Presenting a detailed plan for how Trump could end the war in Ukraine with a just and lasting peace and a new Russo-American entente that would neutralize Russia's military alliance with the PRC
A solemn reminder that the current administration has not made the slightest attempt to end, or even to de-escalate the War in Ukraine. This despite the fact that current situation has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight, than it has EVER been, since it's inception!
Such a move by President Trump would also align with fact that, despite what you've probably heard, the MAGA movement is a move AWAY from the Neocons and a movement towards a more Non-interventionist United States. MAGA desires peace through strength AND diplomacy!
Yes Biden has completely failed the test of presidential leadership by refusing to defuse a potential nuclear crisis in Ukraine. He has flushed decades of conventional Cold War wisdom that kept the nuclear great power peace for nearly half a century down the drain. And yes, the Trump led America First GOP is the new peace party while the Democrats have become the party of senseless war and destruction.
I did follow the pro Russian side closely and i do think that Russia would have accepted these terms a while back (before its partial mobilisation and the annexation of four Ukranian oblasts) but will not accept these terms now. There are two simple reasons for that:
First: This agreement would not be viable in Russian law, as it is forbidden to give Russian territory (as viewed by the Russian side) away. As the military strategic dynamics now strongly favour Russia and President Putin stands under severe pressure from hawkish nationalists, a viable Peace agreement would need to give Russia the territory it annexed and did not control.
The peace would be less just then, but at least realistic.
Second: The level of Trust in Russia in agreements with the West is extremely low. The proposed agreement has some but not all of the necessary points to still reach an agreement. Russia (in my opinionon rightfully) fears that a peace agreement would likely lead to a time in which Nato rearms itself (not Ukraine) to a point where Russia loses its current advantages (greater stocks and production of ammunition, higher weapons production despite way smaller economy due to succesful economic mobilisation, edge in hypersonic missiles) are overcompensated. Then Nato could start a new Russia-Ukraine war which Russia then may loose (a risk which is now way smaller).
If Russia fights until Ukraine collapses and then makes Ukraine a proxy of its own, there is no such Risk as Russia can prevent weapons from flowing from the West to Ukraine.
Unluckily I do not see a way to solve the second problem as the West has (unlike China, Iran , Northcorea, India and Turkey to name the most important) proven to be a highly unreliable partner. Especially many European Countries did not honour their agreements with Russia evem when doing so would have been in their national interest.
Just to clarify, Russia would not be obligated to give any territory back to Ukraine under this agreement. This would be a permanent peace agreement along the current lines of control. Putin can trust the West to keep an agreement in Russia's interest if they actually implement it. It would definitely be a situation of trust but verify but I confident he would jump at the chance to sign such an agreement. The NY Times reported in late March 2022 "Putin was salivating over the prospect of peace." He never wanted this war to begin with and only invaded Ukraine on the basis of perceived necessity. I have drafted a back up peace agreement with more favorable terms to Moscow that I plan to publish in the next week or so. It would only be implemented if Russia rejected this one. Russia could defeat NATO in the event of a direct war in my estimation. Russia fears NATO expansion more than it fears NATO aggression. My peace proposal is very realistic although Russia would not get neutrality or additional Ukrainian territory.
Thank You very much for the answer. I know that Russia would not have to give any territory back, it curremtly holds under this agreement. But Russia annexed (under Russian law) not the territory it holds but the regions in their original boundries. Therefore they cannot agree to a agreement where they do not get these territories.
The West did end most disarmament treties which were in Russia's interest without giving any proof about Russia not implementing them. The West also did not fullfill the Minsk accords or the grain deal. But no matter if it is justified or not, Russia does not trust the West .
The remarks about Putins willingness to end the war even with quiete favorable terms for Ukraine are accurate but that was in March 2022. As far as I understand, a comparable agreement could have been reached in September 2022 before the Russian mobilistation.
But the more ressources a country has mobilized for a war, the higher its demands become. This is one of the reasons why a sunk cost fallacy on all sides prolonged many wars.
Russia has invested an enourmous amount of ressources into this war AND ist winning right now. Due to this, their demands have increased significantlyl sind March 2022.
I think that a realistic agreement would have to contain most points from the draft treaty, Russia published in late 2021 for a new European Security framework. A new confidential forces treaty (to prevent an arms race between the European Nato countries and Russia) could give Russia the comfidence, that Nato does not plan to restart the Russo-Ukraine war, as soon as Nato has the necessary weapons.
I don't agree. When Russia annexed the four disputed former Ukrainian oblasts, they left the boundaries undefined giving President Putin leeway to determine what they would be in a postwar settlement. On June 14th for the first time, Putin stated Russia would only accept their constitutional borders but that could change in a negotiated settlement with Trump. Yes, it was foolish for the West not to accept the Minsk II accords when the terms were extremely favorable for Ukraine and Putin was saying peace must be determined on the basis of Minsk II right up until Feb 21st, 2022. Yes you are correct that the Istanbul agreement remained on the table right up until Putin's September 21st, 2022 declaring support for annexation. My peace plan actually incorporates some of the most important parts of Russia's draft December 2021 mutual security treaties in points 7 and 8.
