debate and further discussion to see if what I have to say resonates with anyone.
I’d like to make the “course” into a documentary film.
The most specific target audience for the “course” is the world’s top leaders and diplomats.
I’d be glad to discuss it in more detail if you’re interested in what I have to say.
This might sound a little crazy but the bottom line is that among other things what I’ve come up with makes for the basis for a very good political platform.
It's not a question of might. It's just is. But he picked his advisors and he choose to accept money from his donors.
It's as Colonel Douglas MacGregor said of Trump when he said that Trump is a poor butcher. In other words Trump listens to and empowers people who aren't supportive of his agenda.
The other problem with Trump is his narcissism. He thinks he is a person who gets things done but he really isn't.
Trump measures his success by how much he can tick off of his to do list. He doesn't have patience for long drawn out assessment of an issue. Any man who could talk about finding an end to this war in 24 hours isn't a very deep thinker.
Putin has all of the right personality traits that Trump lacks to be considered a good leader.
Remember Trump is the one who pressured Netanyahu to sign a cease-fire deal he has been opposing for over a year potentially saving the lives of tens of thousands of Gazan civilians if the cease-fire holds. Trump's instincts are nearly always right. Its when he listens to his Deep State neocon advisors that he gets in trouble and his great initiatives for ending wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine end up getting derailed. As I wrote in my article 24 hours wasn't far off the mark. I think he could have ended the war in 72 hours if he had implemented my peace plan starting the day he took office by sending Vance to meet with the Russian PM and telling him not to come back until he had a Russian signed peace deal in hand.
I don't think you can undo a war that has been in the planning for 30 years in 24 or 72 hours. Nor do I agree with the use of pressure tactics to subdue someone into compliance. It's rather disrespectful and is reminiscent of the old trope of a car salesman who ask you what does he have to offer you to get you in the car today.
You'd have to be willing to give Putin everything he wants but I don't think you're willing to do that. Although I would.
I see nothing in Putin's demands that are unreasonable but then I'm not going into it with alterior motives.
I'd probably give him even more so that I could lay a foundation for rebuilding the relationship. But, I don't see Ukraine as having any security concerns for the U.S.
I'd also apologize for starting the war in the first place.
David, I suggest you get on the phone ASAP and call President Trump and tell him as I have that he is being fed lies, propaganda, and utter bullshit from these stupid neo-con globalist advisers of his. They are wicked and ungodly for misrepresenting the truth and lying to the president! Your plan is right on, for the most part! And I am confident that God will severely punish any kind of stupid decision on the part of the US and/or NATO in this matter. NATO and most of the European leaders are nothing less than tools of the Devil and antichrist. NATO needs to be either reformed or dismantled. And now is the right time for President Trump to do so for the sake of us all.
In an ideal world Trump would pull the US out of NATO as he repeatedly said he wanted to during his first term which would have entirely averted the war in Ukraine. However, I think pulling all US ground troops and tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe would suffice for a Russian reset that would bring a lasting peace in Europe.
No. NATO literally has to go to never ever be reconstituted again. NATO should've been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded and Russia removed its troops from East Germany.
Preparing for war in the absence of war is a sure way to end up with wars that otherwise would never have been.
Don't forget NATO was created first in the absence of any Russian aggression. The Warsaw Pact came as a Russian response to NATO.
NATO created in the absence of Russian aggression you say? So you don't consider the Soviet annexations of parts or all of six Eastern European countries from 1939-1940 and their annexation of three more after the war ended to constitute aggression? The truth is that NATO served a noble and purely defensive purpose in defending western Europe from the Evil Soviet Empire during the Cold War. It was not until the NATO bombing of Belgrade that it was transformed into an aggressive imperialist alliance. That said, I do think the US missed the opportunity to end the Cold War with Stalin's 1952 note offering to reunite Germany as a neutral state along the lines of the Austria State Treaty of 1955.
NATO came first. Actually it was the West that immediately wanted to attack Rusdia at the end of WW2. And the U.S. used the atomic bomb on the civilian population of Japan as a warning to Russia.
I would agree that that was a missed opportunity. Just as the opportunity was missed when the USSR and the U.S. agreed to ending of the Warsaw Pact.
I still remember how our Western politicians promised us a peace dividend that they never delivered on.
The US in NATO has played an important role in keeping the countries in Europe from getting at each others necks since the end of world war 2. It was obviously set up to counterbalance the Soviet Union but when the Soviet Union fell we in the west (the US) made the mistakes that John Mearsheimer has repeatedly pointed out. George Kennan pointed out these mistakes as well.
(My course tangentially covers this kind of thing).
Yes the US should have either invited Russia to join NATO at the end of the Cold War as Gorby and Yeltsin and subsequently Putin accepted or else dissolve NATO entirely. Doing so ironically would have greatly enhanced European security far above the existential threats that NATO expansion all along Russia's western frontier has created today.
"1. Ukraine pledges to never join NATO but will become a Major Non-NATO Ally."
You are delusional if you think that Russia will ever agree for Ukraine to be in any kind of alliance with the US. Russia could not care less how the US calls such an arrangement, be it de jure NATO membership, de facto NATO membership or being a US puppet 'ally' informally and somehow specifically outside of NATO. Do you think the Russians are idiots who can be tricked by the US calling their Ukrainian proxy a "Major Non-NATO Ally"?
The ONLY two options acceptable to Russia is Ukraine's permanent neutrality with no alliances with anyone ever, no matter what label or nature of such alliances may be, or a pro-Russian Ukraine.
"3. A four-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone shall be created along the entire length of Ukraine’s border with the four Russian-controlled oblasts, policed by UN and OSCE peacekeepers from neutral countries, to prevent future conflict."
Again, more delusions. Russia is not going to agree to any foreign troops stationed in Ukraine, no matter if you call them "The Care Bears brigade," "UN and OSCE peacekeepers from neutral countries," or "NATO troops."
"The U.S. and Russia agree to begin negotiating a New START II Treaty with a limit of 3,500 operational strategic nuclear weapons."
Not going to happen because Russia has no reason whatsoever to trust the US to uphold any treaties. Russia sees the US as non agreement capable (which is 100% correct).
"In exchange for Russia committing not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. commits to a policy of non-interference in all former Soviet republics which are not NATO members."
There is no way whatsoever Russia would believe any American pledges of non-interference in these countries, or in Russia's domestic affairs. Russia knows that there is zero chance such commitments would survive longer than the second Trump's term. Moreover, there is no Russian "interference in the Western Hemisphere" and there is not going to be any. Russia is not doing any regime changes in the Western Hemisphere, it's not building any military bases that could threaten the US in the Western Hemisphere, it's not making any alliances with anyone in the Western Hemisphere and has no plans whatsoever to do any of these things. What are you talking about here?
"my assertion that while NATO membership is not possible for Ukraine given it was the very reason Russia invaded in the first place, Major Non-NATO ally status might be acceptable to Moscow, which would make it a “win-win” agreement for the US, Russia and Ukraine. The administration could credibly point to a peace deal guaranteeing Ukrainian security and independence"
The US has exactly zero interest in "Ukrainian security and independence." If Ukraine, which is controlled by a pro-US puppet regime, being forced to get itself destroyed in this proxy war to you seems like the US values "Ukrainian security and independence," you need a reality check. Russia knows perfectly well that the US has zero interest in these things, and that the only use of Ukraine for the US is to use it as a proxy against Russia. Nobody in the US cares about making a “win-win” agreement for Ukraine, Ukraine is nothing but a proxy and a source of cannon fodder, and its interests in no way affect any of America's policy decisions.
"The U.S. and Russia solemnly pledge to one another that neither side will go to war against each other in the event they are attacked by a third party."
What value does such a pledge by the US have? Zero.
Major Non-NATO Ally status could be negotiated out if the Russians object but I think you're mistaken that Russia doesn't want a peace deal with the US. A comprehensive peace deal recognizing Moscow's legitimate security interests is the only way they can achieve their longtime objectives which I reference in the article. Also, if the US agreed to major concessions with Russia in writing, chances are very high Trump would honor the treaty and his successors very well might as well ensuring a lasting peace between the US and Russia and averting the perceived need for Russia to ever invade Ukraine again.
