I agree that your sequencing of negotiations is the correct path. Unfortunately, it requires competent and trustworthy negotiators on our side to have any chance of success. The Trump administration has neither (except for General Keith Kellogg).
The sad fact is that even if by some miracle competent negotiators did appear, Trump would backslide and flip-flop. No agreement is ever permanent with him.
Ukraine and its allies must hold on until the correlation of political forces in the U.S. changes, and new leaders are in place who can negotiate competently and reliably. That's a tall order, but that's the situation we face.
You will note, however, that I was counseling against negotiation at this time. Without proper support, they would be a sign of weakness. We are not providing proper support, and the people who would be in charge of the negotiations are incompetent.
The article’s depth strikes me, as the author analyzes the tense situation not only from an external perspective but also through the realistic and far-sighted lens of the Ukrainian people. The assessment that “Zelensky will never agree to cede territory to Russia formally—doing so would be political suicide and could even trigger a coup by his own soldiers” is likely accurate, given that the will of Ukrainians is a critical factor in negotiations. Meanwhile, considering past U.S. presidents’ decisions on Russia’s involvement with NATO, the answer is clear: no. Thus, why should the U.S. grant Putin a veto over such matters, which may also influence future presidential decisions? After all, the efforts of historical U.S. presidents cannot be entirely dismissed.
Michael I think you should offer your proposal to Marco Rubio to see if there is any interest in the perspective of a true professional. The behaviour of the president has had me conclude that he is only interested in the photo ops in his venture of live-streaming the presidency. Thinking about the hard work of negotiating a peace agreement is quite beyond him. The only way the war will end in Ukraine, apart from the process you are proposing, is a catastrophic defeat of the Russian army in the field. The Ukrainians could deliver that blow but for the lack of courage displayed by Trump and the other European leaders-though I hope they find some and soon
The West long ago missed the chance to do anything like "do what is necessary to liberate Ukraine". As Obama said -- Ukraine means a lot more to Russia, than it does to us. The commitment gap is the main dynamic of this war. Europe is not going to put troops into Ukraine and attack the Russians. Neither the U.S. nor Europe is going to raise taxes and go onto a war footing, unlike Russia. So "defeating Putin" is just not on the menu. We'll need to talk, compromise, and agree on something, and if that something is anything less than capitulation, it had better be soon. It will be unpleasant, but that's just where we are.
We've not yet made any serious attempt to stop the war with negotiation. We haven't even met face to face with the enemy until a few weeks ago. We have no idea whether peace is possible, or not. We have sure as hell NOT been trying to make peace for 3 years. All we've done is repeat to the Russians over and over again that they have no say in whether Ukraine gets into NATO or not, and pour money and weapons into Ukraine, hoping to win by proxy, or not win actually; rather just to "weaken" Russia. It's not working; it is leading to the final destruction of Ukraine and severe degradation of Europe's security.
You're arguing for WWIII. If fighting the Russians is inevitable, as you say, then we had better get ready for it, because we are certainly not ready for it now. We still have a peacetime army and a peacetime economy, and peacetime levels of war production, and it's even worse in Europe. The British have more operational horses than they do operational tanks.
And do the American people want WWIII? Are they willing to make the sacrifices needed to defeat the Russians in an attritional war (even assuming it doesn't go nuclear)? We are a democracy, thank God, unlike Russia, and I bet you won't have much luck with these arguments with the American people.
I agree that your sequencing of negotiations is the correct path. Unfortunately, it requires competent and trustworthy negotiators on our side to have any chance of success. The Trump administration has neither (except for General Keith Kellogg).
The sad fact is that even if by some miracle competent negotiators did appear, Trump would backslide and flip-flop. No agreement is ever permanent with him.
Ukraine and its allies must hold on until the correlation of political forces in the U.S. changes, and new leaders are in place who can negotiate competently and reliably. That's a tall order, but that's the situation we face.
You will note, however, that I was counseling against negotiation at this time. Without proper support, they would be a sign of weakness. We are not providing proper support, and the people who would be in charge of the negotiations are incompetent.
The Russians are very competent, but they are talking about negotiations -- just not in an incompetent or very helpful way.
why will this article not open on my computer?
Very good article.
But who will do anything, with these thoughts? Washington is guided by very different considerations, alas.
The article’s depth strikes me, as the author analyzes the tense situation not only from an external perspective but also through the realistic and far-sighted lens of the Ukrainian people. The assessment that “Zelensky will never agree to cede territory to Russia formally—doing so would be political suicide and could even trigger a coup by his own soldiers” is likely accurate, given that the will of Ukrainians is a critical factor in negotiations. Meanwhile, considering past U.S. presidents’ decisions on Russia’s involvement with NATO, the answer is clear: no. Thus, why should the U.S. grant Putin a veto over such matters, which may also influence future presidential decisions? After all, the efforts of historical U.S. presidents cannot be entirely dismissed.
Michael I think you should offer your proposal to Marco Rubio to see if there is any interest in the perspective of a true professional. The behaviour of the president has had me conclude that he is only interested in the photo ops in his venture of live-streaming the presidency. Thinking about the hard work of negotiating a peace agreement is quite beyond him. The only way the war will end in Ukraine, apart from the process you are proposing, is a catastrophic defeat of the Russian army in the field. The Ukrainians could deliver that blow but for the lack of courage displayed by Trump and the other European leaders-though I hope they find some and soon
The West long ago missed the chance to do anything like "do what is necessary to liberate Ukraine". As Obama said -- Ukraine means a lot more to Russia, than it does to us. The commitment gap is the main dynamic of this war. Europe is not going to put troops into Ukraine and attack the Russians. Neither the U.S. nor Europe is going to raise taxes and go onto a war footing, unlike Russia. So "defeating Putin" is just not on the menu. We'll need to talk, compromise, and agree on something, and if that something is anything less than capitulation, it had better be soon. It will be unpleasant, but that's just where we are.
We've not yet made any serious attempt to stop the war with negotiation. We haven't even met face to face with the enemy until a few weeks ago. We have no idea whether peace is possible, or not. We have sure as hell NOT been trying to make peace for 3 years. All we've done is repeat to the Russians over and over again that they have no say in whether Ukraine gets into NATO or not, and pour money and weapons into Ukraine, hoping to win by proxy, or not win actually; rather just to "weaken" Russia. It's not working; it is leading to the final destruction of Ukraine and severe degradation of Europe's security.
You're arguing for WWIII. If fighting the Russians is inevitable, as you say, then we had better get ready for it, because we are certainly not ready for it now. We still have a peacetime army and a peacetime economy, and peacetime levels of war production, and it's even worse in Europe. The British have more operational horses than they do operational tanks.
And do the American people want WWIII? Are they willing to make the sacrifices needed to defeat the Russians in an attritional war (even assuming it doesn't go nuclear)? We are a democracy, thank God, unlike Russia, and I bet you won't have much luck with these arguments with the American people.