In the old days of the econoblogosphere, there were regular and often intense exchanges about what the decent-sized community of finance practitioners, economists, journalists, and other experts trying to understand what was going on, since alarmingly top officials were clearly way behind the curve. That included occasional critiques of posts by individuals we more often cited, which in my case included Paul Krugman (back in the days when he was sane), Felix Salmon, and Steve Waldman. But that does not seem to happen much if at all in this era of podcasts, YouTubing, and Substackers. So I trust this post on why there will not be a negotiated settlement with in Ukraine will be taken in that spirit, that highlighting points of disagreement is essential in coming to better approximations of reality.
The very short version of the argument is that top Russian officials, most visibly Putin, have taken to regularly and in very long form describing the US and Western record of duplicity, not just with Ukraine but on other fronts. This line of commentary has only become more pointed and the bill of particulars of Western treachery, longer.
This means the Russians are clearly, repeatedly, and consistently saying any agreement with the West would be worthless. The obvious implication isn’t simply that there would be nothing to gain in signing one, but that it would be self-destructive to do so, since it would give Russia a false sense of security that the West would exploit, as it has again and again and again.
In other words, all of the focus on the content of a potential agreement misses the elephant in the room: the content is almost irrelevant. Russians cannot get to a process by which the perfidious West can be made trustworthy.
The second impediment to a deal is political time versus military time. We saw a version of this phenomenon in the financial crisis.1 Here, Trump flailing about to try to find leverage over Russia, when there is none to be had, means that he looks to be falling into the trap Steve Bannon and many others have warned about, of coming to own the Ukraine war, as opposed to dumping the mess on the Europeans.2
Finally, to address briefly the provocative headline point, your truly is NOT saying that a Ukraine government in exile (which would mainly be a Western-face-saving device) is a likely outcome. But despite Zelensky being on the ropes, the fact that he is still in office and has eviscerated domestic opposition means that he has considerable, and generally underestimated, survival skills.3 His green T-shirt act is protective coloring.
The EU is in a panic about what to do about Trump attempting to pull the rug out from under them, from demands for sudden and large increases in military funding to tariff threats to the insistence that the US will seize Greenland from Denmark, which amount to a declaration of war. Having the ferociously anti-Russia UK host a Ukraine government in exile is at best a high-profile poke in the eye, but the non-US NATO members are likely very keen to preserve a fig leaf of agency. And recall MI-6 is widely believed to be a moving force behind some of the high profile Ukraine terrorism stunts, such as the Kerch bridge truck bombing.
So in a more ambitious “government in exile” scenario, the UK (and EU) could try (stress “try”) to mount a campaign of terrorism in Russia. Such a move, were it to occur, would be exceptionally unlikely to move any needles, but the Western press would be sure to pretend otherwise.
Russia Officials Have Been Saying More and More Pointedly That the West Cannot Be Trusted…So Why Exactly Should They Bother With Negotiations?
Early in the Ukraine conflict, much of the commentary focused on battlefield action. As the Russians now obviously have the advantage, as the Western press has finally had to concede, the line-of-contact updates perversely seem to be of less interest, and so many have turned to the Trump promise to end the war, which has become a bit of an exercise in Trumpology, as in very high noise to signal.
Many of these discussions turn to the content of what a theoretical agreement could look like in light of the repeated Trump statements that he wants to end the conflict.
The wee problem with this formulation is that Trump wants not just to end the war but to be seen as ending the war. He has resorted to grasping at straws4 to pretend that he is the Big Man driving events. Sadly, this is the Trump-personalized version of the Biden fantasy:
We’re the most powerful nation in the history of the world. We can take care of Israel and Ukraine and still maintain our overall international defense. pic.twitter.com/j3ajSs5sG8
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 16, 2023
So we have Trump trying to pretend he has leverage over Russia, threatening to continue the war with his new pet idea of mortgaging Ukraine assets, including ones it no longer controls and ones it is set to lose control of soon, and yet more Russia sanctions.
The fact that Trump has not yet set a date for a meeting with Putin or an official call,5 and is instead (somehow) going to use the Munich Security Conference for messaging is a further admission of weakness or at best, a gross misunderstanding of the Russian position. It also may be a concession to another complication, one that Alex Vershinin pointed out in a RUSI paper, that the war against Ukraine is a coalition war. That leads to the dynamic we’ve mentioned before: the need to negotiate within Team West to decide what to do next, including what positions to advance. So if the Vance presentation is to do anything other than convey some “don’t expect more US money or free weapons” tough love, it’s more proof that Team Trump is wrestling with the war tar baby.
Trump may really believe that Russia is taking big losses and that its economy is suffering, along with his self-discrediting patter about Ukraine having lots of “rare earth”. That would equate to time being on the Collective West side. But if he actually thought that, he would not keep bringing up Ukraine and trying to act as if he is Doing Something. He could afford to a make a Big Man statement to the effect of “Russia needs to come to its senses, we can’t make them do that, Putin needs to call us” and hang back.
But let us not get caught in the trap of thinking overmuch about the Western side. To make the Russian long story very short, Putin has been admittedly playing a bit of three-card monte, which is not his normal style, in repeatedly, even floridly saying that Russia is open to negotiations. But for instance, in his massive end of year press conference, he stated that he was willing to talk without preconditions, and then immediately walked that back by reiterating what amounted to preconditions. My best guess that this is posturing for the benefit of Russia’s big economic allies. Fortunately, the US and NATO have been so unreasonable that the bar for Russia to look accommodating has been set very low.
After that, Putin ruffled some feathers in the Western media in the first in series of recent interviews with Pavel Zarubin. In the late January talk, Putin reiterated his earlier remarks that a Zelensky-imposed October 2022 ban against negotiations with Russia would need to be removed for anything to move forward. But since Zelensky was no longer the legitimate leader of Ukraine, per the Russian reading of the Ukraine constitution, he could not take this step. There was some upset that Putin was saying he could not negotiate with Zelensky. But Putin has been saying that for months, that Zelensky would need to hold a vote and be re-elected before anything he did in an official capacity could be seen as binding. As far as I could tell, the only change in Putin’s stance was making explicit what was clearly implied in longer, earlier recitations, and showing some exasperation in doing so.
The focus on this particular element of Putin’s ongoing discussions is that the Western press has chosen to ignore what comes close to Putin filibustering over time on the depth and extent of US/NATO dishonesty. He admittedly does regularly add new bits of evidence to his long-running indictment. It’s hard to think Putin is doing this for the benefit of a domestic audience. Again presumably it’s primarily aimed at Russia’s allies, nearly all of whom are still trying to stay on good terms with the US. But Putin has become more hard-edged in his critique and his stance as Russia’s battlefield position continues to improve, yet the West has yet to come to grips with that.6
For one-stop shopping on the depth of Russia’s fully-earned distrust, please read Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at an embassy roundtable discussion, The Ukraine crisis: Failed cancel culture, Moscow, February 5, 2025. Here, Lavrov extends the idea of “cancel culture,” as in attempting to extinguish the Russian state and Russian identity, to the broader notion that that the US has embarked on tearing down any pretense of hewing to laws or its own agreements. His very long bill of particulars includes how the US has suborned the UN to do its bidding, for instance, by refusing to take any bare minimum steps sought by Russia to get to the bottom of the Bucha massacre, which was one of the pretenses for breaking off the Istanbul negotiations.
A key paragraph:
But this is already a broader topic – the architecture of world order, the fate of the globalisation system which the United States built, only to then cancel it once they realised it no longer served their interests. It benefits those who agreed to work within the rules of this system – free competition, respect for property, presumption of innocence, among many others. All that was propagated has now been cancelled, because it does not serve the interests of the United States. What serves its interests today are ultimatums. We will see how this unfolds. As yet, we have not had the opportunity to observe the actions of the new American administration in practical terms.
Consider the statement by Iran’s supreme leader two days after Lavrov’s recitation. Per France24:
“You should not negotiate with such a government, it is unwise, it is not intelligent, it is not honourable to negotiate,” Khamenei said during a meeting with army commanders.
The United States had previously “ruined, violated, and tore up” a 2015 nuclear deal, he said, adding that “the same person who is in power now tore up the treaty”.
On Wednesday, Trump suggested striking a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran, adding in his social media post that Tehran “cannot have a Nuclear Weapon”.