"So, these conditions are simple. The Ukrainian troops must be completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. Let me note that they must be withdrawn from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders at the time of their being part of Ukraine."
This is a direct quote from Putin's speech and it is unambiguous in its meaning. He is referring to the borders that these regions had when they were transferred to Ukraine under the authority of USSR. These lands were Russian just as Ukraine was Russian. They weren't taken from any other state than from the Russian state. Unlike the West Putin speaks rationally and when you read or listen to his speech, as I did, everything he says in it is historically referenced. There is no spin. He is being perfectly direct and defining what he's talking about.
The Colonial imperialist powers of Europe and the U.S. have always been fond or drawing boundaries for other nations that make no sense because they draw them with regards to achieving their own political outcomes and they want to do the same thing with Ukraine. The regions that have been annexed are regions that always were Russian. And even after they were torn away from Russia when Ukraine unilaterally declared its independence, something which no Western country would allow a state or province to do, they were torn from Russia without their consent. The fact that they were torn from Russia is shown clearly in their historical voting patterns after Ukrainian independence. They have all always voted for the pro Russian candidate and they did so in 2014.
Putin has no intention of changing their borders because his terms have changed. And the longer this war goes on the harsher his terms will get but that change in terms isn't going to be irrational. As Putin repeatedly states, those revised terms will reflect the realities on the ground but giving back the annexed areas will not happen.
Look at what the U.S. did illegally and immorally to the Vietnamese when it got involved in the Vietnam War after the French, the former colonial masters, left Vietnam. Rather than staying out of the conflict that was none of its business the U.S. went in a continued a war that killed 2 million Vietnamese people. The U.S. committed war crimes that it has never been held to account for. Thousands of U.S. military draftees died needlessly. In the end the U.S. left S. Vietnam and it was only the removal of U.S. presence that finally allowed Vietnam to become one country. Ukraine and Russia would also become one country again if the U.S. and its NATO vassals left Ukraine and the U.S. knows this. That is why its peace proposals, and your own, involve ways of keeping Russia out.
Keeping Russia out isn't peace though that's how we know that it isn't a true peace plan. The exclusion of Russian participation from the rebuilding of Ukraine, should the West gain total control of what remains of Ukraine, is a clear indicator that Ukraine will continue as a Western puppet regime. Telling the Ukrainians that they can live in peace with their nearest and longest neighbor while treating it as a hostile entity is the fertile bed for future wars. It is just a war without shooting but that won't last forever. The shooting will begin again because the U.S. would work on re-education of the Ukrainian people in cultivating their hatred of Russia, and rewriting Ukrainian history so as to get rid of the Russian presence. All of which are things that the U.S. has been engaged in since 2014.
This is also why the U.S. continues to support Taiwan even though the U.S. has a clear one China policy. This is another situation where the U.S. has illegally and immorally insinuated itself in a conflict which is none of its business. The U.S. has no cultural and genetic links to Taiwan. Taiwan isn't a historical part of U.S. history nor is it a nearby neighbor. The U.S. and the West do have connections with China though that are filled with oppression, exploitation that China refers to as its years of humiliation. The U.S. ignores the wrongs of the West and thinks it should be accepted as a friend.
Even now the U.S. is engaged in fomenting unrest in Hong Kong even though Hong Kong's historical links are not with America but with Britain. Links which Britain gave up when its lease of Hong Kong expired. The U.S. can't accept that though and once again it has picked up the mantle of defending Hong Kong from the evil Chinese even though it is clear that Hong Kong has always remained part of China in spite of the lease. You can't lease something from someone if that something doesn't belong to the.
I will close with this quote from Putin's speech:
"I believe that Russia is proposing an option that will make it possible to bring the war in Ukraine to a real end, that is, we call for turning the tragic page of history and, although with difficulty , gradually, step by step, restoring relations of trust and neighbourliness between Russia and Ukraine and in Europe as a whole."
We never hear such words coming from the West. The West is committed to its continuation of the Cold War which it seems never ended, even though our Western leaders were promising their people a peace dividend at the time. Yes, I remember those words and so do others like Jeffery Sachs and John Mearsheimer. Larry Wilkerson, Judge Napalitano, Scott Ritter etc. These men aren't irrational and they were in the thick of things as they happened.
In the end the best lasting peace agreement will only be reached if it is conducted between Russia and Ukraine without any interference from NATO or the U.S. because they are biased and have PROVEN themselves to be liars who are not in pursuit of the best interests of either party. The U.S. is the biggest liar of all because it premeditated and orchestrated this war over even the objections of its own allies. The U.S. is once again guilty of war mongering, acts of terrorism and outright murder. The U.S. is a war criminal but it will never be held to account since it pulls the strings on all the international organizations that could hold it to account. We have an E.U. that set out to keep Russia out and a NATO that also set out to keep Russia out. Neither of them can possibly be negotiating partners given their built in prejudice.