My question for you, Mr.Pyne, is for you to explain the unexplainable. That which so far lacks explanation is why is the U.S. so obsessed with keeping both feet planted in Ukraine that it has been willing to embark on a course of total destruction that it could've easily avoided just by abiding by its original promise to not move one inch Eastward.
And even if it hadn't made that promise, but it did, why wouldn't it say, that sounds like a good ideal because it will save many lives.
What's with this obsessive fetish? What's with the obessession to inflict a strategic defeat upon a Russia that persistently held out a hand of friendship to only see it slapped away?
You do real8ze or at least should realize that no treaty or solemn has any trustworthiness as long as U.S. policy towards Russia, China and the world is based on U.S. Exceptionally, Manifest Destiny, Indespensable Nation, Monroe Doctrine etc.
As long as the U.S. doesn't believe in abiding by the U.N. Charter or believes it has the right to do as it pleases. Act like it is the victim. Believes that it's currency is the standard for world tade or the self serving Rules Based Order that there is no point in talking with Yrump. Russia would be better off going for a clear cut unconditional surrender of Ukraine and making Ukraine a Russian protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam.
The U.S. would have to dismantle, and never re-assemble the C.I.A., all its N.G.O.'s, change the mission of the State Department to one of strict diplomacy, close its overseas bases, stop trying to separate Russia from China.
If I were Xi or Putin iI would see right through your treaty term that would bar Russia or China from supporting the other in the event one was attacked by the U.S. I don't know why you think either of then is so dumb or desperate to avoid confronting the U.S. that one of them would give up the one thing that makes the U.S. think twice before attacking either of them.
I almost forgot to mediation that the U.S. also has to give up the Wolfowitz Doctrine and say that neither China nor Russia are its enemies.
Because with the exception of Trump, the US from at least 1993 onward and arguably from 1992 onward has been led by neo-imperialist leaders bent on US global hegemony and imperial expansion eastward in Europe transforming NATO member states and Ukraine into US military protectorates. I have derided this policy as Biden's policy of national suicide as it goes against the US national security interest of pursuing policies that make our citizens and our allies safer and more secure rather than provoking an unnecessary nuclear war with Russia. The only reason I added MNNA status to my proposal is because I don't think the neocons will agree to it without that provision as the entire reason that Biden has refused to allow Ukraine to end the war because if the US gave in to Russia's demand for permanent Ukraine neutrality, then Ukraine would largely cease being dependent on the US for its security and would have to turn to Russia for its security instead as it did from 1991-2014 allowing it to remain independent, whole and free. I agree with you that there is no US national security interest in Russia's defeat or weakening at all. That is why the US should have remained neutral in the war and refused to send any lethal military assistance to Ukraine at all forcing it to sign the Istanbul Agreement which would have amounted to a stunning victory for Ukraine not just Russia! The US should never stop trying to divide the Sino-Russian military alliance. That should have always been the number one US national security imperative from 1996 onward. To be clear, my peace agreement would not bar either Russia or China to go to war against us if the other was attacked. It would only bar Russia from going to war with the US if China attacked the US! This is a modern-day reiteration of the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887 which kept the peace between Imperial Germany and the Russian Empire while it remained in force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
As naive as it might seem, at the end of the day, what motivates and drives human behavior and nation states behavior needs to be that which is outlined in my “course”. It would be a tall order, and maybe impossible to make this change, but it’s probably our best chance at survival as a species through the coming decades and centuries.
My course lays out a good basis for a political platform and for the basis of artificial intelligence if AI is to become a force for good for humans rather than a tool which is used to hasten our demise.
So far I haven’t gotten any traction in what I’ve had to say - which is t surprising when someone like John Mearsheimer has been jumping up and down for decades without anyone in our policy establishment heading his advice.
…my course is worthwhile and it’s what we need to do…
I don't see Russia agreeing to a cease fire under any circumstances no matter what the US tries to offer, except in case the AFU withdraws from administrative borders of the regions Russia claims as its own and both the US and Ukraine state that they will agree to Ukraine's permanent neutrality, demilitarization and denazification. Unless that happens somehow, they will be no cease fire. No amount of sanctions or promises to end sanctions will change that.
If the sanctions were more of a priority for Russia than its security concerns, Russia would've never started the war in the first place, not to mention the fact that agreeing to a cease fire when you're winning and there's nothing your adversary can realistically do to stop you from winning is not something Russia (or any sane government in Russia's place) would consider doing.
I think that Putin's demand for the remainder of the four annexed oblasts was a negotiating tactic. I think he would be perfectly happy to concede that in exchange for the US accepting all of Russia's other peace terms. Western economic sanctions against Russia have hurt the US and its allies far more than they have hurt Russia whose economy has been on overdrive of late. Putin has been calling for a cease-fire since March 2022 quite literally but now that he sees the Kellogg peace plan is structured to create a cease-fire rather than a permanent peace agreement, Putin is no longer willing to agree to a cease-fire without preconditions. Trump should concede Ukraine NATO membership and Russian control of the four oblasts along the current line of control in advance of any cease-fire agreement.
You're wrong. Putin isn't a trasactionable person. You are talking like a Westerner who9 believes everything is for sale at the right price.
Putin stands on principle. You obviously either haven't been listening to him or not taking him seriously.
Those 5 oblasts are now Constitutionally once again part of Russia. Putin takes the Russian Constitution seriously. He's not giving them up and he does expect to reclaim them in whole, not part.
No Putin is very reasonable and transactional just like Trump. That is why I remain hopeful that they will be able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to end the war.
Putin isn't transactional. And that's what frustrates U.S. Presidents and politicians. Putin can't be intimidated or bought. If Putin was transactional he wouldn't be remorseful and feel betrayed by the West.
Every American politician thinks that everyone is as unprincipled as he/ she is.
The only leaders the U.S. has an issue with are those who have principles, won't be intimidated and have a backbone.
This is why the U.S. has been trying to get rid of Orban, Putin, Fico, Xi, Imran Kahn of Pakistan etc.
The U.S. political system doesn't even like people with principles that go against the political establishment. The same is true in Canada.
Oh, I forgot to say that Ukraine must cede all of the annexed territories up to their original boundaries they had the day prior to Ukraine's uniateral declaration of independence.
And, Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Russia went in at the direct behest of the leaders of the annexed Oblasts, who were seeking protection from Ukrainian genocide of the Russian population.
The only nation that violated Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity and political sovereignty was the U.S. when it went in with the State Department, CIA, Pentagon and undermined Ukrainian sovereignty from within.
8 long years passed between the U.S. backed putsch against the democratically elected government of Yanukovych and the U.S. installation of Victor Poruschenko.
Putin made every attempt to avoid war while the West, U.S., made every attempt to start a war by provoking Putin to go offsides.
It's no different than when a player on an opposing football team purposely or accidentally makes a movement that misleafs his opponent to take action prior to the snap of the football. In other words the U.S. engaged in entrapment.
Putin behaved reasonably and now he's reclaiming both people and land who are and that is rightfully Russian.
Even Putin has said he is happy to see Ukraine remain independent no matter who leads it so long as they are democratically elected and Ukraine returns to being friendly with Russia. In fact, the whole point of the Special Military Operation was to restore Ukraine's neutrality, sovereignty and independence from any foreign power including the US. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was in large part a delayed response to the CIA backed Maidan coup. Putin refrained from invading Ukraine outside of Crimea until 15 years of diplomacy with the West had failed to resolve the Ukraine NATO membership crisis. Yes, Putin behaved exactly as any US President would have under the same circumstances in defending Russia from what he perceived to constitute an existential threat.
NATO is a failed alliance that doesn't know it's dead. NATO ceased to have any reason to exist once the USSR ceased to exist. NATO has been desperately flailing about to find any relevance ever since the USSR disappeared from the scene.
NATO has expanded ots theater of operations well beyond the North Atlantic into Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia. We've got the E.U. now claiming that China is a direct military threat.
There's no way that Russia should sign any treaty with the U.S. that prohibits it from entering a war that the U.S. is waging against a third party. This is just a means the U.S. would be using to get Russia to not have any alliances with other adversaries of the U.S.
If the U.S. ends up in a war with China or Iran it will be a matter of choice, not necessity. The U.S. has made this mess all on its own and is looking to dupe Russia into helping it out of something of its own making.
