The question of “Whither the Ukraine conflict if Trump becomes President?” is, not surprisingly, far from clear-cut despite the Trump braggadocio that he can end the war in 24 hours. Rather than attempt an in-depth treatment, let’s look at some boundary conditions which look likely to constrain possibilities.
A negotiated outcome still seems impossible given justified Russian distrust of the West. Putin seemed genuinely embittered when he learned that Merkel and Holland had set out to deceive him with the Minsk Accords and buy more time to arm Ukraine. Putin regularly returns to the theme of Western bad faith in recent speeches, indicating this is a sore topic. Putin biographers have pointed out Putin makes a point of not repeating mistakes, which he did in trusting various Western officials in the past. A recent example is the famed Ukraine grain deal, which had two major components: Russia permitting transit and the West ending or suspending sanctions on Russian institutions so as to allow foreign countries to buy Russian fertilizer. The West welched on its half of the deal, leading Russia to withdraw by not authorizing an extension.
On top of that, Putin still has a strong bias to avoid more force commitment that necessary, if nothing else to spare Russian lives. So despite signs that many in the government in Moscow and potentially in Russia as a whole would prefer that he prosecute the war more aggressively, Putin appears to take the view that the current pacing is working out nicely. He has no reason to do more than continue to slowly and steadily increase the pressure on Ukraine forces until conditions change enough so that a different course of action is preferable.
Putin has dropped only a few hints as to what the final territorial disposition could look like (recall he has repeatedly said Odessa is a Russian city and pointed out that Kiev was part of ancient Rus). He still seems inclined to keep his options open. We’ve opined that occupying Western Ukraine or successfully installing a puppet government would be non-trivial. But their ease or difficulty also has some path dependence, based on how the Ukraine political and military collapse plays out.1 Even Reuters took note of Putin’s musing in June about capturing Kiev, which he noted would likely require more manpower:
President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that any further mobilisation would depend on what Russia wanted to achieve in the war in Ukraine, adding that he faced a question only he could answer – should Russia try to take Kyiv again?2
The reporting on Ukraine’s conditions and prospects, even though it is getting somewhat more realistic, is still well behind events. Press presentations matter because they are reflexive: they show what various interested parties want to present to the public, but they also influence and constrain the views of those same officials. Studies have repeatedly found that lawyers hired to defend parties they know are guilty come to believe their case for innocence. So even those officials who know Ukraine cannot win yet are tasked to touting Ukraine’s prospects wind up internalizing the idea that maybe Ukraine can somehow come out on top.
The media, Western leaders, and even it seems quite a few US/NATO leaders still do not seem to have come to grips with the fact that Russia is waging a war of attrition, and that therefore its territorial gains are no measure of Russian success to date. They are even further from recognizing that Russia is so dominant that it will in the end dictate terms, even if it takes its sweet time in getting to that point.
We do see more of the reporters admitting to Russian superiority in arms, such as a recent Wall Street Journal story that ‘fessed up that American’s vaunted wunderwaffen at most scored some initial blows to the Russian campaign, but Russia quickly worked out how to counter them. A new Reuters story re-confirms that the West is hopelessly behind on shell production: Years of miscalculations by U.S., NATO led to dire shell shortage in Ukraine.
But that does not mean the spin doctors have given up. For instance, Mediazona and the BBC had teamed up to track Russia deaths with a sound methodology: collect funeral data and other death notices. But they were coming up with numbers that Russians regarded as credible, consistent with the Mediazona level of between 50,000 and 60,000, which you might gross up by 50% to be conservative.3 (Russian Telegram is very active and very critical of the Russian military, albeit mainly from the vantage of calling for more vigorous prosecution of the war; the Telegrammers have contacts so that if there were a lot of military deaths, they would be making a huge stink and demanding that heads roll at the Ministry of Defense).3
But the Mediazona death count was embarrassing way below the recent reports of Ukraine deaths and serious injuries.4 Worse, Mediazona showed that Russia deaths in 2024 were way below 2022 levels, even as Russia has been moving into the offense (which should produce more losses, all things being equal).
That was apparently unacceptable. So Mediazona has adopted a new algo-based methodology. Viola! Russian deaths are suddenly way higher that the old verifiable level.
The bigger point here is simple: the West is still deep in denial. So even if Russia were suddenly to lose its mind and be willing to negotiate, the West would not accept that Ukraine was in dire shape and large concessions by the US and NATO were entirely reasonable. For instance, NATO is effectively leaving Russia with no option other than to completely subjugate Ukraine. At the just-concluded NATO summit, the alliance maintained that Ukraine joining NATO was irreversible.
RT reported the response by former Russian president and deputy Security Council chairman of Dmitry Medvedev:
NATO’s declaration that Ukraine’s eventual membership of the US-led military bloc is “irreversible” means that either the nation or the alliance – and preferably both – should disappear, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has said…
“The conclusion is obvious. We have to do everything to make sure that the ‘irreversible path of Ukraine’ towards NATO ends with either the disappearance of Ukraine, or the disappearance of NATO. Better, both,” Medvedev said on Thursday.
Trump has signaled he will reduce commitments to NATO, which means Ukraine too, but the psychological impact is likely to be greater than the practical difference. Trump is making clear, to much alarm, that he expects both NATO members and Taiwan to bear more of the cost of their defenses than they are bearing now. Amusingly, NATO has been discussing how to “Trump proof” the alliance, even after then NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg admitted many months back that NATO could not continue to back Ukraine without US support, as many outlets such as the BBC reported last week. This follows Congress passing a stipulation that no President could withdraw from NATO without Senate consent.
But the reality is that, as far as Ukraine is concerned, this matters less than it seems. The US and NATO have emptied their weapons caches to supply Ukraine, yet Russia has ample production capacity and stockpiles. The US under a new Democrat might prop up the Ukraine government longer than a Trump administration would, but given the difficulty of passing the last funding bill and Ukraine’s deterioration, that might not pass at all or amount to much if it did. More US support of Ukraine would increasing be a confidence game, to persuade Ukraine to keep throwing more men into the Russian maw, than a strategy with any hope of success.
