Tag: ukraine

Trump has a mandate to end the Ukraine War

While no single foreign policy issue commanded anything near voters’ concern for domestic challenges, the twin spiraling crises in Europe and the Middle East led a large swathe of the electorate to conclude that foreign policy is too important to be left to the technocrats.

President-elect Trump deftly exploited this lingering anti-establishment sentiment first by picking JD Vance as his running mate and then by defining himself against Harris — who did everything she could to advertise the Democratic party to anti-Trump neoconservatives, up to and including by christening Liz Cheney a core campaign surrogate — as the anti-war candidate.

The difficult but necessary work of resolving the Ukraine war, the most dangerous and destructive conflict on the European continent since 1945, now falls to the incoming Trump administration. But doing so requires coming to grips with, and rejecting, the shibboleths and superstitions that have characterized the established approach to Ukraine.

When diagnosing the crises facing U.S. foreign policy, it pays to consult the prior generation of American diplomats. As is well known, the Cold War exercised a disciplining effect on its American and Soviet figurants. The neck to neck nature of that rivalry, coupled with what both parties recognized as the catastrophic consequences of direct confrontation, meant that neither side was in a position to dictate to the other.

The two superpowers were bound to a shared logic of strategic caution that permitted and, indeed, necessitated competition on the margins but harshly discouraged an uncompromising “winner takes all” mentality on existential questions of war and peace.

This provided fertile ground for the development of a decision-making community eager to learn from their mistakes, obsessively grasping for even the most minute ways in which U.S. policy can be refined or reformed. It is not brute coercive force but rather a persistent open-mindedness, tempered by a nagging recognition and respect for the limits of American power, that produced such exertions of political genius as the long telegram and policy of detente that enabled the U.S. to contend on favorable footing with its Soviet competitor.

Keep reading

Critiquing The Former CFR Chief’s Proposed Compromise For Ending The Ukrainian Conflict

He deserves credit for saying what no policy influencer of his caliber has dared to, and his proposal for phased sanctions relief is also very pragmatic, but other parts of his proposed compromise are unrealistic.

Former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Richard Haass recently published a detailed article for his think tank’s journal about how “The Perfect Has Become the Enemy of the Good in Ukraine: Why Washington Must Redefine Its Objectives”. He observed that the US never clearly defined what victory means, which has led to false expectations, deep disappointment, and confusion about the endgame. Haass then proceeds to explain why the US should push Ukraine to compromise with Russia.

According to him, it can’t realistically restore its pre-2014 borders, nor outlast Russia in the ongoing “war of attrition”. Zelensky’s much-ballyhooed “Victory Plan” “is not a plan for victory, but a prescription for continued war”, Haass wrote, warning that “If Kyiv’s allies walk away, it could end up being a prescription for defeat.” Instead, he suggests settling for Ukraine remaining “an independent, sovereign, and economically viable country”, which requires ending hostilities as soon as possible.

To that end, its Western partners “should tell Kyiv that Western support cannot be expected to continue at or near current levels without it. But they should also make an ironclad pledge to do everything in their power to provide Ukraine with arms for the long haul.” This includes giving it long-range weapons as a deterrent to Russia resuming the conflict at a later date. A buffer zone would also ideally be carved out along the Line of Contact, potentially with peacekeepers, but neither side would give up their claims.

Keep reading

Five Reasons Why Trump Should Revive The Draft Russian-Ukrainian Peace Treaty

Trump has everything to gain by picking up where everyone left off over two and a half years ago.

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump wants to create a Western-patrolled DMZ along the Line of Contact (LOC) for freezing the Ukrainian Conflict, which was analyzed here and here, dangerously runs the risk of escalating tensions with Russia to the point of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis. It would therefore be much better for him to revive the draft Russian-Ukrainian peace treaty from spring 2022 instead.

Keep reading

10 Obstacles To Trump’s Reported Plan For Western/NATO Peacekeepers In Ukraine

It was recently assessed that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump plans to organize a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without the US’ participation in order to freeze the conflict. This is obviously a lot easier said than done.

Here’s what can offset this scenario by either delaying it long enough for Russia to end the conflict on its own terms or capsizing Trump’s plan completely:

1. The Europeans Fear A Direct Kinetic Escalation With Russia

France’s tough talk earlier this year about conventionally intervening in the conflict and Poland subsequently refusing to rule out its participation as well mask the Europeans’ fear of a direct kinetic escalation with Russia. Trump will have to masterfully leverage the US’ influence over them and NATO as a whole in order to coerce his country’s European partners into putting their security on the line by going through with this risky plan. It could always backfire, after all, and inadvertently spark World War III.

2. Public Opinion In The Polish Lynchpin Is Strongly Against This

It’s difficult to imagine a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without Poland’s leading participation, but public opinion is strongly against this after a reputable survey over the summer showed that 69% of Poles are opposed to dispatching troops to that neighboring country in any capacity. As mutual Polish-Ukrainian mistrust worsens as explained here, here, and here, it’ll become a very tough sell, plus Poles fear that they’ll once again be exploited by the West while getting nothing at all in return.