Some commentators have argued that this means that Khamenei might consider a multi-party negotiation. I find that to be an exceedingly strained reading. Khamenei has stated that the US is fundamentally untrustworthy. The JCPOA had been a multiparty deal, ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and the EU. So Iran should repeat the same failed experiment and expect a different outcome?
Khamenei in fact is saying out loud what is implicit in the extended Russian critique of US conduct. Again, Russia may feel compelled out of its desire to model best practices in the emerging multipolar world, as well as to get communications with the US out of the deep freeze (there are issues other that Ukraine, after all) so as to indulge US approaches. But official interactions, even on a contested topic, and negotiations are not the same.
I once attempted to come to an agreement with a party I did not trust. The result was a very long contract draft that would have adequately protected my interests that they rejected and took umbrage at the message it conveyed, that I thought I needed very strong legal protection.
Here, even if the US were to get past the “How do we get a government in place in Ukraine that can credibly enter into agreements?” problem, there is the matter of how the US can be trusted at all. Look at how Trump violated free trade agreements with Mexico and Canada with his 25% tariffs executive order (which remember is still in effect but has merely been paused) or his WTO-violating latest round of tariffs on China? Vance just said the Trump government might defy court orders on DOGE. This is an openly lawless US regime.
So the only thing that could conceivably succeed with Ukraine, short of Russia in the end taking the entire territory or installing a captive regime with some autonomy in whatever it decides will be rump Ukraine, would be for the agreement to include hard limits on the type and number of weapons Ukraine could possess, with Russia having what would amount to strong audit rights. That sort of scheme was part of the Istanbul deal. Recall Victoria Nuland complained about a long annex listing weapons types and proposed ceilings as being an outrage. At the point when the negotiations were scuppered, there was allegedly a big gap between the Ukraine and Russian levels.
But even in an alternative universe where talks actually got that far (as opposed to limits being imposed on a captive rump Ukraine), what about enforcement? What would happen if Russian ISR determined Ukraine was cheating? Would Russia be allowed to march in and destroy the verboten materiel? Who could be a sufficiently independent guarantor who could do that? The US would never tolerate China in that role. Would India or Turkiye be willing to stand up and take on that potentially dangerous position?
Ukraine’s Ever-Shortening Military Time Versus Political Time
Most readers know that experts and insiders have been predicting Ukraine’s imminent demise for some time, but the very tough Ukrainians have kept defying expectations. Nevertheless, that over-predicted end game seems to be coming in sight. The Pentagon had opined a few months back that Ukraine would run out of manpower in six months, ex a mobilization of younger men. In late January, Ukrainska Pravda reported in a leak on a closed-door meeting with the Rada, that military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, predicted “If there are no serious negotiations by the summer, then very dangerous processes for the very existence of Ukraine may begin.” Denials were slow in coming and inconsistent, suggesting Budanov himself was the leaker.
Mark Sleboda, who has been the most accurate forecaster of the trajectory of the war, had said the Russian general staff estimated that Ukraine could raise another 100,000 men for each year it dropped the mobilization age. However, yield on conscription has been plummeting. Even so, Ukraine could conceivably field another 200,000 men. That might enable Ukraine to hold out until next winter, ex Russia deciding to drop the hammer by destroying more power generation capacity.
Admittedly, Vance, who has been very opposed to the war in Ukraine, might put the US on record as committed to an exit. That would end any pretense at bargaining leverage with Russia. But recall how diehard neocon Mark Rubio is now giving at least lip service to multipolarity. Vance may be pressed by Trump to alter his position on Ukraine. Or he may be going mainly to tell the Europeans to cough up more dough for NATO, and keep his cards to his chest about Ukraine plans. Or perhaps he will tell Zelensky privately he need to go.7 We’ll see soon enough.
The question of whether Ukraine will muster yet one more army by dropping its mobilization age to 21 or 18 and the West will scrape together enough arms to keep Ukraine on the military version of life support is still in play. Zelensky appears to be holding out for a credible arms commitment before sending younger men to slaughter. Appallingly, Trump seems to be playing along with his “weapons for Ukraine minerals” scheme.
But thinking that Ukraine can hold out as long as early 2026 seems charitable. And given the Trump team’s apparent complete misreading of Russia’s cards, they seem vanishingly unlikely to believe how Russia can and will simply proceed to roll over Ukraine and not even break all that much of a sweat in the process. And that’s before Trump’s outsized ego getting in the way. I don’t think he is constitutionally able to deal with Putin from a position of real weakness, which will result in further delay in setting up a meeting, and that eventual session resulting in Putin and Trump talking past each other.
Alexander Mercouris has held out the idea that the US could offer Russia a new European security architecture. Again, I cannot fathom that happening. First, now that the US is clearly trying to reduce NATO funding and pull back to its Americas sphere of influence, it cannot deliver the Europeans. Second, Putin may have has a variant of his old not entirely unserious ask of Russia joining NATO. Again, with the US diminishing its position in NATO by planning to lower its contributions, I can’t imagine the US entertaining this idea, even before the rabid UK, Balts and Poland nixing it. The big reason for us to keep NATO as a viable force is to help with containing China. Of course, it might help if we weren’t so keen on speeding up European de-industralization via seeking their dependence on pricey US LNG.
To put it another way: it took a full 17 years from Putin’s 2008 Munich Security Conference speech, where he called for a multipolar world order, for the US to officially acknowledge, via Mark Rubio, that the US unipolar period was unnatural and had ended. It will likely take as long for Russia to get its new European security architecture. Putin is hardy enough that he may live to see it.
_____
1 There, financial time moved faster than political time. Those of us on duty then saw each of the four acute phases of the crisis met with measures that only stemmed immediate damage and did nothing to address the underlying issues (this pattern persisted with post-crisis “reforms” and the failure to prosecute any financial firm executives).
Even more alarming, there were obvious information gaps (like which specific major financial players were protection-writers of US subprime credit default swaps) where the authorities could have demanded and gotten answers to at least attempt to get in front of the situation.
sup>2 The failure do so may come from US reluctance to risk breaking NATO. That would mean no or limited EU support for the intended US escalation with China and losing arms sales to NATO members. Even if NATO states, due to their own budgetary and resulting political crises, can’t pay as much as Trump would like, odds favor they would in the end pony up more than now.
3 Exhibit 1 is his betrayal of the man who made him, Ihor Kholimoisky. Kholimoisky was the second richest man in Ukraine. It was Kholimoisky who elevated Zelensky to the Presidency of Ukraine. He owned 70& of the production studio that produced The Servant of the People, which portrayed Zelensky as an honest everyman elevated to the top office in Ukraine, and then backed the campaign that made that story real. Kholimoisky supported Zelensky to defeat then-president “chocolate king” Petro Poroshenko, who had nationalized Kholimoisky’s wobbly PrivatBank. Later criminal and civil cases accused the bank of money laundering and looting it via unsecured loans to shareholders. Despite being a leader in Ukraine’s Jewish community, yours truly has read several accounts depicting Kholimoisky as being entirely uninhibited about forming alliances with Banderite muscle to further his aims.
Kholimoisky’s position weakened in 2020 when the US has launched a criminal investigation. Wikipedia covers what happened then:
In 2020, he was indicted in the United States on charges related to large-scale bank fraud. In 2021, the U.S. banned Kolomoyskyi and his family from entering the country, accusing him of corruption and being a threat to the Ukrainian public’s faith in democratic institutions. Zelenskyy reportedly stripped Kolomoyskyi of his Ukrainian citizenship in 2022. Later that same year, those of Kolomoyskyi’s assets deemed to be of strategic value to the state in light of the Russian invasion were nationalised. These included Ukraine’s largest gasoline companies. In 2023, Kolomoyskyi was arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on charges of money laundering and fraud, and placed under pre-trial arrest.
The Wikipedia account has lots more gory detail.
4 Plastic, of course.
5 I do not believe that Trump was truthful when he told the New York Post that he and Putin have spoken about the Ukraine war. The Russians had flatly denied any communication between the men since the past Trump presidency. Eight days ago, Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen interviewed the Russian first deputy ambassador to the UN, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2FDlrEf9w, who specifically denied that there had been any meaningful contacts between the Trump Administration and the Russian government. On February 7, three days ago, Peskov effectively called US claims about communications with Russia lies, in admittedly a highly coded manner. Peskov’s point was that one-way communication is not remotely the sort of dialogue that the Trump Team weirdly keeps trying to pretend is happening. From Anadolu Agency:
Peskov responded to remarks made by US special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, at a news briefing in Moscow about a possible ceasefire ahead of peace talks, saying only a series of daily statements from Washington have been observed, many of which are later refuted.