European leaders would feel cast adrift. EU leaders are stunningly doubling down on Project Ukraine. They seem to be externalizing their frustration with their inability to turn the war around with their unhinged attacks on Hungarian president Viktor Orban for the temerity of talking to key players about peace in Ukraine. Orban had just assumed a rotating six month presidency of the EU Council, which despite the pretenses of the wannbe queen of Europe, EU Commission chair Ursula von der Leyen, is the premier executive group for the Union. Even though Orban had disavowed operating as EU president in undertaking his listening tour to Zelensky, Putin, Xi and Trump, he nevertheless was taking advantage of his higher profile.
The unified and vicious official European reaction to even tentatively exploring a settlement to the war has been revealing. Since this post is getting long, we will limit ourselves to a sampling of headlines:
European Commission President slams Orbán’s “appeasement mission” to Moscow
The European Commission boycotts the Hungarian presidency due to Orban’s unexpected visit to Russia
Reuters: EU chief criticizes Hungary’s Orban for ‘peace mission’ talks with Trump
And now threats of serious punishment, albeit not (yet) with any teeth, via Reuters:
A group of 63 European Parliament lawmakers has asked the EU to withdraw Hungary’s voting rights in the bloc, in response to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s recent visits to Moscow and Beijing….
The lawmakers have no formal ability to strip Hungary of its voting rights, but seek to add political pressure on Brussels to take tougher action towards Budapest.
The European Commission said on Monday it would stop sending Commissioners to informal meetings organised by the Hungarian EU presidency, downgrading its participation to instead send civil servants.
These aggressive moves to stuff Orban in a box come at the same time other NATO leaders make unhinged professions of fealty to Ukraine over the interests of their own country:5
I won't allow Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers, and the dirty money it generates, to flow freely through European waters and put our security at risk.
Ukraine is, and always will be, at the heart of my government’s agenda.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 19, 2024
Aurelien predicted a long time ago that the EU would eventually settle into epic pouting over its unsuccessful Ukraine adventure. But a lot of difficult psychological, political, and messaging adjustment is in store before the bloc comes to grips with its failure.
_____
1 For instance, there are now rumors that Ukraine’s top commander, General Syrzki, has determined Ukraine cannot win the war and is now calling for negotiations. But the neo-Nazis have repeatedly threatened Zelensky if he were to try:
Neo-Nazi Azov commanders already twice openly threatened Zelensky when he indicated willingness to negotiate https://t.co/VSz3yt6y4f
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) July 19, 2024
This is entirely predictable since the Russians want the Banderites removed from power and marginalized in society, plus any who played a role in torturing Russian soldiers (and there are lots of ugly videos) or killing POWs can expect a not happy future.
So if military situation continues to deteriorate, Zelenksy is likely to flee rather than attempt negotiations. That makes sense additionally because Putin has made clear he does not regard Zelensky as a legitimate head of government. He has said it is up to Ukraine to make a determination, but his reading of the Ukraine constitution is that the head of the Rada is now in charge. And that is before getting to the point that Putin, Lavrov, and many others have made: Ukraine is only a proxy and any negotiations would have to take place with the US (and perhaps NATO too).
So a new, and undeniably illegitimate government would take over. How the US, UK and EU try to pretty that up is over my pay grade. But given a military coup or other form of non-elected leadership running Ukraine, Russia re-installing the what would arguably the last legitimate regime, that of Viktor Yankovich, who was ousted in the Maidan coup and the effort to legitimate his removal fell afoul of the Constitution (too few ratifying votes in the Rada) might look not-so-bad compared to what followed a Zelensky exodus.
2 The distortions in Western reporting seem pervasive. Russia did not “take” Kiev in 2022, but merely engaged in a pinning operation. It would have required a massive force commitment to have any hope of seizing Kiev, a sprawling city of 3 million.
3 Russian Telegram is very active and very critical of the Russian military, albeit mainly from the vantage of calling for more vigorous prosecution of the war. The Telegrammers have extensive contacts with active duty soldiers. So if there were a lot of military deaths, they would be making a huge stink and demanding that heads roll at the Ministry of Defense)
4 Mind you, both the now-admitted huge disparity in Russian shelling v. Ukrainian and the fact that Ukraine, until recently, has been attempting to launch offenses, means Ukraine should be expected to be losing a lot more men than Russia.
5 Recall German Green Party leader and defense minister Annelina Baerbock similarly said defending Ukraine was more important than German voter interests.
75 comments
Comments are closed.
Just as gay lobbies scored dramatic gains around the time The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, Obama – who not only did zero to help that happen but actually doubled down on previous obtuse GWB suppression of gay rights – never the less shamelessly jumped aboard the victory bandwagon as it crossed the finish line entirely w/o Obama’s help, he pretended he was an important ally in these victories (he was not and in fact quite the opposite), as it rolled over legal and other obstacle, to victory.
I mention this, because I am kind of expecting similar behavior by Trump. As Russia approaches a more comprehensive victory in Ukraine and resistance collapses, Trump might show up and inject himself into the situation, and grandstand that he, not Russia, ended the conflict, and take credit.
Didn’t Trump do that in Syria? By claiming that he defeated ISIS when in fact that it was the Iranians, Russians, Syrians and Iraqis that did all the heavy lifting? Trump thinks that he can end the war with one phone call but he is in for a few surprises, none of them good. The initial point is where to hold these negotiations where he can use his negotiating skills. Trump probably figures that Hungary is the ideal country but the EU countries will scream blue murder about that one. China would be a good candidate but by then the Washington establishment will be in no mood to give China such a win. You can forget Switzerland. Can’t be the US or Russia obviously. So maybe Saudi Arabia as he and Putin are on excellent terms with the Saudis. But then they have to negotiate the shape of the table…
https://defenceindepth.co/2017/05/19/stuck-in-endless-preliminaries-vietnam-and-the-battle-of-the-paris-peace-table-november-1968-january-1969/
Pompeo in his speech at the RNC two nights ago gave Trump credit for defeating ISIS as one of his bullet points on Trumps achievements.
Pompeo is sucking up to Trump because he wants a job with his new administration. Probably Bolton as well. If Trump was even half smart he would wait till January and tell them to take a hike as they caused all sorts of problems for Trump the first time around. Seems that the Neocons are demanding that these two be given jobs next year and wanted Rubio as VP and not Vance.
One could only hope Trump relegates those two (Pompeo and Bolton) to the dustbin. I could only make it partway through Pompeo’s speech.