Yes, they are entirely mistaken. Russia could defeat NATO in an all out war with massive cyber and counterspace attacks even if they did not employ super-EMP or non-strategic or strategic nuclear weapons.
China has nothing to do with this war. China didn't start the war but has only attempted to provide solutions to end the war. The U.S. can't undo what it has done not out of necessity but of sheer malice. China isn't an aggressor nation anymore than Russia is. Both Russia and China have acted in response to U.S. act of aggression. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a doctrine of aggression against every nation in the world. The problems are rooted in Washington. Russia wasn't making plans on how to degrade the U.S. or overturn any U.S. administration in a Russian backed coup.
The Russians and the Chinese have the same right to roam the world as does the U.S. NATO and the E.U. are us puppets. Getting rid of both would be the way to peace in Europe. It is Russophobia and Sinophobia that are the root of the problems. The U.S. has an official Russia policy but it is contradicted by the Taiwan Relations policy that China never agreed to. It the U.S. could learn that it isn't an Asian country, nor a European country and that it needs to stay home then a lot of problems would disappear.
The U.S. has thrown Russia and China together because it is a shared enemy. The U.S. therefore needs to stop threatening either country. The U.S. doesn't belong in Ukraine anymore that it belongs in Taiwan. Both of the problems in these two countries are problems of a civil war just as the Vietnam war was a civil war in which the U.S. interfered. Just as the Serbian was was also a civil war in which the U.S. interfered to its benefit by building a military base in Kosovo.
This is a divide and conquer tactic which the West has employed since the age of exploration. The only way to keep the U.S. in check is for there to be an agreement between Russia and China for them to cooperate in the event one is attacked by the other. It is too late for the U.S. to put BRICS back in the box. The sanction regime must end and there is a need for their to be an alternative worldwide monetary system that it outside of U.S. control. Competition with regards to financial transactions is good for the world and good for democracy.
Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 Election, we know that for a fact. Is the U.S. going to dismantle its Cold War tools of interference in the internal affairs of other countries? Will the C.I.A., State Department, Ambassadorial system, U.S. Aide, National Endowment for Democracy and other NGO's be dismantled? What about the censorship of Russian news outlets that prevents U.S. citizens from accessing the Russian viewpoint?
Can you be serious about asking Russia to agree to an arrangement that saves it neck at the expense of the Chinese? Repositioning the nuclear bombs is your way of making Russia a participant in any U.S. act of aggression against China. The fact that you put this proposal in shows how insincere your proposal is. You aren't looking for peace for peace sake. You're just looking for relief in Europe so that you can concentrate on China. And just how blind can you be to the damage that you've caused Russia that you would without any shame, attempt to make an ally out of Russia so you can pursue destroying China? And starting a war with it over Taiwan just as you started a war against Russia over Ukraine. You have no goodwill stored up with Russia.
That Non-NATO ally bit is just a replication of the Taiwan Relations Act that the U.S. uses to continue to interfere in Taiwan by supplying it with arms. Ukraine's ties to NATO and the E.U. must be severed completely. The U.S. has no business in Ukraine. Ukraine should have FARA laws as the U.S. has. Based on the U.S. regular interference in Ukraine it is legitimate to make sure that all Western attempts to exert influence in Ukraine should be exposed and eliminated. You've got nothing to stand on. The U.S. isn't to be trusted ever again.
No to any DMZ such as exist between North and South Korea or anything similar to the Berlin Wall. This attempt to create a permanent Western enclave on Russia's border is only for the benefit of the U.S. And another indication that this is basically another repeat of the Cold War mentality is the demand that only Western countries are allowed to participate in the redevelopment of Ukraine.
What you've proposed here is a repeat of keep Russia out and keep the U.S. in. If the U.S. isn't able and willing to work beside Russia in the reconstruction of Ukraine then it is fair to say that the U.S. and still using Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia.
China is with question an aggressor nation. It has invaded Vietnam, Tibet and India. It is actively trying to occupy Filipino islands and lays claims to islands belonging to multiple other countries. That said I strongly support peace with Russia and China and I support negotiated solutions ending the conflicts in Ukraine and Taiwan that are acceptable to both Russia and China. I agree with you that Biden deliberately provoked the war in Ukraine after Putin spent 15 years trying to avoid it. I also agree that it would be best for world peace if the US left NATO or else if it were entirely abolished since it stopped being a defensive alliance and became an aggressive alliance in 1999. If we made peace with Russia and pulled our troops out of Eastern Europe, we could neutralize the Sino-Russian military alliance while signing a non-aggression pact with Beijing averting World War Three entirely.
China's only war has been with Vietnam in 1979. How many wars as the U.S. fought in that time period? If anyone is the aggressor it is the U.S. Tibet is a matter of Chinese security. The U.S. is using the Philippines to provoke a war with China just as it used the Ukraine to provoke a war with Russia. Do you seriously believe that the U.S. has only good intentions for that country?