There's no way that sanctions relief should come in stages and be contingent on anything the West sets up as a criteria.
The sanctions aren't in place because of the war. They are illegal under national law and must be unconditionally removed before talks can begin. Otherwise the U.S. will be rewarded for engaging in an illegal act of piracy, theft and taking making hostages of the Russian people.
The bi-lateral agreements Zelensky signed are invalid and are a form of de facto membership in NATO.
Any point of reference that goes back to March of 22 is invalid because it amounts to a freezing of the conflict. This would nullify Putin's clear terms of Istanbul plus and the acceptance not only of the realities on the ground now but the full extent to which the territories were taken in under the Russian Constitution.
Putin's terms are all reasonable. None of them are irrational. They all make historical sense. Those territories were transferred to Ukraine under Russian authority and now they have been reclaimed in whole.
Russia is the victor and the Treaty must reflect that.
Also this must be signed as a Treaty and nothing less. The Senate must append its signature to this. It can't be something that the next President's can undo with an executive order. You know this.
The U.S. must recognize the annexed territories, including Crimea and any other territory that has been reclaimed subsequently, as legally Russian. Their fate isn't to be decided at some future date. The time is now.
No this must not be a treaty because there is zero chance the Senate would approve it. Rather it must be a separate peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine and a Strategic Partnership Agreement between the US and Russia that need not be submitted to the Senate.
If the Senate won't approve a Treaty then of what good is a Strategic Partnership Agreement?
I recall that Obama got the Europeans to rewrite the Paris Climate Change so that it weren't a Treaty expressly because he knew he couldn't get the Senate to sign it.
Now I think this was rather underhanded of him to do because he was advising a foreign group on how to bypass U.S. law. But it does show the uselessness of the lesser alternative.
If President Trump can't get the Senate to sign a Treaty with Russia then it's because he knows the antipathy that the U.S. political and military establishment hold towards Russia hasn't diminished. Of what value would this Strategic Partnership Agreement be?
What would be binding on the U.S.? Why would the U.S. establishment be willing to bind itself to anything with respect to Russia when it has nothing but contempt for Russia.
It's U.S. contempt for Russia that has brought us to this.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say Russia couldn't fight the US alongside China. My proposed agreement merely states that if China attacks the US first they would remain neutral. If the US attacks China first, then Russia could ally with China against us. That is 100% in the spirit of their mutual defense treaty with Beijing. I agree the US should leave NATO and pull all its ground troops from Europe. It should be a German not a US led alliance. I also agree that all US sanctions on Russia should be lifted as part of the peace deal to be signed on May 9th. I also think Trump should discard its 10 year security agreement with Zelensky on the basis that it is invalid that it was signed in June and Zelensky's constitutional term expired in May and he is no longer a legitimate President. I also agree we should not freeze the conflict but instead should permanently end the war and sign a mutual security treaty with Moscow along the lines I propose in my article.
Who attacks who first is a rather arbitrary red line. The U.S. is very good at using false flags and propaganda to obfuscate the truth. Just as it used false flags to topple the Assad government and to provoke Russia.
This needs to be a clean document without any mention of 3rd parties. That's the only way to keep the U.S. honest.
It's a frank admission that the U.S. knows it can't fight a war on 2 fronts. Just as it's clear to you that Russia never wanted a war it should also be clear that China doesn't want one either. Both Putin and Xi have been very patient in the face of U.S. passive/aggressive behavior.
The U.S. is clearly not beyond taking things to the breaking point.
Those bilateral agreements you want to keep in place were also signed after Zelensky's term was up. But even if some of them weren't keeping them in place would clearly violate the spirit and full intent of Ukrainian neutrality. And then there's always the fact that any expressed desire by a none partner to a Ukraine/Russia Treaty would want to have any input on its terms?
Russia is the victor and gets to dictate terms. The U.S. isn't involved.
You are freezing the conflict if you want settlement to be based on 2022 and not 2025 realities. Those are Russia's terms.
The sanctions must be lifted first. Otherwise your proposal is holding hostage any end to the war. The sanctions are illegal. And are an act of group punishment. Certainly you can see the horrendous mistreatment and humiliation that individual Russian citizens were and are being subjected too.
At least Russia's actions were justified and came after 8 long years of forbearance. How many times has the U.S. illegally invaded other nations, killed their citizens, stole their resources etc. And no one teated U.S. citizens the way the Russians were treated.
There's no sense of repentance at all. It's as if all is to be forgotten.
I consider what S.S. Marco Rubio said recently when he admitted that "the U.S. deceived the Ukrainians into believing they could defeat the Russians."
Well the truth goes even deeper than that. The U.S. leaders deceived their own people into believing that the Russians were guilty of violating Ukrainian sovereignty when in fact it was U.S. leadership that violated Ukraine's sovereignty. That admission is enough to convict the U.S. in any U.S. court.
If the U.S. wants to write a security Treaty it should write one that is inclusive of China and to which all 3 countries are signatories. This game of divide and Conquer is over. Stop playing games and using half measures.
Accept the end of hegemony and enter a world of peace where there is nultipolarity, parity of armaments and mutually assured destruction. The U.S. must pledge to not be the first to launch a nuclear strike and it must renounce the tactics of the Cold War.
You keep referring to 2022. That was long ago. Putin says that there will be no ceasefire. That any future negotiations must be based on Istsnbul plus. That they must reflect the realities on the ground since 2022. Lavarov has also echoed those words.
Putin has real regrets about the deception that the so called guarantors of Ukrainian security perpetrated on him and he has explicitly stated that he's not going to be fooled again. This is the man who says he waited too long to go into Ukraine.
Putin feels deeply wronged, that he didn't do his duty as a leader of his people. There's no way that Putin has any intention of doing Trump a solid.
He's not like Kirk in the Wrath of Kahn when Kirk was offering Kahn a hand up to save Kahn's life instead of letting him fall to his death.
What did Kirk say? He said, I am through with you.
This betrayal by the West goes back all the way to the initial expansion of NATO during the Clinton administration.
And then there's when Boris Johnson went to Istanbul and told Ukraine to not sign any agreement but to keep fighting.
It was during this time when the Russian army was in Ukraine that the Russians were persuaded to withdraw their army when the West argued that the Russians couldn't expect the Ukrainians to sign the agreement with a gun to their head.
Then the Ukrainians turned around and abandoned the framework of the agreement they had initiated.
If you treat people like crap then don't be surprised if they are less inclined to cooperate with you.
No one is obligated to a ceasefire. There's no rule of war saying that. And if your opponent has engaged in duplicity before then it is all the more likely he will do it again.
Putin has said that as long as there is one Ukrainian soldier on the territory of any of the annexed republics that there will be no ceasefire. They must leave to the full extent of the original boundaries as given when they were taken from Russia.
As for the conducting of elections that's a no go. I'm surprised you are serious about that. I shouldn't be though because its all part of Western anti Russian prejudice.
The Russians can't be trusted to conduct a free vote because they are genetically predisposed to totalitarianism.
I would like to point out that America has its own long standing problems with election fraud, political campaign financing, media election censorship etc. The E.U. isn't a democracy either.
Look at them removing the veto power from Hungary, Slovakia, Austria because they won't support E.U. support for Ukraine.
And look at the U.S. long standing practice of regime change in Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Ukraine plus countless others.
In last years Russian elections 87% of the eligible voters turned out and 77% of them voted for Puyin. Those are better participation rates than the U.S. had in the election of Biden or Ttump. That is what I call democracy.
for Ukraine, Trump should follow the Aiken Doctrine. Senator Aiken said during Vietnam, we should declare victory and leave.
In the immortal words of Martin Mull, "It's too hard to say au revoir, let's just say hors d'oeuvre"
Yes I completely agree! If Ukraine refuses peace, then Trump should withdraw all US personnel from Ukraine, close all our CIA spy bases and biolabs and cut off all economic and military aid to Ukraine and tell Zelensky he is on his own! Ukraine can't keep fighting Russia for very long without US support. He would probably opt to flee Ukraine so General Zaluzhny could restore democracy and make Ukraine great again!
My only disagreement with this is the”if” part.
If the Ukes were smart, they would figure out a way to technically lose the war so that they would break up the agreements with Blackstone and the banks.
https://thelonghillinstitute.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/106212959?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
Losing a war militarily sucks, but winning one that leaves you prostrate to foreign interests is no bed of roses either.