I’ve a couple links in a comment below that offer a bit of clarity about these two hawks and indicates they support continuing operations in Ukraine.
Bolton keeps popping up like a jack-in-a-box, but he burned his bridges with Trump, no? His ultra-neocon, blow up everyone who isn’t all in with USA world (military driven) hegemony doesn’t harmonize with Trump’s MAGA, neo-USA first, but everyone else should pay for it both directly and with the self-sabotage of their economies, FP. Bolton’s FP instincts overall seem now more consistent with the Dems’. I’ll bet he toasted Biden over the Nord Stream explosions.
Pompeo and Bolton are two of the biggest swamp monsters and should have nothing to do with any new administration. It will be apparent early in Trump’s new term, what he might try to do. If he cleans house in DC and puts the right people in key positions, he might have a chance of doing some good. Heads need to roll. Traitors need to pay the price.
Gave Trump credit for defeating ISIS: So did JD Vance at that convention.
Give partial credit where it is due. The US military leveled most of Mosul and complely devastated Raqqa. In both cases a template for Israel in Gaza.
Of course the US remains in eastern Syria as an occupier.
Trump will show up and inject himself; it’s guaranteed. Doesn’t even matter if he’s elected in Nov. He’ll start campaigning immediately for ’28, to bring in dollars from MAGA dopes.
It is possible that Trump come clean, maybe in the next few weeks, about Biden’s stated intentions (fantasies) and their poverty of plans and lack of tools to achieve those intentions.
Biden, Blinken and a plethora of EU “leaders” have in the most strong terms stated they will push Putin out of Krushjev’s sacred territory.
I do not know what they mean by pushing Putin, because that requires a lot less than pushing the Russian Federation (RF) armed forces out of the 4 Oblasts and Crimea!
Doing that would mean putting the huge amount of mechanized forces and tactical air power once (not now) available to the US for the cold war, right up to Russia. No one has talked about plans much less orders to do what they all say. This because there are no forces to perform! Who knows what Austin is advising?
That said maybe Trump will say Biden and Blinken et al talked a big plan but they are “all hat no cattle!”
IOW Trump could engage in negotiations from the reality US cannot do much about pushing the RF around! Such a force application would increase the chance that whatever frontal maneuvers would go nukes, even faster than what could have happened over Fulda.
Germany cannot mobilize even a fraction by 2029!
My sense is that the USA has been trying to distance itself gradually from Project Ukraine for several months now. The aid bill passed with such fanfare (and discord) last April was more about replenishing depleted Pentagon stocks (and buying lots of goodies from the MIC) and less about prompt weapons delivery to Ukraine. A Trump administration will accelerate this distancing. Abandoning a failed foreign military adventure and leaving it to the locals to clean up the resulting mess (in this case, Ukraine and its neighbors) is an old USA habit with a long pedigree, so in this sense Trump will be a traditionalist.
I expect that Trump’s foreign policy will be slightly less anti-Russia and substantially more anti-China (and anti-Iran). The Pentagon’s budget will continue to grow unchecked, and Israel will continue to do whatever it wants to. Continuity! Of course, much will depend on Trump’s advisors. Many of the likely prospects (e.g., Elbridge Colby) seem quite keen on being more muscular vs China. Neither isolationism nor world peace seems to be on Trump’s agenda; we can expect more cowbell but applied on newer fronts other than Ukraine (and with equal lack of success, prompting calls for still yet more cowbell…..)
Regardless of who captures the White House, how the Ukraine mess finally ends will not be decided in Washington or Brussels. It will be decided in Moscow and Kiev, based on facts on the ground in what remains of Ukraine.
My sense is that the USA has been trying to distance itself… Never the less, from July 11, “Biden announces $225 million weapons package for Ukraine, including Patriot system”.
Pompeo on Ukraine from Oct 31, 2023. The lede, “Rather than bolstering Putin, Xi, and Khamenei by abandoning Ukraine, the US and our allies should be accelerating the flow of weapons and ammunition to Kyiv.” Bolton appears to take the “Biden weakness caused our troubles in Ukraine” position as well. Regarding Trump and Ukraine. he’s on record, April 2024, “‘Putin Is Waiting For Trump’: John Bolton Voices Fears Over Ukraine, NATO”. The lede, Former U.S. national-security adviser John Bolton has voiced fears that a second Donald Trump presidency could sacrifice Ukraine to Russia and abandon NATO. Speaking to Current Time’s Ksenia Sokolyanskaya on April 15, Bolton said, “Putin is waiting for Trump.”
Interesting links, thanks.
Re the $225m weapons package: Biden announced this while meeting w Zelensky at the recent NATO confab, so I view this as symbolic. I.e., they had to say something nice to cheer up Mr. Z, so they came up with this announcement. $225m ain’t what it used to be. This gift package consisted of Patriots, HIMARS, Stingers, and plain vanilla 105/155 mm artillery rounds. A single Patriot missile costs roughly $4m, HIMARS and Stingers run six figures for a single missile, and even low-tech artillery rounds are surprisingly pricey (low four figures). So whatever Ukraine actually received from this package…..it was a drop in the ocean compared to its battlefield needs.
Re Bolton: I will be amazed if Trump v2 invites him onto his new team, given his stormy tenure during Trump v1. His firing/resignation was messy and very public. And then there was his tell-all book scandal; Trump v1 tried to block its publication, and when that legal gambit failed the book was mysteriously leaked onto the Internet two days before its official release (’tis a mystery!). And Bolton turns 76 this year; my sense is that Trump is aiming to surround himself with a younger team. Great moustache, though.
Re Pompeo: I think he’s looney tunes, but unfortunately he has an excellent chance of joining Trump’s v2 team. Yikes.
Thank you, I agree with all of that. Note the Pompeii piece is three weeks after the beginning of the Gaza affair. Make of that what you will.
“NATO is effectively leaving Russia with no option other than to completely subjugate Ukraine.”
I wonder if this is the point now – Ukraine is lost so turn it into a quagmire for the Russians as the Empire of Chaos turns to family-blog something else up.
No, the NATO leaders are true believers in the importance of maintaining NATO’s status. Having the best NATO army crushed in Ukraine proves its weakness. And NATO has no Plan B in terms of using the resulting crisis to rebuild. Among other things, thanks to EU fiscal rules, NATO members don’t have the budget room to do much to bulk up their militaries.