“We have nothing to add on this topic yet. There are many statements and reports that are later denied, altered, or dismissed as misinformation. There is neither a need nor a desire to respond to every such claim. Until something substantive emerges, patience is required,” he said.
See the tale of two tweets on this topic:
Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone
– Trump said he has a concrete plan to end the war: “I hope it’s fast. Every day people are dying. This war is so bad in Ukraine. I want to end this damn thing”https://t.co/fWcQC3efcB pic.twitter.com/94Yj70Fy8K— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) February 9, 2025
Oddly, this important exclusive is not on the New York Post’s landing page.
Peskov's full comment to TASS on the publication about Putin's conversation with Trump.
Peskov said that he does not know whether Putin and Trump had a conversation or not. Putin's press secretary cannot not know about this. There is no point in hiding that there was a… pic.twitter.com/RearzfcxnY
— Victor vickop55 commentary (@vick55top) February 9, 2025
From the English version of the TASS account:
Responding to a question from TASS whether Putin and Trump had a telephone conversation after the inauguration of the American leader, the Kremlin official replied:
“What can be said about this news: as the administration in Washington unfolds its work, many different communications arise. These communications are conducted through different channels. And of course, amid the multiplicity of these communications, I personally may not know something, be unaware of something. Therefore, in this case, I can neither confirm nor deny it.”
Trump has expressed his desire and readiness to talk with Putin many times in recent weeks. However, no official reports of any contacts have been made. Putin’s last conversation with Trump, information about which is available on the Kremlin website, was dated July 23, 2020.
The head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Slutsky said that work on preparing such contacts “is at an advanced stage.”
Peskov later explained that Russia and the United States have not yet begun discussing a possible meeting between the Russian and American leaders.
On February 7, the Kremlin Spokesman said that the Kremlin would inform about the progress of organizing contacts as substantive information becomes available.
6 Even with more and more press accounts and officials admitting Ukraine is losing the war, even many of the accounts are in the “They have changed their minds, but not their hearts” phase, that they can’t cope with the notion that Russia therefore will win.
7 The US may think twice about deposing Zelensky. Now that Musk has destroyed the US regime change apparatus, any Ukraine elections would be a significantly uncontrolled event. For instance, if former military head Zaluzhny were to return from London, campaign and win, he as a hard core Banderite would be unacceptable to Russia (though it would be interesting to see what pretexts Russia would have to devise) and he might not be willing to revoke the decree that bars negotiations with Russia if Zelensky is in charge. Ukraine has often been a disobedient vassal and that might not change much with new leadership.
89 comments
Comments are closed.
Yves, thank for this superb piece that covers all the bases. You have managed to lay out the situation accurately without resorting to any partisan terminology or off-putting characterizations that would cause readers to immediately dismiss the information. I can send this out with the hope people will hear it. Lord knows they need to.
Well this is another fine mess that the US has gotten itself into. Nobody trusts them. Not their word, not written agreements, not international treaties with the stamp of the United Nations on it. How do you negotiate with someone that has no intention in keeping any agreements that you make with them? Might makes right sounds really great when you think that you are top dog but when you find that there are others that will not roll over for you, what then? For the Russian Federation, I suspect that they will simply create some truths on the ground that the west cannot deny. And if the west gets antsy and start setting up a terror campaign in Russia, well, two can play that game. But for Iran? What can the US/west offer Iran to reduce their nuclear activity? Anything that they offer like sanctions relief or new trade can be taken back overnight on some bogus justification like the last time. That is going to be a hard nut to crack. As the late Stephen Covey use to say, ‘You can’t talk your way out of a problem you behaved your way into!’
Back I’m 2007/8, the Obama campaign pushed the narrative that Clinton would be more of the same. The world didn’t trust Cheney and would prefer Obama over Clinton culminating in that Cairo speech.
The hole is considerable, and Team Blue is largely the old log cabin Republicans these days. They aren’t even capable of coming up with a strategy to even address the credibility gap.
Team blue is doing what it does best. Change nothing and wait for team red to screw up and revive its fortunes.
Trump seems more than willing to accommodate.
Putin has made a point of playing by the rules. There’s been lots of comments here that this a resume building exercise, improving Russia’s international standing. By this measure there will be “negotiations”, as that is the expected norm. I see no need for Russia to rush. The western position grows weaker by the day, this without even taking battlefield considerations. We are simply imploding, (I want to type “eating ourself”).
And then there’s this. This is an openly lawless US regime. This is a most important aspect. Surely we are not the only ones who have noticed. Above my pay grade to predict how this will feature in the unrolling of future events, but I’d wager isolationism is a possibility.
Putin faces diminishing returns on the strategy of playing “the adult in the room.”
If the only advantage is to get credibility and earn goodwill from China, India, and maybe another decent sized country or two, then there will come a point where it is just obvious that the West isn’t playing by the old rules anymore, and there is nothing to be gained from looking like an adult. I’d say that if we haven’t reached that point by now, China and India must be delusional.’
Trump’s ME ethnic cleansing plan should have been the last straw. China must understand that we’re in a brutal, Hobbesian world now where there are no more norms and he who wields the biggest stick wins.
Diminishing returns are a risk in all scenarios. A nuke will diminish your return right quick.
And what of nukes? The US may not be agreement capable, but we sure look like we are temper tantrum capable.
Most of the world would like to see the US undone and rendered less dangerous via a solo act of self destruction, and we seem to have the measure for it, what’s the hurry?
We will have come full circle when Russia sends NGO’s to the US for humanitarian relief.
I agree. IMO, the time has arrived or nearing for Russia to begin preparing to taking out any and all remaining electric generation as needed to bring the SMO to a conclusion which should include annexing Mykolaiv, Odessa, and Kharhiv oblasts. These additional Oblasts IMO are essential for long term military defense as they complete land continuity, and precisely because Russia can not trust the The West, and she knows that now. Yves’ article is spot on. I fully expect Mercouis to yet again site it as he has others in one of his daily videos. And YES regarding China. For she is NEXT@
‘cite’ not ‘site’.
Nothing changes the fact that time is on Russia’s side. The idea that Trump can find something to throw at Russia that the Biden bunch didn’t already exhaust is ridiculous on its face. Russia can stay on the side of international law and win outright. Dragging the war on just continues the demilitarization of NATO as stocks are depleted and production capacity evaporates.
Acts of genuine diplomacy would be a place to start, but here we come full circle.
Genuine diplomacy would be to recognise that after a number of invasions by Western powers over the course of a millenium, the Russians might have reasonable grounds for a buffer zone devoid of NATO presence, and that should start a couple hundred kilometers to the west of Russia’s western borders.
Ukie government in exile would be extraordinary cope. It would certainly indicate that the empty husk of what is left of the Great British bulldog just won’t let their anti-Russian grudge go.
Uh. Russia did break international law. That is one of the main reasons that they are making such a show of being willing to negotiate.
Russia is setting the narrative that they had no other choice and that if the other side (that is USA) is willing to solve this in any other way then war they’ll take it. China, India, and the Global South are not happy with Russia starting a war of aggression but they are taking Russias narrative over USAs “No talks, do what we say or else.” attitude.
That is why Russia needs to keep hammering on their willingness to negotiate even if everyone knows that, at least under Biden, the other side was not even willing to answer the phone if/when the Kremlin called. And that it starts to look like Trump took this tarbaby, instead of handing it over to Europe/Democrats, decreasing the chance of serious negotiations happening every day.
Frankly it is a win-win situation for Russia to keep talking about (and actually accepting) negotiations. They look reasonable, keep support of most of the world, and paint the West as a common street thug when the West refuses to even talk about negotiations. If negotiations are by some miracle successful (Russia has already indicated there will be no ceasefire due to past betrayals by the West) it’ll benefit Russia due to the removal of what just about everyone in Russia considered an existential threat and the ability to start scaling down war time spending that is distorting their economy.
‘Russia did break international law.’