No way Ukraine can win this war. The truth is they lost the war three years ago and have just refused to admit it and stop fighting. Instead of fighting for their independence and sovereignty, they are now more dependent and more of a vassal state to the US than they have ever been before.
Yup. Just get out of the international agreements.
That is true. But what's more daming is that the U.S. knew this before it started this war. As S.S. Rubio just admitted.
It was an act of pure evil and outright murder of both Ukrainians and Russians on the part of the U.S. to ignite the spark of the coup de 'tat.
Putin warned about this for years. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Bill Burns, also warned of this in the infamous cable that Julian Assange published.
If anyone 2 people deserved the Noble Peace Prize it is Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin. Not Donald Trump who is stomping around the world threatening countries with economic warfare if they join BRICS.
Oh, the ideal that NATO should remain and that the Germans, or any NATO country, should head it is more than just historically insensitive. It is exactly the wrong message you want to send to the Russians if you want them to talk with Trump.
A refusal to admit that the time for NATO to go is the intellectual equivalent of being a hoarder. You've got all of this accumulated floatsam filling your diplomacy room and its all decaying, rotting useless crap but it's way too dear to your heart even though it threatens your health and serves as a clear sign of your own mental illness.
Holding on to the Cold War and its institutions long after the Cold War has ended is a clear sign that the West is in need of an intervention.
A security agreement that encompasses all of Europe, including Russia, cannot not have any place for the feces of Russophobia and that means no NATO, security agreements with Ukraine, DMZ, travel bans on Russian citizens, attempts to kneecap the Russian presence.
Europe doesn't need a guardian anymore.
Diplomacy becomes impossible when it gets personal. You can't have a chip on your shoulde when you're r at the negotiating table.
Regarding point 3 - the ICC is going to have to rescind the arrest warrant for Putin to make good the part about no war crimes prosecutions. How can the ICC be forced to do that?
Thump can threaten to leave the ICC if they don't on the grounds its in conflict of the peace treaty with Russia. I suspect they would cave.
Trump can't threaten to leave something the U.S. isn't part of. The hypocrisy of the U.S. to kindly offer up an empty promise to not do something it isn't contracted to do in the first place is glaring.
The U.S. isn't a signatory to the I.C.J. either. As a matter of fact the U.S. has promised to send its army into the Hague, which is in the sovereign territory of the Netherlands, and forcibly take away any U.S. citizen that is before the court.
So in the end the ploy that Mr. Pyne offers up as a negotiating term, is a nothing burger and he either knows it or should know it.
That is true. However, I have little doubt that Biden would have threatened to arrest Putin under the ICC mandate had Putin come to visit the US before his regime was ousted from power earlier this month.
I agree. However Putin would not have been so foolosh. Travel to the U.S. isn't a cherished privilege so Putin isn't diminished in stature.
The U.S. is the one that is looking like the hypocrite that it is. It is behaving like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
I still contend that Trump's offer was of no value to an intelligent man with self respect. Those are 2 qualities that Trump and Biden both lack.
I've had many experiences with bullies and the only way to deal with them is to not submit. Trump is a bully and U.S. diplomacy is governed by being a bully.
There comes a time when you have to call the bully on his "S".
Thanks for your reply.
That might be true but what Mr. Pyne is pointing towards is that which in outlined in the first paper (after the 7 classes in my “course”) which goes over the concept that in order to be a good president the person has to be honest, logical and they have to do the right thing.
Just as John Mearsheimer stated way before this disaster started and everyday since it’s begun the best thing to do is to find a way to shut it down - period.
That’s what needs to be done and Mr. Pyne articulately laid out the terms by which Russia will allow that to happen.
Anything short of that will mean that the senseless killing will continue.
Once the genie is out of the bottle you can't just shut it down. The U.S. lost all power to shut it down after it proceeded to conduct 2 separate Color Revolutions, a coup detat against a democratically elected government and deliberately provoked, dared Russia to go into Ukraine in defense of its former citizens against whom Russia was conducting a genocide with the blessing and full empowerment of the U.S.A. Putin issued repeated warnings of what the outcome would be if the U.S. continued on its path of subverting the Ukrainian government. And his warnings came true.
If we tell the truth we would have to recognize that no justice system allows the perpetrator of a crime to play any role in softening his/her sentencing unless there's important relevant information to the resolution of the crime to be given and is accompanied by sincere repentance. The U.S. is offering neither.
It's actually worse than that though. The U.S. is only offering the cessation of its legal activities in exchange for Russia giving uo its legal right of self defense and leaving its people vulnerable to future hybrid warfare by the U.S. and its sovereignty in tatters.
It's like my lawyer told me when I was going through a divorce. It's better that you and your wife settle these things then that you go to court because you never know how the judge will rule. Well, the U.S. choose to go to the court of issuing a strategic defeat of Russia. The thing though is that the Russian judge is delivering a different verdict.
A quick decision to stop the war while U.S. policy against Russia remains intact and not subjected to any internal examination by the U.S. is foolish. Trump just wants a win because he's a winner in his own eyes.
We know that Putin has engaged in deep introspection and feels he's failed his people and his mandate. He's said it and he's pointed out where he failed. That is called critical thinking.
He knows that U.S. policy doesn't change. He's not going to roll the dice on Yrump whose already proven to be unreliable and emotionally unstable. He also wants an all encompassing agreement where Russian security interests are also enshrined. And he wants it to pass Congress.
The U.S. has proven to not be trustworthy. That is an irrefutable fact.
Points taken from Putin’s speech just before inauguration of Trump: We have never refused dialogue. No Truce! The goal is long term peace based on respect for all nations living in this area. Settlement not truce. It is the same goal as with the special military intervention.
Quote from Trump’s inaugural address. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier."
Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have been talking clearly to the world about their valid position since the "special military operation" began on 24 February 2022. If Trump has to answer to his advisors we can forget peace. Putin has been dealing patiently with the dishonesty of the West for the last ten years. His patients is extraordinary. His rhetoric is truthful and open. He is trustworthy. Trump’s job is to be the grease on the rails and make a settlement happen. But Putin has no illusions. He will sink his cleats into the dirt and defend Russia against the deceitful forces that have been trying to make war … which is nothing to be afraid of because his defense of Russia is valid. Putin hates war. He is not after land or riches or power. If only Scott Ritter could be the one to advise Trump. Trump could have the fun of a lifetime making peace.
Putin: We see Trump's statements about the desire to restore contacts with Russia!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o4zfVJ3-9U&t=348s
Putin is willing to accept a cease-fire but only if the prospects for a permanent peace settlement are high. The Kellogg plan offers zero chance of a final peace agreement so its unlikely that Russia will accept a cease-fire unless its terms are revised by President Trump in Russia's favor. Putin can be trusted to keep a peace agreement with acceptable terms for Russia because that was the whole point of Russia's Special Military Operation! Not to conquer Ukraine but to get the US and Ukraine to sign an agreement getting NATO out of Ukraine and demilitarizing it along the Finnish Cold War model--ie Finlandization.
Very good! Rings true. Thank you.
I've watched and listened most of Putins speeches and also those who comment on Putin. At no time have its I read or heard Putin or Lavarov say that Russia will accept any ceasefire. They are rightfully convinced that a ceasefire is what got them deeper into this mess and that it is a trap. That it is just an opportunity for the West to rearm Ukraine and prolong the killing.
They look at what happened to Syria as a lesson in what will result from a ceasefire.
The West only wants a ceasefire because Ukraine is losing. You can be sure the West wouldn't seek a ceasefire if it's proxy was winning.
There's also the reality that Merkel, Holland and Petro Poroshenko all said that the sole purpose of the Minsk Accords was to arm Ukraine.
Putin regrets trusting the West. He chastised himself for not having gone into Ukraine sooner when it wouldn't have cost so many lives.
As a matter of fact he's the only national leader involved in this who has expressed real sorrow over his failures, the loss of life and to have worked hard to miminize the death toll.
Trump has mouthed the words of regret over loss of life but his actions have only engendered more death. Holding out for leverage or sending in more arms in order to buy time is spitting on the graves and wounds of the men.
I'm 66 years old and I can't recall a single promise the U.S. government has made that it hasn't found a way to break if it served its purpose.