The Philippines is still one of the poorest if not the poorest country in Asia and that is in spite of its long years as a colonial outpost of the U.S. A son of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos is ruling a country that his parents exploited for decades for their own enrichment and in service of U.S. interests. The U.S. this year had transported nuclear missiles there for military exercises. And now it refuses to remove them. What kind of a country that is supposed to be benevolent would bring nuclear missiles to what is a 3 World country and put a target on its back under the pretense of defending its sovereignty? The U.S. is no different than Japan or Spain when it comes to its exploitation of the Filipino people.
During COVID the C.I.A. ran an undercover campaign against the Chinese COVID vaccine to convince the people not to trust it. Meanwhile in the U.S. there was open persecution against U.S. citizens who refused to take the COVID vaccines available there.
The U.S. has caused the Philippines to drop 3 Chinese railway projects over security concerns. Your proposal that Russian be locked out of any involvement with rebuilding Ukraine echoes the exact thing going on in the Philippines with the U.S. painting the Chinese as having alterior, devious motives. Maybe that is because anything the U.S. proposes to do at home or abroad is always loaded with alterior motives.
Remember that the U.S. killed 2 million Filipinos when they fought to free their country from U.S. rule after the U.S. had kicked out Spain. The U.S. is expanding 5 existing Filipino military bases on the Philippines
Locking Russia out of Ukraine is not exactly a show of good faith. I propose that Russia make Ukraine a Russian protectorate. Just as Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands are for America. That is the only way for Russia to secure its border and for the Ukrainians to have a chance at resuming a normal life. At one time, before the war, Putin proposed to the U.S. that both Russia and the U.S. should work together to improve Ukraine but the U.S. rejected that ideal immediately. Just as the U.S. rejected every peace proposal that Russia made or ignored all of Russia's warnings about what NATO expansion and withdrawl from the nuclear arms agreements would mean for peace in Europe.
This irrational obsessive hatred that the U.S., U.K., Poland, Baltics harbor for Russia and their rabid desire to posses Ukraine isn't borne of love for Ukraine. It is all part of their goal to chip away at Russia and turn it into a vassal state. But the Russians surprised everyone because they have a real leader, and not a drunk or someone who's for sale. The West doesn't know what to do with someone who can't be bought or chased away.
So if Mexico invaded USA, we will say that they can keep California? And put demands on what weapons USA can have near the new border? That someone else shall pay what Russia bombed, sounds to me that someone got interest in the business of reconstruction?
And also someone is very interested in letting go of all economic pressure against Russia, makes me think someone's thinking more about their own business than about the people of Ukrainia..
Russia is winning the war and there is no prospect of the war ending other than in Ukraine's defeat. The loser doesn't get to choose the peace terms. In 1945, we denied Germany a peace treaty, deprived it of a government and self-defense forces and cut Germany into 7 or 8 pieces after it lost the war while starving 6-14 million of their citizens and POWs to death after they surrendered for good measure. The terms of this peace agreement are infinitely more generous for Ukraine allowing it to keep nearly 88% of its pre-war controlled territory, remain allied to the West with all Western weapons that don't exceed the treaty limitations, they get all their refugees back and the West pays for its economic reconstruction. Their independence and security would be guaranteed. Its a good deal for Ukraine though not nearly as good as the one Zelensky rescinded in April 2022 in which Russia agreed to withdraw all its troops from Ukraine's pre-war controlled territory.
Re: #7. Isn't redeploying the B-61 bombs to the Western Pacific going to be seen a provocative by China? Why not bring them back to the US?
Russia has already hitched its wagon to the the Eastern axis of China, Iran and NK, in addition to it's long history of an anti-West stance. I am skeptical that Putin would want to appear weak to it's supposed partners. Would a peace plan be construed by Russians and it's allies as a loss of status and loss of face in that Russia essentially was stalemated by Ukraine, supposedly it's inferior? (much like the US in Viet Nam and Afghanistan) This on the heels of essentially losing in Afghanistan years ago.
This "war" feels like a family squabble given the historic closeness between Russia and Ukraine. I feel like Russia is pulling it's punches due to its long brotherhood with Ukraine. I think Putin wants Russia to look tough and strong and formidable but doesn't really want to do it at the expense of utterly crushing it's cousins.
I have no problem with it being provocative to China. The point is to restore non-strategic nuclear deterrence against the PRC while at the same time mediating peaceful reunification negotiations with Taiwan. They are of no use to us in the US. Implementation of my proposed peace terms would serve to increase Russian prestige and make Russia appear strong having achieved all of the objectives of its special military operation in Ukraine other than Ukrainian neutrality. Yes, Russia could have defeated Ukraine long ago if Putin had wanted but the cost might have been heavy Ukrainian civilian losses and Putin has pursued a policy designed to minimize civilian casualties.
Well thought-out and viable peace agreement.
Which probably means it'll never happen!
But, let's hope.
Thanks! Yes, if Trump wins it could. Otherwise, if Harris wins it never will.