Russia broke international law to put a stop to US nuclear missiles being stationed in the Ukraine only 6 minutes flight time to Moscow which Blinken confirmed to Lavrov was the US’s intention. And that means if any accident or incident happened, Moscow would have only 6 minutes to decide to launch a nuclear attack on the US and Europe before they lose their own nukes. Too bad if it was just a radar glitch which has happened in the past. That is scary that. If you think that is excessive, do you remember when the Russians put nuclear missiles in Cuba and the US almost went to WW3 because of them? Can you imagine what would happen if the Russians did that again?
Russia recognized DPR and LPR and responded to those nations’ request for help defending themselves and their population. The precedent was established in Yugoslavia.
Exactly. My reply to anyone who says “Russia broke international law” is to point to that.
Russia intervened to stop the murder of thousands of ethnic-Russian Ukrainian citizens in the Donbass and the ethnic cleansing of all things ethnically Russia in Ukraine as a whole.
That is actually upholding international law.
I point to the USA and its vassal (commonly known as the western world), that could not care less about the “international law” unless they use it as a tool against someone they don’t like (like those pesky Russians). They don’t even hide that their “international” war crime courts are created to punish Africans and Slavs, and other non-whites that stick out too much. God forbid their own laws being applied to themselves.
USians preaching about international law is like Jimmy Savile preaching about protecting children from sexual abuse. The ad nauseam repeating of same buzwords and talking points is nothing short of insulting (war of aggression, international law, freedom, democracy, dictatorship, etc). All the other countless wars that they fight all the time are not aggression but materialization of pacifism, not to mention that they are the ones that started this war too (and it was a very long term project that started with getting in bed with the original Nazis, in 1945). As some said, accuse the enemy of what you are doing, and a lie repeated enough times will become truth.
The problem with that is that Russia tried to push into Odessa and did a feint through Kiev/ Sumy oblast towards Kiev. Neither action is excusable as merely trying to protect those republics. Hence a war of aggression, a text book example of “War is the continuation of policy with other means”.
And that policy was to keep Ukraine out of NATO, the Ukrainian army small enough that it could neither be a threat or an obstacle (in case enforcement of agreements was needed), and then that Kiev would respect the rights ethnic Russian population of Ukraine. There was nothing about protecting that parcel of land compromising those two republics. Which is why DPR & LPR went ballistic once Russia showed that it had not problem giving up land claimed by them instead of protecting it and compelled Russia to annex them.
Further Yugoslavia did not set that precedent for the simple reason that the highest EU court does not have that ability, not even when it gave the OESC a fig leaf to cover their war of aggression. It is that no one dared to say anything about it since the USA backed that decision (more demanded then backed).
What is did do is paint the European NATO countries as a bunch of hypocrites.
And yes that makes for a whole bunch of war criminals that never got prosecuted for that.
They did not do that to stop those missiles, or rather the missile silos that could also launch nukes. That was merely a welcome side effect of the primary reason for the invasion: keeping Ukraine out of NATO.
And yes I do remember the Turkish missile crisis, where the Russians did not freak out, politely asked USA to remove the missiles (which had about 10 or 12 mins travel time to Moscow at that point), USA told Russia to piss off, Russia built functional silos on Cuban territory (those missiles were roughly as far from Washington as the USA missiles in Turkey were from Moscow) as a tit for tat, USA discovered that and went ballistic propaganda wise (since they thought would really look back if people at that point found out that it was merely a tit for tat retaliation by Russia) only to back down in the negotiations and remove those missiles in Turkey.
The really scary point was that it has been confirmed (after the fall of the USSR) that several silos in Cuba were active and due to decision lag people on the island had the ability to launch those with one of the launch red lines being the invasion of Cuba by the USA. A plan that was initially favored over talking to Russia.
To elaborate on Skip Intro’s refutation of your assertion: Russia did not break international law. It used PRECISELY the same mechanism the US used with Kosova:
This is 100% kosher.
Which is not what Russia did.
Seeing that you are going all lawyer on this that would have meant that Russian units could only have been sent into those republics by Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine proper instead of defending those republics. So even playing your word games by your rules Russia started a war of aggression.
Heck a while back I got harangued on this site for ignoring a beachhead that Russia had constructed on the west side of the Pripyat for their eventual assault on Kiev, as an opening move (in addition to dropping am airborne brigade on Antonov Airport next to Bucha) in this invasion.
We also know why Russia did this. There was a possibility that the USA would force through some form of NATO membership for Ukraine on the next quarterly NATO meeting. Or at least Russia considered that a real enough possibility that overwhelming Ukraine with a blitzkrieg was considered the only option to prevent that from happening.
And yes if that had happened then the next day the Azovs would have flooded those republics to ethnically cleanse them which NATO would run cover and the USA suppressed the reporting on that.
But lets call a spade a spade. This is a war of aggression, none of the countries supporting Russia are happy about it, they see the necessity of what Russia did. The moment that Russia stops mollifying those countries they’ll stop supporting Russia with China leading the pack, Russia does this by offering another option that’ll end the war. It is just that Russia can’t do anything about the other side rejecting the deal since Russia put in clauses that meant Russia could ensure compliance (Russia trusts the west about as much as you that one client where you got that you can’t wriggle out of this contract for) and then refused to talk unless Russia would commit to a total unconditional surrender first.
A few remarks on Art. 51. Criticism/support of RU´s invasion.
This is long since I use actual quotes as I have no expertise of my own.
Here the ICJ´s 2010 provisional opinion supportive of Kosovo´s declaration of independence:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/141
However I remember that everyone who was in favour of UN and intern. law condemned the decision. It was regarded as a victory for the rules-based order. Was it political? Yes. Corrupt? Most likely. Putin at least condemned the decision of Kosovo, for instance in a press conference 14/2/2008:
“We think that to support a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo is amoral and against the law. Territorial integrity is one of the fundamental principles of international law. The Security Council has issued Resolution 1244, which speaks of Serbia’s territorial integrity, and all UN members must respect this resolution.
I do not want to offend anyone, but all the same, if we really raise this issue, there has been a de facto independent Republic of Northern Cyprus for 40 years now. Why don’t you recognise it? Are you Europeans not ashamed to apply double standards in settling one and the same issue in different parts of the world? Here in this region we have Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Trans-Dniester that exist as independent states. We are always being told that Kosovo is a special case. This is all lies. There is nothing so special about Kosovo and everyone knows this full well. It is the exactly the same situation of an ethnic conflict, crimes committed on both sides and complete de facto independence. We need to decide on a common set of principles for resolving such issues. We are not driving the situation into a dead end. We are proposing to our partners that we draw up a common code of conduct on such matters. Why should we encourage separatism? There are people in Spain who do not want to live together in the same state, why not go and support them? Britain has been fighting for its territorial integrity for four hundred years now in Northern Ireland. Why are you not supporting the Irish?”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24835
This is from the 2009 RU statement for the ICJ:
“Russia is a vivid example of a country where diverse peoples and ethnie groups peacefully co-exist within a single united State. The Russian
Federation believes that the same principles may and should be applied (and
indeed are often applied) in other countries where various peoples or ethnie
communities live together. Russia has always addressed the Kosovo issue from that perspective, firmly believing that its approach is well-founded in the applicable principles and rules of international law”.
(pdf on the above ICJ link)
William Engdahl e.g. wrote in March 2008:
„The declaration of Kosovo independence has been rapidly greeted with official diplomatic recognition by Washington and select EU countries including Germany. That independence and its recognition, unfortunately, openly violate UN resolutions for Kosovo and make a farce of the entire UN rule of international law. The new regime is headed by man identified by Interpol as well as German BND intelligence reports as a criminal, a boss of Kosovo organized crime responsible for drug running, extortion and prostitution. The important question is why Washington has pressured Europe into accepting the travesty now called the Republic of Kosovo?“
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Kosovo/kosovo.html
The ICJ decision did not change the UN Charter. And unlike in Palestine rulings, the Charter has long been established as the framework of the highest legal order. And that is also the view of the BRICS.
What I never researched was the level of probable complicity of ICJ´s judges with NATO countries.
Intern. law, as I remember Sarah Leah Whitson (director of Palestine-NGO DAWN) stress, was established especially to protect the civilians. Only then the states. (Which of course addressed the paradoxical nature of the issue, nation vs. its citizens.)