And many really do believe that if they do not stop Russia in Ukraine, its next stop is Paris. Russia eating up Ukraine save maybe a teeny area around Lvov would be seen as extremely threatening.
Poland blatantly went around “EU fiscal rules” by creating “off budget” entity that borrows money to pay for weapon orders, which currently adds 1 GDP percent to “allowed deficit”, next year 2% and Almighty knows how deep they will go. OTH, Germany has a straight jacket of its own constitution, and I do not know who will follow Poland to the fiscal Lake of Fire? Finland and other countries around the Baltic?
One interesting wrinkle: RAND corporation was sketching strategy against Russia for decades, I guess, the best known is “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options” Apr 24, 2019. The current plan to create a galaxy of American military bases in Sweden and Finland can be seen in this light — while the Chinese threat to Russia is disappointingly small, bases threatening St. Petersburg and the connection to Murmansk can force Russia to position more balancing forces in those regions. But in the same light one can see Belarusian-Chinese joint military exercises in Brest, on Polish border. As China is the main dish, to be consumed after finishing the appetizer consisting of Russia, China does not want the appetizer phase to be completed, and, if necessary, can put troops in Belarus, overextending and unbalancing Poland, and hey, and even in military bases in Karelia and Kola. Overextending Russia can by a Sisyphus job if China, Iran, North Korea and even India and Arab oil states see a threat in this scenario.
True. That’s one way of looking at it. And as long as Russian forces are there, the USA and associates can claim limits on what they can or are willing to do to help Ukraine rebuild.
My view as well.
Ukraine is the biggest country in Europe, after Russia, and had about 50 million people, below, Germany, France, Italy and UK, with heavy industry and likely the biggest, strongest army in Europe (not considering Turkyie and the US). If the West cannot have Ukraine, the next best thing is to have it all wreked and placed it as an albatross to Russia’s neck. A victorious Russia will be a very strong Russia and thus, from a perception perspective, a very dangerous Russia (soo much projection here); thus, a big, rotting albatross of the size of Ukraine hanging in perpetuity to Russia’s neck is ultimately a very desirable thing.
A functional and not destroyed Ukraine at minimum neutral and max allied with Russia would give too much pause to the western combine.
Well, the US intention was to undo Russia’s military might for at least a decade, and probably a generation. All wars evolve methods and types of military equipment.
I’m told this is a very lucrative business. Also, production of war materiel is very good
for congressmen and senators reelection chances, generating lots of local and state
jobs.
I have questions about the underlying motivations for this conflict. It appears to me that calling it a proxy war between USA and Russia seems less accurate than reference to a proxy war between the military/industrial complex and Russia – with the emphasis on the MIC rather than USA and the emphasis on the industrial interests rather than military. The Ukraine conflict seems unlikely to be about the Ukraine as a physical entity, as much as an assault on the Russian political structure. The short term goal to foment a revolution in Russia was obviously fanciful, but asserting longer term political strain in Russia may not be. The goal in Ukraine may be to continue to pressure the Russian economy, and that would not encourage as near term settlement of the conflict. In this case, the ultimate fear of the MIC will continue to be that they are mortally frightened by China. The possible support of China seems to be their biggest fear.
I don’t agree that this is about the MIC. They have plenty of places to grift. This has to do with much darker, less rational forces, the US sense that it could remake the world after World War II. That is why we keep doing things that don’t make any sense and even worse are negative in terms of our geostrategic interests.
If this were just about the MIC, we would have backed off when we realized Russia had the upper hand militarily. Putting your credibility on the line, putting many of your best weapons in a burn pit, having Russia demonstrate the superiority of its arms across nearly all weapons categories….this is neither good for business nor maintenance of superpower status.
That impulse became pernicious after the fall of the USSR, when many seemed to internalize the idea that our ways were obviously superior and virtuous and should be imposed on others for their good. This sort of thing has a proud tradition, recall the Brits and French trying to impose not just their administrations on subjects, but also their language, religions, and values. It’s a form of evangelizing, not just creating cultural similarities for the purpose of enlisting locals to make control easier; it’s out of a deep seated belief that it would be better for them if they were more like us.
The US (as Jeffrey Sachs has explained long form) has long has a policy of preventing the rise of even regional power. This is why Iran drives the US nuts out of proportion to its importance. And I suspect but cannot prove that Iran drives us nuttier because a bunch of backwards looking guys in beards and black robes have proven to be technologically and politically very sophisticated.
US officials also act like they are playing Risk (again per Sachs), they overthrow regimes just to prevent anyone else from having them.
With Russia, we thought we had subjugated them. Even so, in 1997, with Yeltsin in charge, George Kennan, Kissinger and others warned v. NATO expansion east. They didn’t see Russia as a spent force as the US wanted to but a still very powerful player, presumably if nothing else because nukes.
Our efforts to keep down and better yet break up Russia are long-standing. Putin understood he had to find a solution to the Chechen war, for instance. If Chechnya succeeded in getting its independence, then Dagestan would be next, and other Muslim regions could get stroopy too. And we were most assuredly backing the Chechens.
I agree!
The Ukraine war was probably intended to prevent Eurasian economic integration. In the long run, an economic zone from Europe to China would pose a danger to the dollar system.
US global power depends in large part on its control over the global financial system. In that sense, the US has already won. Europe is cut off from Russia.
Yes, and It also goes back to UK foreign policy and Halford Mackinder. Michael Hudson pointed out that it was to make the EU more dependent on the US as well.
Repeat after me: Like the Banks, only more so, the Dollar is too big
to fail.
Yes and I would add: Imperial hubris, “path dependency,”, institutional corruption, and the modern version of White Man’s Burden/Civilising Mission (as you point out) also play into US foreign policy. US plans to pry Ukraine away from Russia, and Russian influence and break up the RF go back to Zbig’s infamous Grand Chessboard (1997), and before. (It seems Zbig originated the “pivot to Asia” concept as well)
The US/UK policy toward Iran can be traced back to the1953 overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government. Before that even with the Brits vying for influence and control of Iran, and trying to keep Russian influence out. But to cover for naked interests, they spout off about “democracy” and all that rot, even though they overthrew the first real democracy in the region. So we can have a sarcastic laugh whenever we hear “human rights” “freedom” or “democracy” from western hypocrites.