We desparately need President Trump to resume leadership of the US. God help us.
Yes we do!
A solemn reminder that the current administration has not made the slightest attempt to end, or even to de-escalate the War in Ukraine. This despite the fact that current situation has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight, than it has EVER been, since it's inception!
Such a move by President Trump would also align with fact that, despite what you've probably heard, the MAGA movement is a move AWAY from the Neocons and a movement towards a more Non-interventionist United States. MAGA desires peace through strength AND diplomacy!
Yes Biden has completely failed the test of presidential leadership by refusing to defuse a potential nuclear crisis in Ukraine. He has flushed decades of conventional Cold War wisdom that kept the nuclear great power peace for nearly half a century down the drain. And yes, the Trump led America First GOP is the new peace party while the Democrats have become the party of senseless war and destruction.
I did follow the pro Russian side closely and i do think that Russia would have accepted these terms a while back (before its partial mobilisation and the annexation of four Ukranian oblasts) but will not accept these terms now. There are two simple reasons for that:
First: This agreement would not be viable in Russian law, as it is forbidden to give Russian territory (as viewed by the Russian side) away. As the military strategic dynamics now strongly favour Russia and President Putin stands under severe pressure from hawkish nationalists, a viable Peace agreement would need to give Russia the territory it annexed and did not control.
The peace would be less just then, but at least realistic.
Second: The level of Trust in Russia in agreements with the West is extremely low. The proposed agreement has some but not all of the necessary points to still reach an agreement. Russia (in my opinionon rightfully) fears that a peace agreement would likely lead to a time in which Nato rearms itself (not Ukraine) to a point where Russia loses its current advantages (greater stocks and production of ammunition, higher weapons production despite way smaller economy due to succesful economic mobilisation, edge in hypersonic missiles) are overcompensated. Then Nato could start a new Russia-Ukraine war which Russia then may loose (a risk which is now way smaller).
If Russia fights until Ukraine collapses and then makes Ukraine a proxy of its own, there is no such Risk as Russia can prevent weapons from flowing from the West to Ukraine.
Unluckily I do not see a way to solve the second problem as the West has (unlike China, Iran , Northcorea, India and Turkey to name the most important) proven to be a highly unreliable partner. Especially many European Countries did not honour their agreements with Russia evem when doing so would have been in their national interest.
Just to clarify, Russia would not be obligated to give any territory back to Ukraine under this agreement. This would be a permanent peace agreement along the current lines of control. Putin can trust the West to keep an agreement in Russia's interest if they actually implement it. It would definitely be a situation of trust but verify but I confident he would jump at the chance to sign such an agreement. The NY Times reported in late March 2022 "Putin was salivating over the prospect of peace." He never wanted this war to begin with and only invaded Ukraine on the basis of perceived necessity. I have drafted a back up peace agreement with more favorable terms to Moscow that I plan to publish in the next week or so. It would only be implemented if Russia rejected this one. Russia could defeat NATO in the event of a direct war in my estimation. Russia fears NATO expansion more than it fears NATO aggression. My peace proposal is very realistic although Russia would not get neutrality or additional Ukrainian territory.
Thank You very much for the answer. I know that Russia would not have to give any territory back, it curremtly holds under this agreement. But Russia annexed (under Russian law) not the territory it holds but the regions in their original boundries. Therefore they cannot agree to a agreement where they do not get these territories.
The West did end most disarmament treties which were in Russia's interest without giving any proof about Russia not implementing them. The West also did not fullfill the Minsk accords or the grain deal. But no matter if it is justified or not, Russia does not trust the West .
The remarks about Putins willingness to end the war even with quiete favorable terms for Ukraine are accurate but that was in March 2022. As far as I understand, a comparable agreement could have been reached in September 2022 before the Russian mobilistation.
But the more ressources a country has mobilized for a war, the higher its demands become. This is one of the reasons why a sunk cost fallacy on all sides prolonged many wars.
Russia has invested an enourmous amount of ressources into this war AND ist winning right now. Due to this, their demands have increased significantlyl sind March 2022.
I think that a realistic agreement would have to contain most points from the draft treaty, Russia published in late 2021 for a new European Security framework. A new confidential forces treaty (to prevent an arms race between the European Nato countries and Russia) could give Russia the comfidence, that Nato does not plan to restart the Russo-Ukraine war, as soon as Nato has the necessary weapons.
Thank you very much for your excelent work.
I don't agree. When Russia annexed the four disputed former Ukrainian oblasts, they left the boundaries undefined giving President Putin leeway to determine what they would be in a postwar settlement. On June 14th for the first time, Putin stated Russia would only accept their constitutional borders but that could change in a negotiated settlement with Trump. Yes, it was foolish for the West not to accept the Minsk II accords when the terms were extremely favorable for Ukraine and Putin was saying peace must be determined on the basis of Minsk II right up until Feb 21st, 2022. Yes you are correct that the Istanbul agreement remained on the table right up until Putin's September 21st, 2022 declaring support for annexation. My peace plan actually incorporates some of the most important parts of Russia's draft December 2021 mutual security treaties in points 7 and 8.