Even Craig Murray exactly 1 year ago changed his position and since has more sympathy for the Russians´ conduct. But he still held up the Art. 51 argument.
“I apologise.
This does not mean that I was wrong to call the Russian invasion of the Ukrainian state illegal. I am afraid it was. You see, the law is the law. It has only a tenuous connection to either morality or justice. A thing can be justified and morally right, but still illegal.
The proof of this is that we have an entire legal structure governing transactions which is designed to achieve massive concentration of wealth. In consequence, the world is predicted to have its first trillionaires inside the next five years, while millions of children go hungry. That is plainly immoral. It is plainly unjust. But it is not only legal, it is the purpose of the system of law.
I am, however, content that the “Right to Protect” doctrine has not become accepted in international law, because it is in general application neo-imperialist. It was developed by the Blair government initially to justify NATO bombing of Serbia and the British re-occupation of Sierra Leone, and was used by Hillary Clinton to justify the destruction of Libya on the basis of lies about an imminent massacre in Benghazi. We should be wary of the doctrine.”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=Ukraine
A guy like Andrei Martyanov says loud and clear Russia invaded Ukraine.
I do not know however what he says on the Art. 51. question but I do believe he would say it´s meaningless because UN has become meaningless. But that is a political argument not a legal one. So: When is an invasion legal?
On the other hand:
In his conversation with Matt Kennard this January Jeffrey Sachs interestingly to the first question answered: “I don´t know if Russians broke intern. law.” Which I found a pretty big admission.
see min. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irpFD-uBfs4
Lavrov addressed the Kosovo issue in the Tucker Carlson interview – does a region within a nation have the right for itself to break away and thus declare the nation-state border legally null and void? 2008 Putin did not think so. Now Lavrov said yes.
https://tuckercarlson.com/lavrov
So RU now, when it suited them, accept a violation of inter. law which they intially had condemned.
Last point: What about the proof on those AFU forces about to attack in spring 2022?
As far as I remember there were various captured documents that would prove this.
And what about the intelligence Russian High Command certainly had which we have never been shown of course. They surely knew the AFU was about to attack. Now in a court it would be possible to present evidence for an imminent attack of the Ukrainian Army which then RU pre-empted. That if well grounded could counter Art. 51. to an extent. However the UN-SC would have never approved an attack like in the case of Afghanistan 2001 (which was illegal because the US never brought any evidence because there was none. So there it was the other way around. Approval without evidence.)
Add to this item Jacques Baud´s important remark on the Ukrainian decree from March 24th, 2021, signed by Zelensky, which demanded to re-conquer Crimea and the South of the country. Which was followed by UKR massing troops at the borders of Donbas.
TC 48:00-51:00
https://rumble.com/v5fjhrh-jacques-baud-nato-threatened-russia-decades-before-2022.html
The Ukrainian decree is here:
https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1172021-37533
Engl. excerpt
“1. To put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated March 11, 2021 “On the Strategy for the Deoccupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol”
Baud elaborates in his book “Operation Z”:
“Zelensky promulgates a decree to reconquer Crimea, which implies the
resumption in hand of Donbass. From that moment, he reinforced his military
presence in the south of the country and along the line of contact with the selfproclaimed republics of Donbass. Several Western intelligence services note the
signs of a Ukrainian offensive in the Donbass, in particular the deployment of
assault demining systems.”
And weighs in with this, probably contradicting Craig Murray:
“Let us remember here that it is not necessary to have read the Washington Treaty and its article 5 to come to military aid to a country under attack. Article 51 of the UN charter allows military intervention for the benefit of another country. It is this article that Vladimir Putin invoked on February 24, 2022. Westerners could have done the same, even invoked the “responsibility to protect” (R2P), but they did
not do so…”
As the status is now, among those Western lawyers who grant RU some legitimacy most argue that RU was merely speculating on an attack. RU would thus not meet the burden of proof.
However with documents this would be a different case supported by the Ukrainian decreee which in legal form had already announced what was most likely planned by AFU.
This might hold up stronger legally than the issue of regional sovereignty. Not least due to China being very much behind the binding authority of Art. 51 and the importance of national territorial integrity.
The UN charter is however not equipped to deal with proxy wars. It should be altered in that direction. The alteration of the Russian nuclear doctrine did just that. They introduced the possibility of a proxy and its master.
Of course none of this matters because the highest institution in the world, the UN Security Council is defunct and corrupt.
p.s.
2 legal pdfs with opposing views on Art. 51
by David C. Hendrickson, defending RU
May 17, 2022
Sovereignty’s Other Half: How International Law Bears on Ukraine
https://peacediplomacy.org/2022/05/17/sovereigntys-other-half-how-international-law-bears-on-ukraine/
“By choosing to view the Ukraine crisis solely through the lens of territorial integrity, Western policymakers systematically overlook one critical aspect of sovereignty. The principle of territorial integrity is only the external dimension of sovereignty—the more holistic concept. It is the application of international law to the external boundaries of states. But sovereignty also has an internal dimension: the right of a people to choose the sovereign whose authority they will abide by.”
by John Dugard, condemning RU
February 21, 2023
The choice before us: International law or a ‘rules-based international order’?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0
Yes, it’s a war of aggression. The General Assembly condemned it as such because it’s an important norm and weak countries don’t want to be invaded. Humanitarian intervention is also subject to abuse as in Yugoslavia, thogh self-determination remains a thorny issue. But both the Ukraine and Yugoslav conflicts could have been avoided through the Minsk and Lisbon agreements, respectively, and U.S. is responsible for not seeking resolution. War was foreseeable in Ukraine, Security Council endorsed Minsk, and U.S. instead engineered and facilitated conflict for geopolitical purposes. I think that failure, which I consider a breach of the spirit of the United Nations and arguably of the Budapest Memorandum and international law, to be more important than the truism that Russia breached Article 2.4. International lawyers in the U.S. argue against peace because it would ratify coercion, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-legal-framework-for-a-russia-ukraine-peace-agreement/ , but I think that is misguided.
Please correct me but none of the studies mentioned by Mr. Fox in the ejiltalk.org link seem to understand that this is a war not about the existence of Ukraine but for the survival of Russia and that Russia is conducting it in the according manner – no carpet bombing, accurate missile attacks, evacuations, pre-warning as with Oreshnik and so. NATO/US have never done anything comparable in any of their wars.
If Art. 51 conjunctions apply, they per reality apply to Russia, not Ukraine as former is the true target. Russia never intended to conquer lest destroy Ukraine. NATO on the other hand had no other goal regarding Russia. It´s why NATO was founded.
This total lack of geopolitical insight by the lawyers becomes evident as they seem not to take into account that what RU calls „SMO“ started for real with April 2022 – after Istanbul failed – for the very reason to prohibit from happening what the text correctly lays out:
„There is an alternative scenario. Ukraine might initially sign and ratify a peace treaty in order to buy time to revive and regroup its forces and rebuild infrastructure. If, later on, Russian control over the annexed territories appears tenuous and its resources for resupply limited, Ukraine might see a strategic opportunity to raise the coercion claim and void the treaty. Or there might be new leadership in Russia that reevaluates the strategic value of the territories, in which case it might not react with force if Ukraine denounced the treaty as void.“
Russia would never allow this. To even lay it out as a sensible option is nonsense. It is void of the necessary analysis into the war.
Legal concepts of compromise are only viable where there is the luxury of granting that a treaty or agreement may still be violated at some point. Current situation for Russia offers no such space.
This is a war of survival. To fail in its objective is regarded by Russia, rightly so, as a danger to its existence. Russia has therfore no luxury of failed agreements. And everything else derives from that. This is absolute.
May be re-framing the scale would help some of these lawyers: This war is not an isolated event. It is a continuation either of the Western invasion of 1919-1921 of Russia (my take) – or – as Andrei Martyanov argues – of 1945- (which I might partially disagree with. Since then the US could have done more radical things like coalescing with German Wehrmacht as Patton had suggested and started before he was called to order by Eisenhower and died in that car crash.)
So if the texts are focusing on Ukrainian territories they conduct a phantom discourse. This is as I have written before of high significance because it exemplifies why there is virtually no communication between NATO/West and RU.
The lawyers speak about how to sell apples, while the two parties in fact are in a fist fight because one is trying to burn down the apple farm.