I never said they would accept any cease-fire but after all it was Putin who first proposed a cease-fire in March 2022 and again in September and December 2022. He has on record supporting a cease-fire ever since but once the Kellogg peace plan terms became public has now placed conditions as to what would make a cease-fire acceptable to Moscow. Trump is very sincere in wanting the war to stop and to end the immediate threat of nuclear escalation. It makes sense that the US should support an immediate and permanent cease-fire ending the war in Ukraine before a final peace deal is signed. That is what I proposed back in September 2022 in The National Interest after my original June 2022 peace plan became impractical following the Russian annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts. The Ukrainian reaction to my June 2022 peace plan was hysterical because I proposed a popular referendum for the Donbass to decide whether to remain with Ukraine or not. Putin has done a great job minimizing the civilian death toll in Ukraine which is infinitely lower than the average daily German and Japanese civilian death rate incurred at US and UK hands during WW2. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/proposed-peace-plan-end-russo-ukrainian-war-203009/
Putin, Lavarov, and Maria Zakharova have made it very clear why they are no longer going to accept a ceasefire. And the reason is justified because it is of the West own making.
It's because they have been duped before by ceasefires. They won't be fooled again.
They will fight as long as there's no agreement in place.
That's the right thing to do. Once you've lost all credibility you've got no influence.
Remember. The U.S. isn't a neutral 3rd party. Te U.S. is to blame.for this whole war. It's rather absurd for Russia to even be talking with the protagonist. The U.S. certainly isn't on an equal footing with Russia.
Trump has to decide if he is more interested in saving face or lives. Is he more interested in how he wants to look or does he care that this war is truly ridiculous and face that he had a hand in it?
Can he accept his own culpability? This war isn't just Biden's war. Every president whose hands have touched this war is responsible. And that includes Trump.
Trump was also on tv claiming Russia has suffered 1,000,000 dead
In the war
He seems in no hurry to end the war and has not even spoke to Putin despite claiming the US and Russia are very close to war I don’t get it
Yes that claim has no basis in fact nor does his claim that Putin doesn't want a peace deal. I would have thought that Trump would have sent a US peace delegation to Moscow on Day One of his presidency to sound out the Russians on their peace terms but strangely it seems the administration has made no effort to contact the Russians to discuss peace as yet.
Trump can't be taken seriously when it comes to wanting peace. This is a man who never once talked about working to end the war when he was in office the first time. He rather did everything to exacerbate the war.
This is a man who still believes and talks about America in terms of the U.S. having been endowed by God with some heavenly Manifest Destiny. And Mike Huckabee, his ambassador to Israel talks about Israel having a God given right that is 3500yrs old, to occupy the O.T. land of Israel. Even though the Romans destroyed the Jewish state of Israel and sent the Jews packing.
These people aren't very smart and they have a horrible understanding of Biblical theology. The Jews aren't God's chosen people.
They have zero right to the former land of Israel that they can prove. The O.T. isn't valid proof of their claim since the promises of a deity aren't acceptable as evidence.
Whereas Biden clearly had dementia that rendered him unqualified to be president. Trump's problem is that he lives in an alternate reality of his own making.
Not true. Trump is very grounded in strategic reality overall. That's exactly why he has been adamant in demanding an end to Biden's war in Ukraine. Even anti-war leftists are cheering on his efforts. Trump campaigned on a grand bargain with Russia in 2016 but the Russophobic globalists conspired to engage in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax in order to derail it and prolong the conflict. They even impeached him over suspending military aid to Ukraine and basically refusing to start WW3 with Russia. If he had been President, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine because Trump would have issued a written guarantee to Russia that Ukraine would never join NATO and would never have signed any strategic partnership agreements with Kyiv.
I know that Trump is very fond of saying that the war never would've happened if he were President but he was President for 4 years during which the war was going on and he did nothing to stop it.
I know all about the Russian collusion hoax and the attacks that were thrown his way of being a Putin lover but rather than confront those accusations head on he capitulsted by turning into an ardent Russo-phobe.
Never once did he talk about those things you mention. He threw javelin missles into the war and claimed he did more than Obama to equip Ukraine in the fight.
I wasn't a Trump hater. I actually was looking forward to Trump running but I wasn't optimistic that he would be elected.
My support of him was based on all the things he said prior to running. Things like wanting to bring the soldiers home, close overseas military bases, that wars are horrible. Even when he was campaigning he said there was no reason the U.S. and Russia couldn't be friends. Well, all of that went out the windows after Russiagate.
Even his wanting to close NATO bases and leave Europe disappeared from his dialog. He went from wanting to leave NATO to saying that the Europeans must raise their contribution. In other words he made the whole issue of staying in NATO a matter of finding an acceptable deal. He was a complete sellout.
Trump is obsessed with his view of himself as the ultimate deal maker and this compromises his ability to stand on principle.
Even recently he said that the U.S. and China could solve many of the world's problems if they worked together. But, he totally contradicts himself when he says that China is America's number one enemy. And, that the U.S. must do everything to retard China's development. Plus he is okay with waging hybrid war against China. He appoints anti China and anti Russian Hawks to leading positions in his administration.
He talks about U.S. Manifest Destiny, doesn't repudiate U.S. expansionism, falsely accuses Panama of harboring Chinese soldiers, wants to take control of Greenland.
He's no different than Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton. And he certainly doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize as some are now claiming. Just like Obama didn't deserve his.
Amen. Maybe real foreign policy should be left to policy, military, and historical experts.
Wouldn't that be nice! Unless of course the experts subscribed to a false policy or historical consensus of course.
The greatest scientific advancement came from those who worked outside of consensus.
Very true. From out of the box thinkers like us!
Trump seems to be getting bad advice from most of his advisors and most of the advisors themselves are bad.
If the regular people can research backgrounds, why can’t Trump?
Makes one wonder what the end game is really all about. There are many theories and none of them look good.
Just asking questions.
I think Presidents are unusually dependent on their advisors for the information they get. It takes a President of iron will and a deep understanding of foreign policy to go against them. I think Trump has the ability to override their bad advice in furtherance of achieving his noble goal of peace with Russia but the question is how long will it take before it does so. It might be 3-6 months from now.
Thanks for your reply.
I just hope the correct decisions are made in the end to get us going in the right direction.
Always appreciate your knowledge and insight.
Thanks for keeping us informed !!!
Me too. You bet!
Trump's not a victim of bad advice since he chose his advisors and is free to fire them at anytime. Therefore his continued employment of them proves he agrees with them and that he doesn't have the required intelligence to see they are wrong.
Trump's moves on Greenland, Canada and Panam and, his shameful intimidating conversation with the leader of Denmark are all pure Trump.
Trump has a quick answer to everything which is to erupt in anger. Tariffs, Manifest Destiny, outright imperialism, playing the victim etc. all point to a man who is ill tempered and psychotic.
When Putin went into Ukraine in a clear act to stop genocide of the Russian speaking population the U.S. said that it was proof that Putin wanted to re-estabish the USSR and the whole discredited Dominoe Theory was dragged out to justify this proxy war. Rutte has fear mongering the E.U. members by saying their citizens must pay more for defense or else they will end up learning to speak Russian.
Russia has been around for a thousand years and in all that time there have been many European languages that have flourished right alongside it.
Meanwhile Trump states unequivocally that te U.S. territory will expand but no one forcefully objects. The response of the E.U. is that they will send E.U. troops to work right alongside U.S. troops as a way to keep the U.S. in Europe and state off a direct U.S. takeover of Greenland.
One more double standard. Who's the acquisition party now? Russia never had any intentions of takingover all of Ukraine. Russia's focus has always been equal rights for Russians in Ukraine. That was the purpose of the 2 Minsk Accords that they U.S., France, Germany, and Ukraine welched on.
Now Russia has annexed the former territories of Ukraine that appealed to it for protection and Ukraine won't get them back nor should it. Ukraine gave up its right to govern them when it attacked them and when the coup government was installed.
If I’m not mistaken, what you’ve said is more or less what John Mearsheimer has been saying over and over again for a long time. And as far as I can tell it’s exactly spot on.
Beyond that, since you’re well educated, smart, articulate and reasonable you might be interested in taking my “course”. My course gets at the root of why these type of problems persist and how best to overcome them.