"So, these conditions are simple. The Ukrainian troops must be completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. Let me note that they must be withdrawn from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders at the time of their being part of Ukraine."
This is a direct quote from Putin's speech and it is unambiguous in its meaning. He is referring to the borders that these regions had when they were transferred to Ukraine under the authority of USSR. These lands were Russian just as Ukraine was Russian. They weren't taken from any other state than from the Russian state. Unlike the West Putin speaks rationally and when you read or listen to his speech, as I did, everything he says in it is historically referenced. There is no spin. He is being perfectly direct and defining what he's talking about.
The Colonial imperialist powers of Europe and the U.S. have always been fond or drawing boundaries for other nations that make no sense because they draw them with regards to achieving their own political outcomes and they want to do the same thing with Ukraine. The regions that have been annexed are regions that always were Russian. And even after they were torn away from Russia when Ukraine unilaterally declared its independence, something which no Western country would allow a state or province to do, they were torn from Russia without their consent. The fact that they were torn from Russia is shown clearly in their historical voting patterns after Ukrainian independence. They have all always voted for the pro Russian candidate and they did so in 2014.
Putin has no intention of changing their borders because his terms have changed. And the longer this war goes on the harsher his terms will get but that change in terms isn't going to be irrational. As Putin repeatedly states, those revised terms will reflect the realities on the ground but giving back the annexed areas will not happen.
Look at what the U.S. did illegally and immorally to the Vietnamese when it got involved in the Vietnam War after the French, the former colonial masters, left Vietnam. Rather than staying out of the conflict that was none of its business the U.S. went in a continued a war that killed 2 million Vietnamese people. The U.S. committed war crimes that it has never been held to account for. Thousands of U.S. military draftees died needlessly. In the end the U.S. left S. Vietnam and it was only the removal of U.S. presence that finally allowed Vietnam to become one country. Ukraine and Russia would also become one country again if the U.S. and its NATO vassals left Ukraine and the U.S. knows this. That is why its peace proposals, and your own, involve ways of keeping Russia out.
Keeping Russia out isn't peace though that's how we know that it isn't a true peace plan. The exclusion of Russian participation from the rebuilding of Ukraine, should the West gain total control of what remains of Ukraine, is a clear indicator that Ukraine will continue as a Western puppet regime. Telling the Ukrainians that they can live in peace with their nearest and longest neighbor while treating it as a hostile entity is the fertile bed for future wars. It is just a war without shooting but that won't last forever. The shooting will begin again because the U.S. would work on re-education of the Ukrainian people in cultivating their hatred of Russia, and rewriting Ukrainian history so as to get rid of the Russian presence. All of which are things that the U.S. has been engaged in since 2014.
This is also why the U.S. continues to support Taiwan even though the U.S. has a clear one China policy. This is another situation where the U.S. has illegally and immorally insinuated itself in a conflict which is none of its business. The U.S. has no cultural and genetic links to Taiwan. Taiwan isn't a historical part of U.S. history nor is it a nearby neighbor. The U.S. and the West do have connections with China though that are filled with oppression, exploitation that China refers to as its years of humiliation. The U.S. ignores the wrongs of the West and thinks it should be accepted as a friend.
Even now the U.S. is engaged in fomenting unrest in Hong Kong even though Hong Kong's historical links are not with America but with Britain. Links which Britain gave up when its lease of Hong Kong expired. The U.S. can't accept that though and once again it has picked up the mantle of defending Hong Kong from the evil Chinese even though it is clear that Hong Kong has always remained part of China in spite of the lease. You can't lease something from someone if that something doesn't belong to the.
I will close with this quote from Putin's speech:
"I believe that Russia is proposing an option that will make it possible to bring the war in Ukraine to a real end, that is, we call for turning the tragic page of history and, although with difficulty , gradually, step by step, restoring relations of trust and neighbourliness between Russia and Ukraine and in Europe as a whole."
We never hear such words coming from the West. The West is committed to its continuation of the Cold War which it seems never ended, even though our Western leaders were promising their people a peace dividend at the time. Yes, I remember those words and so do others like Jeffery Sachs and John Mearsheimer. Larry Wilkerson, Judge Napalitano, Scott Ritter etc. These men aren't irrational and they were in the thick of things as they happened.
In the end the best lasting peace agreement will only be reached if it is conducted between Russia and Ukraine without any interference from NATO or the U.S. because they are biased and have PROVEN themselves to be liars who are not in pursuit of the best interests of either party. The U.S. is the biggest liar of all because it premeditated and orchestrated this war over even the objections of its own allies. The U.S. is once again guilty of war mongering, acts of terrorism and outright murder. The U.S. is a war criminal but it will never be held to account since it pulls the strings on all the international organizations that could hold it to account. We have an E.U. that set out to keep Russia out and a NATO that also set out to keep Russia out. Neither of them can possibly be negotiating partners given their built in prejudice.