Mr. Fox presents exclusively a Western perspective which I see as misrepresentation of what this is truly about. But this flaw it ontologic. It is inscribed into every discussion of any field that I find. Be it culture, or economics, military, diplomacy etc.
Nonetheless I will try to go back to it and look into the rich footnotes it provides. Painstaking it may be to read the ideological shaped statements which I probably disagree with. But then, I am no lawyer.
p.s. This is secondary to the issue but: Unfortunately such quotes which have become common place, and are utterly false, also have found their way into the study: „Implicit in Russia’s justifications for its invasion of Ukraine has been the erasure of Ukrainian national identity.“ This confirms my criticism. Considering that even John Mearsheimer is not doing much else but rejecting this claim 24/7 I am a bit surprised that this is repeated here.
Thanks for all the footwork. I think this goes to show that once countries try to legally justify war, whayever the morality of the exercise might be, it becomes complicated in not such helpful fashion.
You should have stopped at “Uh.”
I think most leaders and oligarchs know the US is, by international standards, a lawless regime–that’s been obvious for decades. But contrary to what one would expect this lawlessness and application of pure power has had the effect of bringing large parts of the world “to heel” so to speak. This was articulated in the 90s by neocons who took the idea of seeming unpredictable and “crazy” to be the way to work the neocon agenda of world conquest. This certainly worked with the Euro-zone in general and Germany in particular. The Germans proved they would willingly cut-off one of their fingers or even a hand or two if that pleased their unpredictable and cruel masters in Washington. Europe seems to get-off on being dominated which showed me the degeneracy not only of their leadership but their societies.
We are in a world that the ancients would recognize–force rules. So now we have to find how to balance power but, only force will determine that.
And Russia has the superior force in its sphere of influence, more nukes, more and more advanced missiles, more artillery shells, much better signal and GPS jamming, (including being able to jam Starlink), better air defense, and a much larger weapons making capability than the entire Collective West has.
So I do not understand your point. The lawlessness is an advantage only against insurgent armies that we’ve optimized ourselves to fight over the last 2+ decades, and not peer or near peer powers. The US + Israel can’t even subdue Iran, FFS.
I’m saying that we are beyond the post-WWII culture of international law and diplomacy. Only force, as applied not only through where you see Russia as more advanced, but also through covert ops where the US/UK/Israel shine more brightly. I’m saying quite simply that we are in a world where morality (once a real interest of the West) has some bearing. I’m saying that morality for the imperialists in the West has zero meaning in governing international relations at this time. Only the most ruthless and immoral people rise to the top in Washington and seemingly in Europe–the rest have to accommodate that reality. The power struggle in Washington may evolve US foreign policy back to at least being able to consider things like honor and morality as at least somewhat important. I think that can happen through the influence of the newer oligarchs in the USA.
Do you realize that what you have written is utterly nonsensical, despite containing some snippets of accurate information?
Insulting language is what you object to in our commentaries. Power is power and Washington is applying power in its interests. You can apply force to diminish our arguments but that’s all it is. What I’m saying is very simple. How about saying what is nonsensical cause I only hear an insult–it’s not correcting me in any way and I’m always interested in being corrected, honestly.
An accurate description is not an insult. If you aren’t able to read your own text and perceive what it says, versus what you think it says, I can’t help you.
My job is not to provide expository writing training any more than it is to do fact checking for readers.
I will point out also that US behavior in the ME has reinforced the notion that it is an unpredictable, agreement-incapable entity.
Faking ceasefires, negotiating in bad faith, and then Trumps absurd ethnic cleansing plan all undermine credibility and countries take notice. Turkey is another non-agreement-capable place, as Erdogan is a double-dealer.
It looks bleak as far as any chance of ending either the wars in the ME or Ukraine anytime soon.
Accusations of bad faith are a constant of the discourse between nations, and are often used for tactical effect and to garner international sympathy and a better negotiating position. It is likely that the Russians do genuinely feel misled by the US in certain cases (just as for that matter the West feels misled by Russia) but that this will not stop either party from negotiating if there is a deal to be done which will benefit them.
I think the reality is that, once it became clear that the war would be a long one, the Russians decided that negotiations were not the best immediate course of action, but rather they would follow the creation of facts on the ground from which the main lines of a written settlement would necessarily follow. For that reason, “we can’t trust the US” is a good delaying mechanism and sounds better than “we don’t feel like negotiating.” It’s a similar argument for Zelensky’s status: heads of state don’t normally take part in negotiations, and if the Russians want to be fussy, the Ukrainians can always send career diplomats to do the talking. In the past (eg in Chechnya) the Russians have been prepared to negotiate and sign agreements with all sorts of people. But again, it’s a useful delaying mechanism while facts are established on the ground, as well as being a useful way of driving wedges between the different factions in Kiev. And of course, graciously agreeing to negotiate with the current regime in Kiev can then be presented as a concession.
I’ve written a lot about this subject and I won’t repeat it all here, but I think there are two issues, both of which become easier for the Russians as time passes. One is negotiations about the surrender of Ukraine and how it will be handled, after Kiev accepts the non-negotiable conditions that Putin has set out. The other is much longer term and is about the future of European security, the place (if any) of the US in it, and the existence of stationed forces. Since the western position is becoming weaker all the time, this is also a case where the longer negotiations take to start, the better for Russia.
I don’t think the Russians want to see an end to NATO, because their main priority is to avoid instability on their western flanks, and NATO does at least help to guarantee that. By the same token, a weak and largely disarmed alliance that posed no realistic threat, but does manage to corral its members politically, would be a good outcome. Likewise, the West has had enough of Ukraine, and its leaders will very soon find themselves PNG, sitting in tax havens writing their memoirs. Then the blame game will begin.
‘It is likely that the Russians do genuinely feel misled by the US in certain cases’
I’m trying to think of an agreement that the US has kept with the Russians since the turn of the 21st century. Hmmm. I’ll have to get back to you on that one as nothing comes to mind. Maybe it all stated when the US/NATO assured the Russians that NATO would not creep one inch eastwards towards their borders. Then things really fell apart when Blinken told Lavrov that the US would be placing nukes in the Ukraine and the only thing up for discussion was how many. Hmpphh! Agreement-incapable indeed.
I’m trying to think of an agreement that the US has kept with anyone over the past 200 years.
The American Indians would like to have a word, as well.
I was going to comment as you noted to provide context; and it raises an important question: How did the US get a reputation as a responsible actor for much of the 20th century (the topic of Glenn Diesen’s recent book on Ukraine, Multipolarity versus Hegemony and the Peace of Westphalia, which I have not finished reading).
Clearly, the existence of European power centers (including USSR, post WW2) provided a balance of power (through shifting alliances) framework where extreme duplicity was counter-productive – in contrast to the colonial period with the global south.
The hope is that multipolarity, after the short period of US hegemony, will lead to a new balance of power, this time covering the entire globe—not just the Western powers. But, h/t to Gramsci, the interregnum is a time of monsters.
Have you actually read any of Putin’s speeches, or the latest Lavrov one I linked to? I don’t see how you can put these extraordinarily extensive and persistently repeated indictments of US/NATO dishonest in the ritual bad faith accusation category, much the less depict Russia of merely feeling misled.
The record is stone cold clear that we are top to bottom an untrustworthy actor. Any deal with us is not worth the paper it is printed on.
I have read many of the speeches: I can’t be sure I have read them all. But that’s what they are, speeches, not heartfelt declarations. The Russians have taken an extremely hard line on this issue because it’s tactically useful to them. But that wasn’t the point I was making; my point is that the Russians do not regard negotiations as a priority now, and they want to create facts on the ground which will effectively dictate the content and the result of negotiations, but more importantly, will remain irrespective of whether the eventual treaties fail at some point, which treaties often do.
I cannot believe what you are attempting to claim here. Putin has banged on about the many layers of Western deception regarding NATO and Ukraine at extreme length and with extreme persistence, even allowing for his memory and personal stamina. The Lavrov discussion linked to in the post is similarly extraordinarily long and detailed.
This is vastly in excess of what is necessary to ditch negotiations now. Merely pointing out Zelensky’s illegitimacy and the October 2022 decree against negotiating with Russia with Putin in charge would more than suffice if temporizing were the aim.