Do you have a link to your course. What kind of course is it exactly?
It’s a “course” which is made up of 7 “classes”, a quick review of my 3 papers, and then if it were to be presented to a live audience or class there would be a discussion, debate and further discussion to see if what I have to say resonates with anyone.
I’d like to make the “course” into a documentary film.
The most specific target audience for the “course” is the world’s top leaders and diplomats.
I’d be glad to discuss it in more detail if you’re interested in what I have to say.
This might sound a little crazy but the bottom line is that among other things what I’ve come up with makes for the basis for a very good political platform.
My email is kevincflynn1@gmail.com and my cell phone number is +13308081400.
I’m leaving to ski a Sun Valley, Idaho in the morning but I’ll be available after tomorrow. Thanks for your interest!
Yes I mentioned that in my article and its concerning. I am worried he might be getting bad advice from some of his advisors.
It's not a question of might. It's just is. But he picked his advisors and he choose to accept money from his donors.
It's as Colonel Douglas MacGregor said of Trump when he said that Trump is a poor butcher. In other words Trump listens to and empowers people who aren't supportive of his agenda.
The other problem with Trump is his narcissism. He thinks he is a person who gets things done but he really isn't.
Trump measures his success by how much he can tick off of his to do list. He doesn't have patience for long drawn out assessment of an issue. Any man who could talk about finding an end to this war in 24 hours isn't a very deep thinker.
Putin has all of the right personality traits that Trump lacks to be considered a good leader.
Remember Trump is the one who pressured Netanyahu to sign a cease-fire deal he has been opposing for over a year potentially saving the lives of tens of thousands of Gazan civilians if the cease-fire holds. Trump's instincts are nearly always right. Its when he listens to his Deep State neocon advisors that he gets in trouble and his great initiatives for ending wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine end up getting derailed. As I wrote in my article 24 hours wasn't far off the mark. I think he could have ended the war in 72 hours if he had implemented my peace plan starting the day he took office by sending Vance to meet with the Russian PM and telling him not to come back until he had a Russian signed peace deal in hand.
I agree.
I don't think you can undo a war that has been in the planning for 30 years in 24 or 72 hours. Nor do I agree with the use of pressure tactics to subdue someone into compliance. It's rather disrespectful and is reminiscent of the old trope of a car salesman who ask you what does he have to offer you to get you in the car today.
You'd have to be willing to give Putin everything he wants but I don't think you're willing to do that. Although I would.
I see nothing in Putin's demands that are unreasonable but then I'm not going into it with alterior motives.
I'd probably give him even more so that I could lay a foundation for rebuilding the relationship. But, I don't see Ukraine as having any security concerns for the U.S.
I'd also apologize for starting the war in the first place.
David, I suggest you get on the phone ASAP and call President Trump and tell him as I have that he is being fed lies, propaganda, and utter bullshit from these stupid neo-con globalist advisers of his. They are wicked and ungodly for misrepresenting the truth and lying to the president! Your plan is right on, for the most part! And I am confident that God will severely punish any kind of stupid decision on the part of the US and/or NATO in this matter. NATO and most of the European leaders are nothing less than tools of the Devil and antichrist. NATO needs to be either reformed or dismantled. And now is the right time for President Trump to do so for the sake of us all.
The US leaving NATO would help
In an ideal world Trump would pull the US out of NATO as he repeatedly said he wanted to during his first term which would have entirely averted the war in Ukraine. However, I think pulling all US ground troops and tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe would suffice for a Russian reset that would bring a lasting peace in Europe.
No. NATO literally has to go to never ever be reconstituted again. NATO should've been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded and Russia removed its troops from East Germany.
Preparing for war in the absence of war is a sure way to end up with wars that otherwise would never have been.
Don't forget NATO was created first in the absence of any Russian aggression. The Warsaw Pact came as a Russian response to NATO.
NATO created in the absence of Russian aggression you say? So you don't consider the Soviet annexations of parts or all of six Eastern European countries from 1939-1940 and their annexation of three more after the war ended to constitute aggression? The truth is that NATO served a noble and purely defensive purpose in defending western Europe from the Evil Soviet Empire during the Cold War. It was not until the NATO bombing of Belgrade that it was transformed into an aggressive imperialist alliance. That said, I do think the US missed the opportunity to end the Cold War with Stalin's 1952 note offering to reunite Germany as a neutral state along the lines of the Austria State Treaty of 1955.
NATO came first. Actually it was the West that immediately wanted to attack Rusdia at the end of WW2. And the U.S. used the atomic bomb on the civilian population of Japan as a warning to Russia.
I would agree that that was a missed opportunity. Just as the opportunity was missed when the USSR and the U.S. agreed to ending of the Warsaw Pact.
I still remember how our Western politicians promised us a peace dividend that they never delivered on.
The US in NATO has played an important role in keeping the countries in Europe from getting at each others necks since the end of world war 2. It was obviously set up to counterbalance the Soviet Union but when the Soviet Union fell we in the west (the US) made the mistakes that John Mearsheimer has repeatedly pointed out. George Kennan pointed out these mistakes as well.
(My course tangentially covers this kind of thing).
Yes the US should have either invited Russia to join NATO at the end of the Cold War as Gorby and Yeltsin and subsequently Putin accepted or else dissolve NATO entirely. Doing so ironically would have greatly enhanced European security far above the existential threats that NATO expansion all along Russia's western frontier has created today.
"1. Ukraine pledges to never join NATO but will become a Major Non-NATO Ally."
You are delusional if you think that Russia will ever agree for Ukraine to be in any kind of alliance with the US. Russia could not care less how the US calls such an arrangement, be it de jure NATO membership, de facto NATO membership or being a US puppet 'ally' informally and somehow specifically outside of NATO. Do you think the Russians are idiots who can be tricked by the US calling their Ukrainian proxy a "Major Non-NATO Ally"?
The ONLY two options acceptable to Russia is Ukraine's permanent neutrality with no alliances with anyone ever, no matter what label or nature of such alliances may be, or a pro-Russian Ukraine.
"3. A four-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone shall be created along the entire length of Ukraine’s border with the four Russian-controlled oblasts, policed by UN and OSCE peacekeepers from neutral countries, to prevent future conflict."
Again, more delusions. Russia is not going to agree to any foreign troops stationed in Ukraine, no matter if you call them "The Care Bears brigade," "UN and OSCE peacekeepers from neutral countries," or "NATO troops."
"The U.S. and Russia agree to begin negotiating a New START II Treaty with a limit of 3,500 operational strategic nuclear weapons."
Not going to happen because Russia has no reason whatsoever to trust the US to uphold any treaties. Russia sees the US as non agreement capable (which is 100% correct).
"In exchange for Russia committing not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. commits to a policy of non-interference in all former Soviet republics which are not NATO members."
There is no way whatsoever Russia would believe any American pledges of non-interference in these countries, or in Russia's domestic affairs. Russia knows that there is zero chance such commitments would survive longer than the second Trump's term. Moreover, there is no Russian "interference in the Western Hemisphere" and there is not going to be any. Russia is not doing any regime changes in the Western Hemisphere, it's not building any military bases that could threaten the US in the Western Hemisphere, it's not making any alliances with anyone in the Western Hemisphere and has no plans whatsoever to do any of these things. What are you talking about here?
"my assertion that while NATO membership is not possible for Ukraine given it was the very reason Russia invaded in the first place, Major Non-NATO ally status might be acceptable to Moscow, which would make it a “win-win” agreement for the US, Russia and Ukraine. The administration could credibly point to a peace deal guaranteeing Ukrainian security and independence"
The US has exactly zero interest in "Ukrainian security and independence." If Ukraine, which is controlled by a pro-US puppet regime, being forced to get itself destroyed in this proxy war to you seems like the US values "Ukrainian security and independence," you need a reality check. Russia knows perfectly well that the US has zero interest in these things, and that the only use of Ukraine for the US is to use it as a proxy against Russia. Nobody in the US cares about making a “win-win” agreement for Ukraine, Ukraine is nothing but a proxy and a source of cannon fodder, and its interests in no way affect any of America's policy decisions.
"The U.S. and Russia solemnly pledge to one another that neither side will go to war against each other in the event they are attacked by a third party."
What value does such a pledge by the US have? Zero.