I have difficulty imagining Trump or Biden actually directing u.s. military actions. Neither one appears capable of controlling the MIC, or the dark irrational forces pushing for war and conflict, even when those wars or conflicts are detrimental to the interests of the MIC or other components of the network of economic interests. Congress long ago abdicated whatever control it may have had over the dark irrational forces pushing for war. If those dark forces represent components of the military network then it would appear that the military network has acquired some dominance over the other components of the u.s. Power Elite. If this is indeed the case, then the results of the upcoming election will change little in u.s. efforts toward provoking more wars.
Yes and no. In terms of grift, in USA health-medical complex gobbles quite a bit more than MIC, but it lacks the visible power possessed by the combination of military, intelligence and supporting industries, think tanks and many more. Is visible power more important than the bank balance? In terms of human psychology, yes. Power, being alpha in your band of hunters and gatherers, entered our evolution long before the concept of money. This is a visceral feeling, hardwired so to speak, something that hopeless betas like you and me, never having the experience, may know only in the way we can learn about evolution of stars etc. (there are articles and books on that, right?)
Backing off is psychologically painful for people in the orbit of MIC, “collective alpha” of the West. How to be a member of “collective alpha”? In feudal times, privileges and titles conferred that, and surely we have contemporary equivalents, say marquis of Canada, viscount of Estonia, etc., each with own court bestowing titles and privileges.
Thank you, Yves, for excellent article and comment. Here in Norway Russia-phobia and hate is ingrained in politics as in leading politicians of all stripes – and a seizable portion of the population. So the current coalition government let in 12 US bases – on too short notice for opposing views to make anything to hamper the speedy process from bilateral deal to fait accompli. In the 1980ies the opposistion was so strong to US stationing medium range atomic missiles in Europe that it took the then labour government almost 2 years to construct a weak and timid compromise to avoid a straight and firm NO in NATO. I guess the then young Jens Stoltenberg’s anti-Nato-stand was opportunistically neccessary for him to climb the first rung of the ladder to PM and onwards to prime European puppet and Norwegian vassalage loaded with 12 US-bases. A popular opposition is slowly building against this terrible weaponization of internal and external relations. I take heart from daily doses of NC, Jefrey Sachs, RayMcGovern, Jugde Napolitano, Alistair Crooke, the many wise commenters here and our own professor Glenn Diesen, who staunchly keeps going against inbread intolerance, ignorance, russophobia and hate. A sad state of affairs. Thanks for this morning read, a heavy load of informative ammo against the wars.
:.. So Mediazona has adopted a new algo-based methodology. Viola! Russian deaths are suddenly way higher that the old verifiable level…”
BS black boxes strike again!
Sooner or later there will be a recession or even a depression. The ECB is the only strong institution in the EU and has spent its existence mostly making mistakes, like now. This will end the war and the EU.
Read the Starmer tweet above. It’s striking. Britain has only 80,000 in it’s military, so maybe 35000 active front line ready troops. And he makes a statement like that, with all the economic issues at home? One could argue his economy and certainly Germany’s is in recession, and yet he beats the war drums, along with the EU leadership. It, as Mecouris says bluntly, is stupid. Do the people of Europe fall behind this stupidity? Not in the last elections. How long can Starmer remain in power saying things like that?
Individual Eurozone countries, constrained as they are by use of a currency they don’t control and the treaty-imposed limits on annual and cumulative deficits, seem unlikely to be able to replenish their depleted weapons and munitions inventories, much less re-arm for potential conflict with RF, without painful cuts elsewhere, which one expects would fall on social programs, or significant tax increases.
I am tempted to wonder whether the Eurozone and EU may come apart if the stance of determined antagonism toward RF is maintained. Would the “value” of continued antagonism toward RF, and preparations for war with it, be regarded as sufficiently high to warrant creation of a Eurozone fiscal authority and relaxation of the “growth and stability” rules?
while the russian federation’s economy seems to be expanding
The 2025 United States presidential inauguration will take place on Monday, January 20, 2025, so six months from now. If the Ukrainian military doesn’t collapse before then, the Ukrainian population may revolt. Two months of winter with little electricity for heat may force the issue before Trump, or whichever Democrat is chosen, before the next president takes office.
Persistent, pernicious modalities of thought. We can’t help ourselves, I guess. So it’s ok to say, e.g., “ Trump is making clear, to much alarm, that he expects both NATO members and Taiwan to bear more of the cost of their defenses than they are bearing now…”
When of course those ever-growing costs are to purchase offensive war-making capabilities, not “defense” in any old-folks understanding of the term. Looking always for the wunderwaffen “knockout punch” that will effectuate the finale so long pursued by the “West” of atomization and looting of the “East.”
Silly to expect that the MIC juggernaut would be recalled to port and its swords beaten into plowshares, or that the “defense” locutions would be binned for good.
An excellent summary of the situation.
The reactions to Orban’s round-the-world trip is really quite astonishing in its pettiness. More to the point, I suspect it will weaken the EU in the long-term. The EU has been trying to move to wider use of (qualified) majority voting (QMV) as opposed to unanimity in order to ease decision-making. But all the countries that have been at the end of such bullying and boycotts from the EU will think twice about voting for more QMV as this will simply empower the big countries even more, the opposite of why smaller countries have joined. Ultimately, it is therefore bad news for the EU’s ambition to expand its powers (more powers -> more decision-making) and so the EU will rather have to down-size its ambitions.
Of course, this will simply complement the debilitating shots to many economic limbs which will in and of themselves help Europe become irrelevant.
Maybe it is needed to deal with our delusional elites, but it is sad for the normal people who live on this continent.
Based on anecdata coming from Ukraine, the lack of electricity, internet and young men is grinding the souls of the most vocal and influential Russophobes . The two obvious options available are surrender or migration. Recommend to see the chart of Ukrainian currency Hryvnia UAH/USD pair – the collapse is in progress and the leading politicians will be escaping soon. The Russian General Staff can adjust the pace of their operation by watching this chart.
Migration is practically suicidal for all men at this point. But many politicians have either already left or in hiding, at least. The dirty secret is that the Rada has been basically empty for important voting.
Well, the great democrat and defender of our values, president for life Zelensky did ban all parties and dismissed all Rada members who were “pro-Russia”, so Rada has been running on skeleton crew for a few years already. But now even his own tend to make themselves scarce.