3. Trump’s Prior Rhetoric About Article 5 Doesn’t Inspire Confidence

Another hurdle that’ll have to be overcome is regaining confidence in Trump due to his prior rhetoric about Article 5 after he declared in February that the US won’t protect those NATO members who haven’t spent at least 2% of their GDP on defense. He even threatened that “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.” Even though most now meet that target, they might still fear that he’ll attach more strings to Article 5, which they’ll rely on for defense if they participate in this mission.

4. It’s Unclear Exactly What Trump Would Do If Russia Hit NATO Troops

Trump will also have to convince NATO members that his response to Russia hitting their troops will balance the line between fulfilling Article 5’s perceived commitments while avoiding an escalation that could spiral into World War III. They also need to be sure that he’ll go through with it and not back down. Moreover, this would have to be clearly communicated to Russia too, who he’ll have to deter. There’s a lot that can go wrong anywhere along this sequence of events so its success can’t be taken for granted.

5. NATO Is Unprepared For A Prolonged Non-Nuclear Hot War With Russia

Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes in the event of direct kinetic exchanges between them, then NATO would be unprepared for waging a prolonged non-nuclear hot war with Russia. It’s losing the “race of logistics” by far, no progress was made during the last NATO Summit on the “military Schengen” for facilitating such movements eastward, and the bloc only has 5% of the air defenses needed to protect itself. NATO might therefore ultimately lose to Russia.

Keep reading

NATO knows Ukraine is losing – Foreign Policy

NATO is fully aware that Ukraine is slowly losing its conflict with Russia, with an especially difficult winter predicted to worsen the situation, the influential US publication Foreign Policy has reported.

Amid increasing infrastructure damage and pressure on Kiev’s key resources, Western officials are warning that a victory for Moscow would solidify its influence in Europe, the magazine claims in an article, published on Wednesday. 

Foreign Policy sources believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of uncertainty in Washington. Michael Bociurkiw – a lobbyist at NATO’s Atlantic Council adjunct – speaking from Ukraine, stated that the Kremlin sees a leadership “vacuum” during this period and is “testing for soft tissue” in the West. 

The strategy has reportedly been effective, he says, as missile strikes across Ukrainian cities have increased the possibility of winter power and heating shortages. 

Moscow’s attacks on Ukrainian ports, according to officials, have also hurt Kiev’s logistics. 

The report indicates that Ukraine’s losses are reshaping the strategic outlook in the US and Western Europe. It highlights that a Russian victory would be a major setback for Washington and NATO. Western experts argue that Russia retaining its new territories could lead to a strengthened military presence near NATO’s borders, potentially igniting further conflict. 

Keep reading

Trump ‘could be assassinated like JFK if he tries to end Putin’s war in Ukraine’, Kremlin official warns

A top Kremlin official has warned a ‘tired’ Donald Trump could face a JFK-style assassination if he ‘really tries’ to end Vladimir Putin‘s war against Ukraine should he emerge victorious from today’s US presidential election.

The chilling warning came on Sunday from close Putin crony Dmitry Medvedev, formerly Russian president and his country’s longest-serving prime minister, now deputy head of the Kremlin’s security council.

He also branded US Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ‘stupid’ and ‘controllable’ who – as president – would be ‘afraid of everyone around her’.

‘For Russia, the elections will not change anything, since the candidates’ positions fully reflect the bipartisan consensus on the need for our country to be defeated [in the war].

‘Kamala is stupid, inexperienced, controllable and will be afraid of everyone around her. A synod of the most important ministers and assistants will rule, plus indirectly the Obama family.’

Trump may face the same fate as John F Kennedy in 1963, predicted Medvedev, who was Russian president from 2008 to 2012.

‘A tired Trump, issuing platitudes like ”I’ll offer a deal” and ”I have a great relationship with…” will also be forced to follow all the system’s rules.

‘He won’t be able to stop the war. Not in a day, not in three days, not in three months.

‘And if he really tries, he could become the new JFK.’

Keep reading

If ever a war could easily have been avoided, the war in Ukraine is that war. 

Address to the U.N. Security Council, Oct. 31, 2024

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to address this distinguished body.

If ever a war could easily have been avoided, the war in Ukraine is that war. If ever a war was needlessly provoked, the war in Ukraine is that war.

The war in Ukraine came about as a result of the Western powers’ single-minded insistence on scooping up every single country on the European continent into NATO, and on expanding the borders of NATO right up to the borders of the Russian Federation.

The war in Ukraine came about because the Western powers for more than three decades continued to dismiss the innumerable pleas of successive Soviet and Russian leaders, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, that there could be no security for anyone on the continent unless the West and Russia agree on a common framework for peace that guarantees the freedom and security of all.

How do we know that this? Because former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told us as much. In September 2023, Stoltenberg went before the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee and explained very succinctly that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided had NATO not insisted on moving its military infrastructure up to Russia’s borders.  President Putin, he explained, had

“actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement….He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO….We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

What Stoltenberg was referring to here were the two draft proposals for a new security architecture for Europe that Russia had issued on Dec. 17, 2021. The proposals—one addressed to NATO, one addressed to the United States—recalled the framework of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 in which the mutually antagonistic parties of the Cold War agreed to recognize one another’s security concerns and pledged not to enhance their own security at the expense of that of their purported adversaries. 