Major Non-NATO Ally status could be negotiated out if the Russians object but I think you're mistaken that Russia doesn't want a peace deal with the US. A comprehensive peace deal recognizing Moscow's legitimate security interests is the only way they can achieve their longtime objectives which I reference in the article. Also, if the US agreed to major concessions with Russia in writing, chances are very high Trump would honor the treaty and his successors very well might as well ensuring a lasting peace between the US and Russia and averting the perceived need for Russia to ever invade Ukraine again.
My question for you, Mr.Pyne, is for you to explain the unexplainable. That which so far lacks explanation is why is the U.S. so obsessed with keeping both feet planted in Ukraine that it has been willing to embark on a course of total destruction that it could've easily avoided just by abiding by its original promise to not move one inch Eastward.
And even if it hadn't made that promise, but it did, why wouldn't it say, that sounds like a good ideal because it will save many lives.
What's with this obsessive fetish? What's with the obessession to inflict a strategic defeat upon a Russia that persistently held out a hand of friendship to only see it slapped away?
You do real8ze or at least should realize that no treaty or solemn has any trustworthiness as long as U.S. policy towards Russia, China and the world is based on U.S. Exceptionally, Manifest Destiny, Indespensable Nation, Monroe Doctrine etc.
As long as the U.S. doesn't believe in abiding by the U.N. Charter or believes it has the right to do as it pleases. Act like it is the victim. Believes that it's currency is the standard for world tade or the self serving Rules Based Order that there is no point in talking with Yrump. Russia would be better off going for a clear cut unconditional surrender of Ukraine and making Ukraine a Russian protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam.
The U.S. would have to dismantle, and never re-assemble the C.I.A., all its N.G.O.'s, change the mission of the State Department to one of strict diplomacy, close its overseas bases, stop trying to separate Russia from China.
If I were Xi or Putin iI would see right through your treaty term that would bar Russia or China from supporting the other in the event one was attacked by the U.S. I don't know why you think either of then is so dumb or desperate to avoid confronting the U.S. that one of them would give up the one thing that makes the U.S. think twice before attacking either of them.
I almost forgot to mediation that the U.S. also has to give up the Wolfowitz Doctrine and say that neither China nor Russia are its enemies.
Because with the exception of Trump, the US from at least 1993 onward and arguably from 1992 onward has been led by neo-imperialist leaders bent on US global hegemony and imperial expansion eastward in Europe transforming NATO member states and Ukraine into US military protectorates. I have derided this policy as Biden's policy of national suicide as it goes against the US national security interest of pursuing policies that make our citizens and our allies safer and more secure rather than provoking an unnecessary nuclear war with Russia. The only reason I added MNNA status to my proposal is because I don't think the neocons will agree to it without that provision as the entire reason that Biden has refused to allow Ukraine to end the war because if the US gave in to Russia's demand for permanent Ukraine neutrality, then Ukraine would largely cease being dependent on the US for its security and would have to turn to Russia for its security instead as it did from 1991-2014 allowing it to remain independent, whole and free. I agree with you that there is no US national security interest in Russia's defeat or weakening at all. That is why the US should have remained neutral in the war and refused to send any lethal military assistance to Ukraine at all forcing it to sign the Istanbul Agreement which would have amounted to a stunning victory for Ukraine not just Russia! The US should never stop trying to divide the Sino-Russian military alliance. That should have always been the number one US national security imperative from 1996 onward. To be clear, my peace agreement would not bar either Russia or China to go to war against us if the other was attacked. It would only bar Russia from going to war with the US if China attacked the US! This is a modern-day reiteration of the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887 which kept the peace between Imperial Germany and the Russian Empire while it remained in force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty
Unfortunately you’re correct.
As naive as it might seem, at the end of the day, what motivates and drives human behavior and nation states behavior needs to be that which is outlined in my “course”. It would be a tall order, and maybe impossible to make this change, but it’s probably our best chance at survival as a species through the coming decades and centuries.
My course lays out a good basis for a political platform and for the basis of artificial intelligence if AI is to become a force for good for humans rather than a tool which is used to hasten our demise.
So far I haven’t gotten any traction in what I’ve had to say - which is t surprising when someone like John Mearsheimer has been jumping up and down for decades without anyone in our policy establishment heading his advice.
…my course is worthwhile and it’s what we need to do…
I don't see Russia agreeing to a cease fire under any circumstances no matter what the US tries to offer, except in case the AFU withdraws from administrative borders of the regions Russia claims as its own and both the US and Ukraine state that they will agree to Ukraine's permanent neutrality, demilitarization and denazification. Unless that happens somehow, they will be no cease fire. No amount of sanctions or promises to end sanctions will change that.
If the sanctions were more of a priority for Russia than its security concerns, Russia would've never started the war in the first place, not to mention the fact that agreeing to a cease fire when you're winning and there's nothing your adversary can realistically do to stop you from winning is not something Russia (or any sane government in Russia's place) would consider doing.
I think that Putin's demand for the remainder of the four annexed oblasts was a negotiating tactic. I think he would be perfectly happy to concede that in exchange for the US accepting all of Russia's other peace terms. Western economic sanctions against Russia have hurt the US and its allies far more than they have hurt Russia whose economy has been on overdrive of late. Putin has been calling for a cease-fire since March 2022 quite literally but now that he sees the Kellogg peace plan is structured to create a cease-fire rather than a permanent peace agreement, Putin is no longer willing to agree to a cease-fire without preconditions. Trump should concede Ukraine NATO membership and Russian control of the four oblasts along the current line of control in advance of any cease-fire agreement.
You're wrong. Putin isn't a trasactionable person. You are talking like a Westerner who9 believes everything is for sale at the right price.
Putin stands on principle. You obviously either haven't been listening to him or not taking him seriously.
Those 5 oblasts are now Constitutionally once again part of Russia. Putin takes the Russian Constitution seriously. He's not giving them up and he does expect to reclaim them in whole, not part.
No Putin is very reasonable and transactional just like Trump. That is why I remain hopeful that they will be able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to end the war.
Putin isn't transactional. And that's what frustrates U.S. Presidents and politicians. Putin can't be intimidated or bought. If Putin was transactional he wouldn't be remorseful and feel betrayed by the West.
Every American politician thinks that everyone is as unprincipled as he/ she is.
The only leaders the U.S. has an issue with are those who have principles, won't be intimidated and have a backbone.
This is why the U.S. has been trying to get rid of Orban, Putin, Fico, Xi, Imran Kahn of Pakistan etc.
The U.S. political system doesn't even like people with principles that go against the political establishment. The same is true in Canada.
tmuch moneyin it to stop
Oh, I forgot to say that Ukraine must cede all of the annexed territories up to their original boundaries they had the day prior to Ukraine's uniateral declaration of independence.
And, Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Russia went in at the direct behest of the leaders of the annexed Oblasts, who were seeking protection from Ukrainian genocide of the Russian population.
The only nation that violated Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity and political sovereignty was the U.S. when it went in with the State Department, CIA, Pentagon and undermined Ukrainian sovereignty from within.
8 long years passed between the U.S. backed putsch against the democratically elected government of Yanukovych and the U.S. installation of Victor Poruschenko.
Putin made every attempt to avoid war while the West, U.S., made every attempt to start a war by provoking Putin to go offsides.
It's no different than when a player on an opposing football team purposely or accidentally makes a movement that misleafs his opponent to take action prior to the snap of the football. In other words the U.S. engaged in entrapment.
Putin behaved reasonably and now he's reclaiming both people and land who are and that is rightfully Russian.
Even Putin has said he is happy to see Ukraine remain independent no matter who leads it so long as they are democratically elected and Ukraine returns to being friendly with Russia. In fact, the whole point of the Special Military Operation was to restore Ukraine's neutrality, sovereignty and independence from any foreign power including the US. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was in large part a delayed response to the CIA backed Maidan coup. Putin refrained from invading Ukraine outside of Crimea until 15 years of diplomacy with the West had failed to resolve the Ukraine NATO membership crisis. Yes, Putin behaved exactly as any US President would have under the same circumstances in defending Russia from what he perceived to constitute an existential threat.
NATO is a failed alliance that doesn't know it's dead. NATO ceased to have any reason to exist once the USSR ceased to exist. NATO has been desperately flailing about to find any relevance ever since the USSR disappeared from the scene.