I don’t think that a change of Presidency in January will actually have much influence on the course of the war one way or another. Indeed, the fighting could even be over by then, or at least clearly into its final stages. The ability of the US to influence events is already very limited and will decline further.
My concern is simply that Trump may be quite unaware of the actual weakness of the US and NATO position, since he probably relies on the MSM for the little he knows and understands. Consequently, and as someone with a supersize ego, he probably believes that he and the US can determine how the war finishes, through one of his famous deals. On the other hand, I suppose, as a businessman he must be used to negotiating from a position of weakness, which is where he will be.
I think we can see two types of western politician now. There are the bitter-enders like VdL, whose egos and sense of cultural superiority and infallibility won’t allow them to contemplate losing, and the pragmatists who realise the game’s up, and are either manoeuvring away from the more extreme positions, or alternatively publicly fantasising about things that won’t happen so that they can later claim that it wasn’t their fault the war was lost. Trump, it seems to me, could play an interesting role if somebody takes him aside and tells him the truth. After all, he hasn’t been involved in any of the catastrophic errors of the last few years, and he could even spin his involvement in the ignominious end of substantial US influence in Europe as a kind of Bringer of Peace. He’s a showman after all.
“as a businessman he must be used to negotiating from a position of weakness, which is where he will be.”
The bankruptcies were maybe more humbling than the ear shot.
The bankruptcies were of 6 or 7 of his over something like 170 corporate entities. Despite the MSM insinuations otherwise, Trump has been underleveraged compared to most real estate owners/developers.
As I have described before (this from the then #2 to Steve Ross, a major competitor to Trump in NYC), nearly every major New York developer had to give up equity to restructure their loans in the early 1990s real estate plunge. Ross and Trump were the two exceptions. It infuriated the Ross team that Trump also got out whole, since they saw him as a reckless blowhard.
But Trump had his name on all his properties. He said his name was coming off if they forced him to give up or reduce his ownership and persuaded the lenders that this would significantly reduce the value of the bag they were left holding.
But to Aurelien’s point, which I also made in the post, a lot of Western leaders do not understand how bad Ukraine’s and derivatively the US/NATO position is. So that works against any negotiations. No overlap in positions.
Many have pointed out that Putin will certainly remind/inform Trump that massive Ukraine support (the Bulk) was made/supplied under his /Trumps watch/command.
Trump would/will crap his pants if Putin threatens USA/Nato militarily and he would back off immediately and perhaps/probably spill the beans. (USA = Paper Tiger.) This is opposed to standard USA strategy/reaction of ignore and escalate. Don’t screw with us we’re crazy. I tend to agree that the Good News is that the USA Rulers are not suicidal.
Also don’t forget that a couple of hundred billion for Ukraine was doable. Gave purpose.
10 trillion (minimum) to bring America’s infrastructure into the 21century is impossible. Not good.
Was just in Spokane. It’s beyond depressing. Peace.
I’m not sure what is meant by the war is lost. Usually it means one side surrendered. However, Biden said he will not talk to Putin and I don’t expect Zelensky will either.
The problem is that as the war grinds on there are unintended consequences. The Ukraine army might collapse, Zelensky et al., might pack up and leave the country, the economy tanks and infrastructure, especially the electricity grid, crashes, food shortages, ex-military vigilante gangs, and more Ukrainians leaving the country.
Trump is at least open to a discussion. Otherwise the chance of a humanitarian and security crisis spinning out of control is real.
Is civil war in Ukraine a possibility before we get to Trump’s inauguration? The Azov faction will resort to violence to keep everyone fighting Russia, but can the scattered partisan activities that are limited to sabotage now coalesce into an actual armed opposition against the “continue the war” government figures, maybe pulling in disaffected AFU brigades that are tired of being fed into the meat grinder? There seems to be increasing resentment toward the unending war and ever increasing conscription efforts. At what point will that escalate from burning conscription officers’ cars to a more organized and violent resistance?
There has been a civil war going on in Ukraine for 10 years, so many putative “resistance” fighters are already fighting in Russian uniforms.
What is now, as you said, burning cars, blowing up railroads and informing Russians about the location of Patriot batteries and foreign mercenaries will not probably grow in to a proper resistance before the Kiev regime more or less falls. Then they will emerge and try to seize the local power before any war lord or robber baron can take it.
Without a massive injections of USD , what’s left of Ukraine will just disintegrate over the night. Watch the FX market, it will tell us when it’s over.
The neo-Nazis are too small a force to do that. They got only 2% in the Rada at best. They represent 1% to 2% of the population.
And they have shown themselves to be cowards. Russian generals as part of the Soviet tradition are in front of the forces they lead. This led to problems in Ukraine with NATO practices, Ukraine soldiers were troubled by Western generals hiding in the rear.
The Azovities have not fought in the war. They instead are anti-retreat forces, that shoot Ukraine soldiers who try to flee.
What they can and do do very effectively is threaten politicians. That does not take numbers but a willingness to beat up and torture defenseless people. That is all they are good for.
Trump might not be this sharpest knife in most kitchens, but consider the neocons running the us over the past several years, including trump’s first term. Imo he’s been bad mouthing Ukraine because he pretty clearly sees how badly Ukraine and the west has been losing. His instinct is to cut losses, like afghan… Syria was ok because stealing the oil.
But saying Taiwan also needs to pay protection is new to me and maybe is a way to reduce war fever there. Trump doesn’t seem to want to stop trade but to boost exports and profits.
Hopefully he’s learned the neocons are loyal to mic and maybe deep, not him.
Yes, I reckon that being a businessman he understands the utility of cutting losses and doing business. In fact, if anything, Trump tried to avoid this calamity in his first term, so in that sense he’ll have something of a free hand as the man cleaning up his predecessor’s mess and a chance to demonstrate that he’s about real world results and not dangerous delusions that could blow up Europe or even the world. Maybe Zelensky realises this and that’s why he’s just mentioned inviting the Russians to the next peace conference. Fancy that, asking the other party in the conflict to a peace conference! /sarc off
Several recent articles are claiming NATO is winning the naval battle.
There is no naval battle. This is a land and air war. And the Western claims about damage to Russia’s navy are so exaggerated as to amount to fabrication.
There’s not enough NATO ships in the Black Sea currently to make any difference, they would also not approach anywhere near Russian controlled waters.