Keep reading

Ukraine Announces First Direct Clashes With North Korean Troops

The US and South Korea now say many thousands of North Korean troops are on the front lines, potentially engaging Ukrainian forces, with most of them located in Russia’s Kursk oblast, which has been under Ukrainian troop presence since the August cross-border offensive.

“More than 10,000 North Korean soldiers are currently in Russia, and we assess that a significant portion of them are deployed to front-line areas, including Kursk,” spokesman for South Korea’s defense ministry, Jeon Ha-kyou, told a briefing.

The Pentagon has said the same with spokesman Pat Ryder having stated Monday, “All indications are that they will provide some type of combat or combat support capability.” He added: “We would fully expect that the Ukrainians would do what they need to do to defend themselves and their personnel.”

The US administration has continued to warn that these foreign troops are “legitimate military targets” if they are found inside Ukraine and enter the fight.

Kiev has taken the allegations a step further, saying that already there’s been an exchange of fire between Ukrainian and North Korean troops. But it reportedly happened inside Russia.

“Ukrainian officials said on Monday that their forces had fired at North Korean soldiers in combat for the first time since their deployment by Russia to its western Kursk region,” FT writes of the new development.

The publication is calling the alleged instance “the first direct intervention by a foreign army since Russia’s full-scale invasion” as well as constituting an expansion of “what was already the largest land war in Europe since the second world war.”

“The first military units of the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] have already come under fire in Kursk,” Andriy Kovalenko, Ukraine’s high-ranking ‘counter-disinformation’ official, announced on Telegram. Another top intelligence official said the same but did not provide or confirm any details of the alleged clash.

Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha has urged his visiting German counterpart Annalena Baerbock on the “need for decisive action” in response to North Korea’s presence in the conflict.

“We urge Europe to realize that the DPRK troops are now carrying [out] an aggressive war in Europe against a sovereign European state,” Sybiha told a press conference.

Keep reading

COUNTEROFFENSIVE 2.0: Ukraine Can Win! Just Give it Until Summer 2025, U.S. Officials Say

U.S. officials told The New York Times this week that despite a string of battlefield losses and a dwindling pool of reinforcements, all Ukraine needs to turn the tide in its war with Russia is a little more time, and billions in more support.

The latest timeline to victory was a reminder of Ukraine’s disastrous counteroffensive in Spring 2023, which was billed in the presstitute media as an almost-certain turning point in the war that would result in the Russians being humiliated on the battlefield and kicked out of the country.

The Trends Journal accurately forecasted that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would run into a brick wall against Russia, and that’s exactly what happened.

Before the Ukraine War began, The Trends Journal called for Ukraine to negotiate for a peaceful solution, not because we agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade, but because Kyiv has no chance of winning and it would be in the best interest of Ukrainians to get along with their superpower neighbor.

Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in Politico that the setbacks of Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive “have made it clear that victory will not come soon, if at all. A long war of attrition lies ahead.”

American officials told the paper that if the U.S. is unrelenting in its support “until next summer, Kyiv could have an opportunity to take advantage of Russia’s weaknesses and expected shortfalls in soldiers and tanks.”

Keep reading

The Ukraine War is Lost. Three Options Remain.

I started listening to George Beebe a few years ago when he was warning about tensions in Ukraine, the real risk of escalation to nuclear war and the dangers of groupthink.  Back in 2021 he assessed that Russia was likely to invade Ukraine given the combination of the US’s determination to bring the country into NATO and the fact that it was a “now-or-never moment” for Moscow to stop this happening.  Years earlier, US Ambassador to Moscow, and now CIA director, William Burns had urgently cabled Washington to warn that the Russians regarded Ukraine as ‘the reddest of red lines’:

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Ambassador Burns wrote. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

I quote all this because if Ukraine, all of Europe, and quite possibly all of us, are to be spared worse, we have to get past one very unhelpful word: “unprovoked”.

It stands in the way of doing what is utterly essential: deep, constructive and ongoing discussions between Russia and the West to create a security framework for all of Europe that is acceptable to all parties.

Since February 2022 Western propaganda has drummed into people’s minds that the invasion was “unprovoked”.  Very few outside the West, however, share this perspective.  George Beebe doesn’t support the invasion, estimates that Russia has a lot to answer for, but rejects this kind of simplistic rhetoric as unhelpful and potentially disastrous.  He was interviewed this past week by Professor Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris on The Duran and, in my estimation, gave a masterclass in responsible statecraft.

“There has been a lot of narrative management, a lot of policing of public discourse.” Beebe said. “Anybody who suggested that there may have been some element of provocation that affected Russian decisions on this was immediately anathematized.”

Beebe says the West has an erroneous idea as to the very nature of the conflict. The US and the Europeans defined the Russian invasion as a “deterrence model problem” rather than a “spiral model problem”.   In the former, the adversary is a kind of Hitler that must be stopped at all costs.

Keep reading