NATO has expanded ots theater of operations well beyond the North Atlantic into Eastern Europe, Middle East and Asia. We've got the E.U. now claiming that China is a direct military threat.
There's no way that Russia should sign any treaty with the U.S. that prohibits it from entering a war that the U.S. is waging against a third party. This is just a means the U.S. would be using to get Russia to not have any alliances with other adversaries of the U.S.
If the U.S. ends up in a war with China or Iran it will be a matter of choice, not necessity. The U.S. has made this mess all on its own and is looking to dupe Russia into helping it out of something of its own making.
There's no way that sanctions relief should come in stages and be contingent on anything the West sets up as a criteria.
The sanctions aren't in place because of the war. They are illegal under national law and must be unconditionally removed before talks can begin. Otherwise the U.S. will be rewarded for engaging in an illegal act of piracy, theft and taking making hostages of the Russian people.
The bi-lateral agreements Zelensky signed are invalid and are a form of de facto membership in NATO.
Any point of reference that goes back to March of 22 is invalid because it amounts to a freezing of the conflict. This would nullify Putin's clear terms of Istanbul plus and the acceptance not only of the realities on the ground now but the full extent to which the territories were taken in under the Russian Constitution.
Putin's terms are all reasonable. None of them are irrational. They all make historical sense. Those territories were transferred to Ukraine under Russian authority and now they have been reclaimed in whole.
Russia is the victor and the Treaty must reflect that.
Also this must be signed as a Treaty and nothing less. The Senate must append its signature to this. It can't be something that the next President's can undo with an executive order. You know this.
The U.S. must recognize the annexed territories, including Crimea and any other territory that has been reclaimed subsequently, as legally Russian. Their fate isn't to be decided at some future date. The time is now.
No this must not be a treaty because there is zero chance the Senate would approve it. Rather it must be a separate peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine and a Strategic Partnership Agreement between the US and Russia that need not be submitted to the Senate.
If the Senate won't approve a Treaty then of what good is a Strategic Partnership Agreement?
I recall that Obama got the Europeans to rewrite the Paris Climate Change so that it weren't a Treaty expressly because he knew he couldn't get the Senate to sign it.
Now I think this was rather underhanded of him to do because he was advising a foreign group on how to bypass U.S. law. But it does show the uselessness of the lesser alternative.
If President Trump can't get the Senate to sign a Treaty with Russia then it's because he knows the antipathy that the U.S. political and military establishment hold towards Russia hasn't diminished. Of what value would this Strategic Partnership Agreement be?
What would be binding on the U.S.? Why would the U.S. establishment be willing to bind itself to anything with respect to Russia when it has nothing but contempt for Russia.
It's U.S. contempt for Russia that has brought us to this.
Thank you again for your response.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say Russia couldn't fight the US alongside China. My proposed agreement merely states that if China attacks the US first they would remain neutral. If the US attacks China first, then Russia could ally with China against us. That is 100% in the spirit of their mutual defense treaty with Beijing. I agree the US should leave NATO and pull all its ground troops from Europe. It should be a German not a US led alliance. I also agree that all US sanctions on Russia should be lifted as part of the peace deal to be signed on May 9th. I also think Trump should discard its 10 year security agreement with Zelensky on the basis that it is invalid that it was signed in June and Zelensky's constitutional term expired in May and he is no longer a legitimate President. I also agree we should not freeze the conflict but instead should permanently end the war and sign a mutual security treaty with Moscow along the lines I propose in my article.
Who attacks who first is a rather arbitrary red line. The U.S. is very good at using false flags and propaganda to obfuscate the truth. Just as it used false flags to topple the Assad government and to provoke Russia.
This needs to be a clean document without any mention of 3rd parties. That's the only way to keep the U.S. honest.
It's a frank admission that the U.S. knows it can't fight a war on 2 fronts. Just as it's clear to you that Russia never wanted a war it should also be clear that China doesn't want one either. Both Putin and Xi have been very patient in the face of U.S. passive/aggressive behavior.
The U.S. is clearly not beyond taking things to the breaking point.
Those bilateral agreements you want to keep in place were also signed after Zelensky's term was up. But even if some of them weren't keeping them in place would clearly violate the spirit and full intent of Ukrainian neutrality. And then there's always the fact that any expressed desire by a none partner to a Ukraine/Russia Treaty would want to have any input on its terms?
Russia is the victor and gets to dictate terms. The U.S. isn't involved.
You are freezing the conflict if you want settlement to be based on 2022 and not 2025 realities. Those are Russia's terms.
The sanctions must be lifted first. Otherwise your proposal is holding hostage any end to the war. The sanctions are illegal. And are an act of group punishment. Certainly you can see the horrendous mistreatment and humiliation that individual Russian citizens were and are being subjected too.
At least Russia's actions were justified and came after 8 long years of forbearance. How many times has the U.S. illegally invaded other nations, killed their citizens, stole their resources etc. And no one teated U.S. citizens the way the Russians were treated.
There's no sense of repentance at all. It's as if all is to be forgotten.
I consider what S.S. Marco Rubio said recently when he admitted that "the U.S. deceived the Ukrainians into believing they could defeat the Russians."
Well the truth goes even deeper than that. The U.S. leaders deceived their own people into believing that the Russians were guilty of violating Ukrainian sovereignty when in fact it was U.S. leadership that violated Ukraine's sovereignty. That admission is enough to convict the U.S. in any U.S. court.
If the U.S. wants to write a security Treaty it should write one that is inclusive of China and to which all 3 countries are signatories. This game of divide and Conquer is over. Stop playing games and using half measures.
Accept the end of hegemony and enter a world of peace where there is nultipolarity, parity of armaments and mutually assured destruction. The U.S. must pledge to not be the first to launch a nuclear strike and it must renounce the tactics of the Cold War.
You keep referring to 2022. That was long ago. Putin says that there will be no ceasefire. That any future negotiations must be based on Istsnbul plus. That they must reflect the realities on the ground since 2022. Lavarov has also echoed those words.
Putin has real regrets about the deception that the so called guarantors of Ukrainian security perpetrated on him and he has explicitly stated that he's not going to be fooled again. This is the man who says he waited too long to go into Ukraine.
Putin feels deeply wronged, that he didn't do his duty as a leader of his people. There's no way that Putin has any intention of doing Trump a solid.
He's not like Kirk in the Wrath of Kahn when Kirk was offering Kahn a hand up to save Kahn's life instead of letting him fall to his death.
What did Kirk say? He said, I am through with you.
This betrayal by the West goes back all the way to the initial expansion of NATO during the Clinton administration.
And then there's when Boris Johnson went to Istanbul and told Ukraine to not sign any agreement but to keep fighting.
It was during this time when the Russian army was in Ukraine that the Russians were persuaded to withdraw their army when the West argued that the Russians couldn't expect the Ukrainians to sign the agreement with a gun to their head.
Then the Ukrainians turned around and abandoned the framework of the agreement they had initiated.
If you treat people like crap then don't be surprised if they are less inclined to cooperate with you.
No one is obligated to a ceasefire. There's no rule of war saying that. And if your opponent has engaged in duplicity before then it is all the more likely he will do it again.
Putin has said that as long as there is one Ukrainian soldier on the territory of any of the annexed republics that there will be no ceasefire. They must leave to the full extent of the original boundaries as given when they were taken from Russia.
As for the conducting of elections that's a no go. I'm surprised you are serious about that. I shouldn't be though because its all part of Western anti Russian prejudice.
The Russians can't be trusted to conduct a free vote because they are genetically predisposed to totalitarianism.
I would like to point out that America has its own long standing problems with election fraud, political campaign financing, media election censorship etc. The E.U. isn't a democracy either.
Look at them removing the veto power from Hungary, Slovakia, Austria because they won't support E.U. support for Ukraine.
And look at the U.S. long standing practice of regime change in Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Ukraine plus countless others.
In last years Russian elections 87% of the eligible voters turned out and 77% of them voted for Puyin. Those are better participation rates than the U.S. had in the election of Biden or Ttump. That is what I call democracy.
Lots of words. Lots of comments. Now I’m thirsty & need a drink so next time I GES©️ I will just read it quietly to myself. VBR, Ray