Yes, they are entirely mistaken. Russia could defeat NATO in an all out war with massive cyber and counterspace attacks even if they did not employ super-EMP or non-strategic or strategic nuclear weapons.
China has nothing to do with this war. China didn't start the war but has only attempted to provide solutions to end the war. The U.S. can't undo what it has done not out of necessity but of sheer malice. China isn't an aggressor nation anymore than Russia is. Both Russia and China have acted in response to U.S. act of aggression. The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a doctrine of aggression against every nation in the world. The problems are rooted in Washington. Russia wasn't making plans on how to degrade the U.S. or overturn any U.S. administration in a Russian backed coup.
The Russians and the Chinese have the same right to roam the world as does the U.S. NATO and the E.U. are us puppets. Getting rid of both would be the way to peace in Europe. It is Russophobia and Sinophobia that are the root of the problems. The U.S. has an official Russia policy but it is contradicted by the Taiwan Relations policy that China never agreed to. It the U.S. could learn that it isn't an Asian country, nor a European country and that it needs to stay home then a lot of problems would disappear.
The U.S. has thrown Russia and China together because it is a shared enemy. The U.S. therefore needs to stop threatening either country. The U.S. doesn't belong in Ukraine anymore that it belongs in Taiwan. Both of the problems in these two countries are problems of a civil war just as the Vietnam war was a civil war in which the U.S. interfered. Just as the Serbian was was also a civil war in which the U.S. interfered to its benefit by building a military base in Kosovo.
This is a divide and conquer tactic which the West has employed since the age of exploration. The only way to keep the U.S. in check is for there to be an agreement between Russia and China for them to cooperate in the event one is attacked by the other. It is too late for the U.S. to put BRICS back in the box. The sanction regime must end and there is a need for their to be an alternative worldwide monetary system that it outside of U.S. control. Competition with regards to financial transactions is good for the world and good for democracy.
Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 Election, we know that for a fact. Is the U.S. going to dismantle its Cold War tools of interference in the internal affairs of other countries? Will the C.I.A., State Department, Ambassadorial system, U.S. Aide, National Endowment for Democracy and other NGO's be dismantled? What about the censorship of Russian news outlets that prevents U.S. citizens from accessing the Russian viewpoint?
Can you be serious about asking Russia to agree to an arrangement that saves it neck at the expense of the Chinese? Repositioning the nuclear bombs is your way of making Russia a participant in any U.S. act of aggression against China. The fact that you put this proposal in shows how insincere your proposal is. You aren't looking for peace for peace sake. You're just looking for relief in Europe so that you can concentrate on China. And just how blind can you be to the damage that you've caused Russia that you would without any shame, attempt to make an ally out of Russia so you can pursue destroying China? And starting a war with it over Taiwan just as you started a war against Russia over Ukraine. You have no goodwill stored up with Russia.
That Non-NATO ally bit is just a replication of the Taiwan Relations Act that the U.S. uses to continue to interfere in Taiwan by supplying it with arms. Ukraine's ties to NATO and the E.U. must be severed completely. The U.S. has no business in Ukraine. Ukraine should have FARA laws as the U.S. has. Based on the U.S. regular interference in Ukraine it is legitimate to make sure that all Western attempts to exert influence in Ukraine should be exposed and eliminated. You've got nothing to stand on. The U.S. isn't to be trusted ever again.
No to any DMZ such as exist between North and South Korea or anything similar to the Berlin Wall. This attempt to create a permanent Western enclave on Russia's border is only for the benefit of the U.S. And another indication that this is basically another repeat of the Cold War mentality is the demand that only Western countries are allowed to participate in the redevelopment of Ukraine.
What you've proposed here is a repeat of keep Russia out and keep the U.S. in. If the U.S. isn't able and willing to work beside Russia in the reconstruction of Ukraine then it is fair to say that the U.S. and still using Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia.
China is with question an aggressor nation. It has invaded Vietnam, Tibet and India. It is actively trying to occupy Filipino islands and lays claims to islands belonging to multiple other countries. That said I strongly support peace with Russia and China and I support negotiated solutions ending the conflicts in Ukraine and Taiwan that are acceptable to both Russia and China. I agree with you that Biden deliberately provoked the war in Ukraine after Putin spent 15 years trying to avoid it. I also agree that it would be best for world peace if the US left NATO or else if it were entirely abolished since it stopped being a defensive alliance and became an aggressive alliance in 1999. If we made peace with Russia and pulled our troops out of Eastern Europe, we could neutralize the Sino-Russian military alliance while signing a non-aggression pact with Beijing averting World War Three entirely.
I agree that a no first strike policy between the 3 countries would be the best thing we could do.
China's only war has been with Vietnam in 1979. How many wars as the U.S. fought in that time period? If anyone is the aggressor it is the U.S. Tibet is a matter of Chinese security. The U.S. is using the Philippines to provoke a war with China just as it used the Ukraine to provoke a war with Russia. Do you seriously believe that the U.S. has only good intentions for that country?