No new fleets can arrive because Turkey won’t let them through.
So this is not meaningful even if not also overhyped.
But it seems that Russia has failed in blockading Odessa. Slowed down exports, but not entirely.
Russia was not blockading Odessa. This report by an expert and not pro-Russian group disputes the media claims (which come ultimately from Ukraine, which has a poor record of accuracy on the status of the war) that you are repeating. From March 2024, Has the West Ceded the Black Sea to Russia?
https://cimsec.org/a-russian-lake-has-the-west-ceded-the-black-sea-to-russia/
Thanks for that.
If Trump and Vance won the White House; unless they could miraculously revolutionize the current US structure of governance by oligarchy (which is doubtful), then a possible initial sequence of events could be: Trump calls Putin to talk about Ukraine. Putin would be ‘hardnosed.’ Trump would say: “Everything is negotiable.” Putin could raise the bet and introduce Trump to a ‘multi polar world’: “While at it, lets put the security issues of West Asia, Taiwan, et al and have a roundtable discussion on how to solve these matters.” The neo cons and the old order would seethe, preferring a long term unwinnable war of attrition rather than recognizing any other entity as equal to ro superior to their own form of madness. Democrat or Republican, lots of noise will be made, nothing will change.
Just by appearances, Vance’s wife didn’t look too happy when introduced at the convention, especially after the Donald ear shot. Maybe she’s smart enough to know it’s a pretty dangerous place to be, married to the guy going up against the neocons. Melania was barely visible, and Baron is in hiding. RFK Jr must be wondering if it’s a trap, finally getting SS protection. If anything, all of them have to worry about those homicidal Nazis let loose on the world carrying suitcases of cash and all sorts of weapons stashed in secret places after Putin drives them west.
Au contraire. One of the cornerstones of classic Fascism is the cooption of the Oligarchy
into the coalition that maintains the rule of the Party, along with control of the Military,
the Judiciary, the Church, and the Legislature. Revolution of the US structure of governance by the Oligarchy is a done deal, starting with the Supreme court’s ridiculous
ruling that ‘money is free speech.”
What happens if Trump wins?
Putin made a settlement-negotiation offer ahead of the West’s “Peace Conference” that has outlines of an outcome that Trump could use to claim a personal victory in a “negotiation.”
Putin’s outline left a diminished Ukraine intact. It left most of the highly productive agricultural land within the smaller Ukraine. Wouldn’t that leave a viable agricultural economy in place?
That broad outline would spare Russia from occupying the parts of Ukraine where the population is not pro-Russia. With a viable farm economy, that smaller Ukraine may have sufficient incentive to manage well its part of the Dnieper’s watershed.
It would spare Russia the expense of rebuilding that part of Ukraine.
Further, it would make a lie out of Western warmongers’ claim that Russia wants to conquer more of Europe. Russia already would have stopped its expansion far short of Poland’s border.
NC’s commenters appear to agree that Russia will dictate the terms of the settlement. By the time a Trump administration will be in place to participate in negotiations, it appears very likely Russia may be in control, one way or another, over a lot, or all, of the territory west of the Dnieper. The west has captured-territory on its brain. Putin could “allow” Trump to “negotiate” much of that captured territory back from the Russians. That would give Trump the PR win he needs and relieve Russia of a big expensive difficult occupation.
We expect Putin still will want to reclaim Odessa to gain military control of the Black Sea coast down to the Danube. Odessa would become part of Russia. A negotiation could guarantee shipping-access rights through Odessa to the diminished Ukraine to support its agricultural economy.
Putin’s proposal indicated that the negotiations he proposed ultimately would satisfy all of Russia’s requirements.
No, Putin has made clear that offer was then. This is now. Trump’s election will be later. That offer will be off the table by then.
It is off the table even as of now. The acceptable solution to Russia changes as it expends more Russia lives and further weakens Ukraine. I heard Scott Ritter on his latest show with Garland Nixon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxQQP_jCSRs) say that Lavrov in his remarks at the UN last week put Kharkiv and Odessa on the menu as territories Russia will deem necessary to control, that any place where Ukraine has attacked ethnic Russians will need to be secured by Russia.
Putin said very early on that the longer it took for the West to talk to him, “the more difficult it will be to negotiate with us.”
I couldn’t agree more. That was “then.” By the time Trump could be in a position to negotiate on behalf of the US, it will be even much later than “now.”
Of course, the acceptable-to-Russia solution will be different later. That’s why I used the term “outlines.” Thank you for the link to Ritter. My suggestion is consistent with the points he made. E.g.,I assumed the lines to be drawn later would include Kharkov inside Russia as I assumed Odessa would be too.
The LOGIC of the proposal Putin made back then still may apply later. There is a logical advantage for Russia to avoid incorporating territory into Russia that contains mostly people who hate Russia. There is a logical advantage to avoid the expense of having to rebuild in those areas. There is a logical advantage to leaving a viable economy intact. There is a logical advantage to drawing the lines well short of Poland’s border. There is a logical advantage to give incentives to maintain the Dnieper’s watershed.
Ritter made the point that Trump would need to be able to claim victory. I suggested that Russia capture large swaths of territory west of the Dnieper that they intend to relinquish in negotiations. Regaining a lost country with a viable economy and drawing the borders well west of Poland, probably including Kiev, easily could be spun as a “victory” that Trump could claim.
I’m just trying to point to the logic of the offer Putin tabled. It still may be attractive logic for Russia six months from now.
Putin actually demanded more territory than Russia now occupies, so his position could be seen as a justification for taking more than he has (the actual reason is that Russia already incorporated that territory, occupied or not, into Russia and Putin could not trade that away even if he wanted to). And I explained long-form why Western hostility and the Dnieper River dictate that Russia will in the end have to take most of Ukraine. See https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/07/what-would-a-russian-victory-in-ukraine-look-like.html for details.
I must say that Yves has a most comprehensive grasp of the Ukraine situation. Contained within the article and subsequent further explanations to commenters, I see traces of every little tidbit I have come across myself. And half of it forgotten until my memory was prodded.