Russia is making clear it CANNOT negotiate with the US and NATO because agreements with them are meaningless. They do not honor them.
Why do you persist in denying this?
The record Putin and Lavrov present is overwhelming. What evidence do you have to contradict that?
Given that you are disabling comments (which I regret but I understand why) I will not attempt to argue the point any more, but simply say that in my view the Russians will continue to make military progress until such time as they have achieved all their objectives, after which the presence or absence of agreements are a secondary consideration, if that.
Don’t point to the change in comments policy as a cover for your inability to back up the false equivalency that Yves has correctly called you on. Slimy.
Were you hired to say sh!t like that?
-a.v.
No, just some pro bono gag reflex.
Why, do you think I can monetize this?
-a fellow a.v. :)
None of these conflicts between the Empire (or the West as you call it) and Russia/China/Iran or anyone else, have anything to do with negotiations of any kind. The Euro part of the Empire wants a firm hand in Washington to fulfill fifteen century hope for the re-establishment of the Roman Empire which, at this time, is centered in Washington. This is why the Europeans will hurt their own societies to please Washington. Trump has maybe upended that dream for Europe in fact but not in sentiment. They want the USA to make the world safe for “democracy” (only symbolically because Euro leaders only believe in a “democracy” they control absolutely)–a more accurate statement often made with the past administration called it “values” meaning radical materialism and moral nihilism.
Russia or China have little business negotiating with Washington Trump or no Trump. The world today only recognizes force and the world will be structured accordingly and since force is now centered in many different locations we will have multi-polarity.
@Chris Cosmos at 9:36 am
Euro leaders are harming their own societies because they have been put in place by the US to do its bidding. The embarrassing Euro opposition to the US attack on Iraq 20 years ago led to the decision in 2003 by the US to install Euro leaders who were more obedient. Lawrence Wilkerson who was running the State Department at the time discusses how the US decided to interfere “overtly and covertly” in European elections to produce more servile leaders on the Duran on August 6, 2024 (starting at 41:48).
It is also the case that the US pours enormous resources into grooming future European (and Canadian) leaders: scholarships, fellowships, all sorts of networking. My guess too is that potential leaders that might not be sufficiently obedient are offered plum jobs to go away. And we can only guess at what “covert” actions means.
“It is likely that the Russians do genuinely feel misled by the US in certain cases (just as for that matter the West feels misled by Russia)” ***** I think you are way Way overly generous to The West and equally dismissive of Russia’s case that The West can’t be trusted.
Given that Russia wanted to become part of the West, even saying it would be willing to join NATO, but was rebuffed; given the exploitation of Russia by Western vultures during its economic collapse; given Russia’s trustworthiness providing energy, in particular ot Germany, only to be repaid by the destruction of NordStream, the closing of Yamal, etc; given Russia’s allowing the US to use its airbases to get stuff to Afghanistan; and given the subsequent shabby behavior it received in return, it seems to me that Russia has demonstrated a will to bend over backwards to be have good relations with the West, only to be shunned. It would hardly be surprising if they’d had it.
Feelings…
Nothing more than feelings
Trying to forget my feelings of hate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnhoIf8dDVE
Likewise, the West has had enough of Ukraine
How does this square with Starmer and his hundred year partnership with Zelensky?
It fits perfectly with the whole collective schizophrenia, or mass hysteria, or whatever is the proper diagnosis of mass sociogenic illness the western world is experiencing.
FWIW Larry Johnson said about a week ago that he was working his contacts to attempt to message Trump with the truth about the state of the SMO. He said he had successfully reached Trump once during his first term but that didn’t mean he would succeed this time.
Thank you for this excellent piece.
I am not sure if the mechanism described with ironclad enforcement is the only way to have an agreement. It might be the only way for Russia to have confidence in its enforcement, but I am not certain Ukraine will be anxious to fight another war with Russia over the short term if this settles soon and many of its most militant nationalists are fertilizer in the Donbass. Georgia (or at least 55% of Georgians) seem to have gotten the memo and based on multiple data points Ukrainians are waking up to the fact that they are being used as cannon fodder. The USAid funding issue should be another clue for Ukrainians.
Also, even if there was an enforceable mechanism to monitor Ukraine’s compliance, Finland is being groomed for a war with Russia (based on comments on a Neutrality Studies video) and the Baltic presents numerous avenues for a false flag to continue hostilities or economic coercion against Russia regardless of Ukraine’s status.
I would also not ignore the impact of Russia’s inability to defend against drone attacks and the sinking of Russian ships outside of the Black Sea area such as off Gibraltar near Christmas Day 2024. Yesterday a Russian oil tanker was disabled, likely via sabotage in the engine room.
I don’t see RU negotiating with the West over UKR, but I can easily envision RU cutting a deal with UKR directly.
“But despite Zelensky being on the ropes, the fact that he is still in office and has eviscerated domestic opposition means that he has considerable, and generally underestimated, survival skills…” — This is spot-on. We should not exclude the non-zero possibility that Z, once he realizes that the collective West is about to throw him under the bus a la Diem, will cut a deal with RU and turn UKR into a softer cuddlier version of Belarus; de jure independent, but de facto under RU control.
It will be humiliating for the West to lose UKR, but it will be even more humiliating if Z–to whom it ascribed Churchillian levels of wartime bravery, even reviving Lend Lease in his honor–switches sides and joins Voldemort’s team. The wailing and gnashing of teeth will be epic. Putin might choke on his popcorn.
And for those who think this idea is nutty, consider that Chechnya fought a long and brutal war with Russia (including several horrendous terror acts in Moscow) and is now fully rebuilt and on-side. And Chechens are a totally different ethnicity, whereas most UKR citizens are basically indistinguishable from RU citizens (aside from a slight accent). And many of UKR’s most virulent anti-RU citizens are already either dead or living in the EU.
but I can easily envision RU cutting a deal with UKR directly. Me too, but I’m having a hard time seeing Z involved, and despite his to-date surprising political survival, make no bones, his career and office are as ephemeral as cat dreams.
Oh, it’s certainly a longshot; as I wrote, a non-zero possibility. But in a world where the USA’s president is openly advocating the annexation of Greenland and Gaza, and EU politicians are openly discussing hijacking the commercial ships of a nation with 5000+ nukes, anything is possible:
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-shadow-fleet-finnish-bay-snow-eagle-s-december-oil-baltic-sea-europe-waves-europe-kremlin/
RU agreeing with the West is impossible, UKR fighting for very much longer is also impossible, therefore we must consider the remaining possibilities, however improbable they may be.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” – Sherlock Homes”
That’s nicely put, thx
Mark Sleboda has a few helpful remarks on his lates interview.
TMI Show Ep 78: Putin and Trump’s Perfect Phone Call
13/2/25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3PzImOEIrA
I wrote down the relevant time codes. The 20 minute gap in between I skipped as I think it only is about the Middle East as I tried to focus on Ukraine/Russia-US.
TC: 15:00 Sleboda reminds that Rutte and Co. believe they will be at war with Russia in 5 years. So they plan on that and do not necessarily regard real peace as a necessity. RU of course knows this.
TC: 17:00 points out rare earths are not that rare. Problem is their varying degree of how messy the extraction is
TC: 18:50 Cheney´s concept of Iraq paying for its own reconstruction as model for Ukraine
TC: 19:00 contradiction between show hosts with Sleboda on how compromising RU is. They believe there is compromise. Sleboda says no. Except may be on Romania and Poland bases and current NATO borders.
TC: 20:30 Hegseth´s no-NATO suggestions etc. are miles away from the kind of substantial security guarantees which RU demands
TC: 21:50 Trump gone in 4 years. RU must plan for much much longer with whoever will follow and potentially change everything again.
TC: 27:50 Trump worse than Harris, i.e. this is a trap for RU
TC: 31:30 they agree that all parties want this to end but on their own terms
TC: 38:00 false flag in the Baltic Sea in preparation RU says to start war
TC: 39:40 – DISCUSSION ODDLY SHIFTS TO IRAN HERE. NO DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE WAR DUE TO BALTCIS ISSUE WHICH SLEBODA JUST BROUGHT UP
…….
TC: 54:00 again RU-US geopolitics
TC: 57:30 quoting John Mearsheimer who Sleboda is agreeing with on the question when there will be a European security architecture which EU, RU and US agree upon: “I don´t know.”