The Philippines is still one of the poorest if not the poorest country in Asia and that is in spite of its long years as a colonial outpost of the U.S. A son of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos is ruling a country that his parents exploited for decades for their own enrichment and in service of U.S. interests. The U.S. this year had transported nuclear missiles there for military exercises. And now it refuses to remove them. What kind of a country that is supposed to be benevolent would bring nuclear missiles to what is a 3 World country and put a target on its back under the pretense of defending its sovereignty? The U.S. is no different than Japan or Spain when it comes to its exploitation of the Filipino people.
During COVID the C.I.A. ran an undercover campaign against the Chinese COVID vaccine to convince the people not to trust it. Meanwhile in the U.S. there was open persecution against U.S. citizens who refused to take the COVID vaccines available there.
The U.S. has caused the Philippines to drop 3 Chinese railway projects over security concerns. Your proposal that Russian be locked out of any involvement with rebuilding Ukraine echoes the exact thing going on in the Philippines with the U.S. painting the Chinese as having alterior, devious motives. Maybe that is because anything the U.S. proposes to do at home or abroad is always loaded with alterior motives.
Remember that the U.S. killed 2 million Filipinos when they fought to free their country from U.S. rule after the U.S. had kicked out Spain. The U.S. is expanding 5 existing Filipino military bases on the Philippines
Locking Russia out of Ukraine is not exactly a show of good faith. I propose that Russia make Ukraine a Russian protectorate. Just as Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands are for America. That is the only way for Russia to secure its border and for the Ukrainians to have a chance at resuming a normal life. At one time, before the war, Putin proposed to the U.S. that both Russia and the U.S. should work together to improve Ukraine but the U.S. rejected that ideal immediately. Just as the U.S. rejected every peace proposal that Russia made or ignored all of Russia's warnings about what NATO expansion and withdrawl from the nuclear arms agreements would mean for peace in Europe.
This irrational obsessive hatred that the U.S., U.K., Poland, Baltics harbor for Russia and their rabid desire to posses Ukraine isn't borne of love for Ukraine. It is all part of their goal to chip away at Russia and turn it into a vassal state. But the Russians surprised everyone because they have a real leader, and not a drunk or someone who's for sale. The West doesn't know what to do with someone who can't be bought or chased away.
Based. Well written Mr. Pine.
Much more realistic than the one you outlined in a previous piece.
So if Mexico invaded USA, we will say that they can keep California? And put demands on what weapons USA can have near the new border? That someone else shall pay what Russia bombed, sounds to me that someone got interest in the business of reconstruction?
And also someone is very interested in letting go of all economic pressure against Russia, makes me think someone's thinking more about their own business than about the people of Ukrainia..
Jonas
Russia is winning the war and there is no prospect of the war ending other than in Ukraine's defeat. The loser doesn't get to choose the peace terms. In 1945, we denied Germany a peace treaty, deprived it of a government and self-defense forces and cut Germany into 7 or 8 pieces after it lost the war while starving 6-14 million of their citizens and POWs to death after they surrendered for good measure. The terms of this peace agreement are infinitely more generous for Ukraine allowing it to keep nearly 88% of its pre-war controlled territory, remain allied to the West with all Western weapons that don't exceed the treaty limitations, they get all their refugees back and the West pays for its economic reconstruction. Their independence and security would be guaranteed. Its a good deal for Ukraine though not nearly as good as the one Zelensky rescinded in April 2022 in which Russia agreed to withdraw all its troops from Ukraine's pre-war controlled territory.
Re: #7. Isn't redeploying the B-61 bombs to the Western Pacific going to be seen a provocative by China? Why not bring them back to the US?
Russia has already hitched its wagon to the the Eastern axis of China, Iran and NK, in addition to it's long history of an anti-West stance. I am skeptical that Putin would want to appear weak to it's supposed partners. Would a peace plan be construed by Russians and it's allies as a loss of status and loss of face in that Russia essentially was stalemated by Ukraine, supposedly it's inferior? (much like the US in Viet Nam and Afghanistan) This on the heels of essentially losing in Afghanistan years ago.
This "war" feels like a family squabble given the historic closeness between Russia and Ukraine. I feel like Russia is pulling it's punches due to its long brotherhood with Ukraine. I think Putin wants Russia to look tough and strong and formidable but doesn't really want to do it at the expense of utterly crushing it's cousins.
I have no problem with it being provocative to China. The point is to restore non-strategic nuclear deterrence against the PRC while at the same time mediating peaceful reunification negotiations with Taiwan. They are of no use to us in the US. Implementation of my proposed peace terms would serve to increase Russian prestige and make Russia appear strong having achieved all of the objectives of its special military operation in Ukraine other than Ukrainian neutrality. Yes, Russia could have defeated Ukraine long ago if Putin had wanted but the cost might have been heavy Ukrainian civilian losses and Putin has pursued a policy designed to minimize civilian casualties.
It's not a war, therefore it will not be ended...