I see the neocons were desperate enough to dredge up Boris de Pfeffel Johnson from whatever depths of debauchery he is currently inhabiting, and fly him to the US and the RNC to gladhand Trump, and to get his endorsement on continuing the war in Ukraine. Johnson has his thumb up standing alongside the bandaged Trump, and DJT gives a half-hearted thumb up in response. All reported in the British press, many images. Shades of sending Boris to stiffen Zelensky’s resolve in May/22. It worked once, maybe it;ll work again, the neocons hope. Boris is washed up in the UK, a venal liar. Who knows what Trump thinks of the man, if anything at all.
Vance is a typical American showman to me — he’ll sell to the highest bidder or failing that, VP will do for now. A Politico Magazine article from ’22 debunks the Appalachian scenario he depicts in his book, by interviewing a local historian, and being uncoloured by recent events and rah-rah, so seems quite believable;
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/jd-vance-book-dangerous-00030374
Just reading this now with my morning coffee. Thanks for posting. Fascinating, and it has the ring of truth. Quoting from the article:
“And it seems to me that he’s willing to do whatever it takes to rise. And I can think of nothing more dangerous in a politician than that.”
I had never heard of Vance until Trump picked him as a VP.
Interesting article. I think a compelling story can make for a compelling book that sells briskly across the US, and possibly the world. Proves my personal view though of many national level politicians; they are achievers and the front row kids from school, so to speak. Or they aspiring to be thought of this way by their peer group of fellow party members.
In his better or perhaps leaner days,a Stephen Colbert could take such a story and spin a funny anecdote or feature on his previous Comedy show. People can sell out their souls and their convictions, no matter the side of the political spectrum.
And to add I have not read the book. I started the Netflix movie but had to pause watching, as the portrayal of his mother was far too dynamic to believe what I was watching. Maybe much of the film was factual, I don’t know for certain. I grew up in rural eastern North Carolina, largely farms and small factories, maybe 400 or so miles from the mountains of Western NC or the Great Smoky Mountains. However, the very idea of leaving or finding an escape path from meager or small town surroundings is legitimate, real and powerful for many. Small town defined, in my opinion, is a headcount of less than say, 20,000 people in a town or the full county. I’d throw a company town into that category also, like so many steel mill towns by example ( or coal mining ).
I think Ukraine grift is in its last legs. It doesn’t matter who wins,it’s time to slowly shut shop and move on to next one. Winter would provide ideal time to work out a settlement in pretext of saving Ukrainian folks from freezing over. Also crazy US election provide perfect opportunity to memory hole Ukraine grift
Viktor Orban gave an interesting interview to Welt Documentary. In it he touched the third rail of US-EU foreign policy. Among others, Chomsky has often written that a fundamental piece of US policy has been to prevent European independence. And US-NATO cements Europe’s dependence. Orban calls for nothing less than an “autonomous sovereign foreign policy” for Europe.
More importantly, he warns that if the Ukraine war continues he said, “For what is ahead of us is far worse than we think now.” And he is determined to start peace talks.
He had no comment about the US presidential election except to say, “A change would be good for the world.”
As a Russian speaker he has insight into Putin, as well as Central and Eastern Europe politics versus West Europe and the US.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DaVBp3IUO0&t=1916s&pp=ygUKV2VsdCBvcmJhbg==#dialog
The proxy war is lost it has nothing to do with Trump he will not change the outcome!
I don’t think US or particularly EU leaders could end this war if they wanted to. It’s clear the Russians won’t trust them to negotiate, they will not be able to find internal consensus either, and finally I don’t just think it is Zelensky who needs to worry about retaliation from Azov ultras (see Slovakian PM Fico, and to a lesser extreme Orban in Hungary).
This war has opened an artery for the US and especially the EU, and the Russians know it. I no longer think they believe it is in their interests to end it either. Every day this goes on, the west loses more men, more shells, more credibility, and experiences more internal foment. Until leaders emerge who can get their economies and foreign policies in order (looking increasingly unlikely west-wide), it is now in Russia’s interest to keep Nato in the jaws of the Ukraine vice. Yes it costs them lives, but their national calculus also includes the lives that might well be lost if the west is allowed time to rest, regroup, and re-arm.
I believe we will be facing something as long and drawn as the Iran-Iraq war. Trump’s first major foreign policy failure is likely to be an sincere but starkly failed attempt(“deal”) to end the Ukraine war. At that point I expect the EU leaders to fall into understated orders of panic and internal turmoil with pro and anti war factions desperately fighting over the steering wheels. No matter, they’ve bolted the accelerator pedals down.
Missing from this discussion is Israel. Israel needs the US to focus solely on its problems in the Middle East. Wasn’t much of a problem in the past but now Ukraine is sucking in all of US’ spare military inventory and cupboards are becoming bare. And Israel’s Middle East adversaries are getting stronger not weaker. It’s in Israel’s existential interest for Trump to throw Ukraine under the bus. This is likely why Nuland had to set aside – there’s a pecking order and Israel is always on top.
Not as much will change as some Western commentators seem to think. The war is being lost by Ukraine and the Western masters. Whether or not Trump wins, the war is still going to conclude on Russia’s terms.
Putin is under considerable domestic pressure within the Russia to take a harder line. There is an opposition to Putin, although not quite the sort the West wants. It’s the type of opposition that feels that Putin has been far too soft on the West. He may have to give into at least some domestic pressure, although Putin remains a very popular politician in Russia.
European nations being unhappy is simply irrelevant. They aren’t the dominant player here. The Russians are the dominant player. They can be mad all they want. They can’t do anything to change the situation. Even the US can’t really change the situation. It will be extremely hard for the West to come to terms with that decline.
The bottom line is that the war will end up Russia’s terms. Whether or not Trump is elected is not really as decisive as one might think. The industrial base doesn’t exist in the West to take on Russia, nor does Ukraine have the necessary manpower to take on Russia – indeed it is heading towards demographic collapse.
The West will no doubt try to try and regime change whatever takes over rump Ukraine. It will not work the way they hope – the West’s attempts to do so after the Chechen Wars was a total failure because the Russians did a great job of rebuilding Chechnya. The difference is that the Russians improved the standard of living – it’s also why the US couldn’t win the War on Terror – it never rebuilt Iraq nor Afghanistan.
The US is simply not capable of solving these problems because the elite are not capable of self-reflection. They have never admitted how badly the past few decades of foreign policy have badly messed up. The irony of this is that they have accelerated the decline of the US hegemony, something they started this war to try to preserve.