TC: 59:00 when will EU stop hating RU – “not for a generation” – which connects with above Rutte point
TC: 61:00 he regards AfD, Le Pen, Hungary, Slovakia etc. as a possible change re: hegemonic think but those parties will need time
TC: 62:30 Trump more in control than 4 years ago and in war with deep state and many cases will end up in the Supreme Court, BRICS sees this and will try to use it since Trump is rather inward looking than outward
TC: 66 min. hails Tulsi Gabbard
TC: 68:30 discussion over Gabbard for POTUS (Sleboda doubts it due to her switching factions)
I agree. This is a 30+ year war and will end only due to slow economic downfall by Europe. War on various levels of intensity.
As far as redderick goes in Germany e.g. I can only confirm. The entire establishment is out for arms increase, re-introducing conscription, close cooperation between academia and arms industry. I disagree with him in his optimism on AfD, Le Pen I can´t judge. AfD wants tanks not for Ukraine but for Germany. But tanks it would be. Turning the economy into a mini-MIC is the new paradigm.
Yup. This was (or should be) obvious a while ago. Medvedev used the term negotiation trap, and we see it being set up again. I hope the bear doesn’t step in it.
30+ year war, exactly. Those things can not end without some big rearrangements happening. How long will the transition take, and what lies on the other end, are anyone’s guess.
On thinking about what you said I think you may be on to something. The only reason there is a war in Ukraine is because of Washington’s insane desire to conquer and control the entire globe to spread its “values” of radical materialism and moral nihilism to the entire planet with the cheerleading of the EU and other allied powers. The stunningly corrupt Ukrainian ruling class is just following the money–they have been able to skim off billions (just as the MIC in the US does the same) on this scam. If a lot of people die the Ukraine oligarchs don’t care like the US neocons.
It would be logical, should Russia/China be able to offer ways of making money for the Ukraine political establishment, that they would embrace Russia and turn their back on NATO/EU. But I don’t think we are there yet. Europe has been highly vocal on giving Ukraine billions of Euros to keep the dream of Empire alive even if Washington is, temporarily, seemingly in the thrall of opponents of imperialism. I notice the controlled media in the Empire is talking a lot about Russia weakening–they have no problem just inventing facts and will continue. The Western imperial ruling class in Europe seems bent on creating an Orwellian culture in their realms.
That would be clever except:
1. Putin has said Zelensky is illegitimate. Think he can call and win an election to change that?
2. Zelensky has many Banderites around him. They have said they will kill him if he negotiates with Russia. Selling out to Russia would be an even graver offense. Remember, Russia has promised war crimes trials.
Wonderful and very cogent analysis of the Ukraine situation. I also see little possibility of “negotiations” between Moscow and Washington at the present time. First, there is an ongoing power-struggle in Washington that has not been resolved–the neocons and their gangster friends in the “intel community” still have considerable power and can and will sabotage any attempt by Trump to bring peace to any region of the world. These gangsters and their theoreticians only thrive on tension and war–and this is something the general public in the US is beginning, very slowly, to realize. Thus, any negotiation with Putin will be done with the US public in mind to pressure the neocons and their pals to begin to stand down. I think increasing numbers of US oligarchs will, eventually, be able to coax the Washington establishment in a more business positive direction and away from imperial wars which is what the Ukraine project is.
When the US finally decided to withdraw from Afghanistan (or rather accepted the defeat by the Taliban), there was european politicians arguing that the EU countries should have stayed. Of course, it was impossible, NATO, as the joke goes “Need Americans To Operate” (and I would argue it is so by design).
So when the US decide to cut of Ukraine, EU countries will follow. There might be huffing and puffing right now, but reality will set in and the only freedom left for EU leaders will be to make up their of argument for why they are doing what they are doing.
There’s a small (unreasonable) part of me that wonders if Russia does not actually prefer a good war to a bad peace, at this point. They cannot truly want to be at war permanently, but if “peace” simply means elision into a hybrid war wherein Russia lacks its current advantages over the West, then perhaps they prefer to continue until such time as they’ve accomplished their war fighting objectives–this, in the hopes that the future state of play in the West makes possible political outcomes that cannot yet be achieved, or even discerned.
Russians tried a “bad peace option” is Syria. The unreasonable thing would be expecting them to try it again.
Follow the money? There is no apparent process to wrap this conflict up. As far as who wants to keep fighting, it seems like every major player prefers to continue compared to plausible alternatives.
Instead of the dismal possibilities of rational negotiations, consider:
Who in the west has both the willingness and ability to fund this project? The US is tired of it. Europe isn’t especially able or willing to continue.
There is always a deal…although not necessarily a “good” deal. In this ‘post truth’ world, I cant think of any outcome that the US won’t call a victory. In externally funded wars, money is like air…cut it off and it will wind down. The paperwork will get done when someone gets around to it.
From another perspective, Trump has wanted to trim NATO funding for years, if not decades. The #1 cause of the war is NATO membership for Ukraine. Why would Trump expend any effort toward that end?
If you start with the current participants, current objectives, and traditional processes, it’s hopeless. Starting with the current political realities in the US and Europe, the only question is how the current Ukrainian government will lose.
BTW, OTT…thank you for stopping comments.
To speak briefly to the article’s title, a Ukrainian government in exile is quite plausible, especially as a coping mechanism for the UK and other deadenders (Poland and the tri-balts, for instance). It will likely follow the decay series of Guaido, Tikhanovskaya, and Zourabashvili, so probably a rather threadbare pretense.
As to the conflict, unless a miracle occurs, Volodymyr Z is unlikely to enjoy another Christmas as Emperor of Banderastan, though I believe it will be some combination of state and/or military collapse, not anything negotiated.
Interesting times, eh?
I hear Chrystia Freedland will be available soon. Canada is already home to a Banderite block that gets parliamentary plaudits real 40’s-vintage SS dudes.
On the topic of time scales, political vs military, there’s also economic/budget time. Whenever I read a news report about a europol or administrator talking about increasing defense spending to x% of GDP, I imagine Putin thinking the Russian version of “sounds good to me”.
Excellent article about a serious matter which the MSM cannot yet comprehend, and stimulating comments. I shall be sorry to see ’em go!
In my opinion Russia wants to negotiate, no way you go with this strategy against the west and think Ukraine will surrender unconditionally. Putin should be replaced he have put us all in danger by being this weak against west. When Democrats get back house , the war will escalate
I could not find any statement Lavrov made to be false in his historical review of facts. The Russians lost over 20M soldiers and civilians fighting Nazi Germany. HW Bush admitted that although we said not an inch eastward, we had no intention of honoring our word. Plus we gloated, not worth the paper it was not written upon. NATO was to be disbanded after WW2, mission accomplished. RT network was evidence that it was a venue in which American voices could be heard without censorship.
In America root causes to gun violence, poverty, homelessness, climate change, racial unrest, hate, white nationalism, white supremacy, income and taxation inequities is all lost in cancel culture. We have Hope and Prayers. The Lord saw fit to give us 2 hands and 2 cheeks.
“At the last round table, we talked about the need to look at the root causes of any conflict, as President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping called for as part of his global security initiative. It says that for any conflict to be resolved, it should be studied in the context of its root causes before practical steps can be developed to remove them. The root cause of this conflict is that the West has purposefully sought for years – not just sought, but made effective steps – to create direct military threats to the Russian Federation right on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, drawing the country into NATO.”
Sergey Lavrov
Excellent read from Yves!
Given that the current leadership in Ukraine has been installed, in part at least, by Kolomoisky and his criminal friends, with help from Banderites, IMO Russia is doing Western Europe a massive favour. There is a strong arguement to say that European security was never under threat from Russia. The real threat was a powerful well armed Ukraine that once it had finished slaughtering Russians to the east would, in a matter of time, have turned its attention to settle a few scores on its western boarders.
Europe is about to learn another (fortunately only economic this time) lesson from persistantly poor leadership.
Your opinion differs from Zhukov’s one, “we have liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it.” The current leadership in Ukraine has been installed by the West. Kolomoisky is a small fry in the grand scheme of things, and the Western Europe’s love for Russians have a long history. This year, Banderites will have 80th anniversary of working for the great US of A and the Western Europe.
Kudos on getting the plastic straws in!
As to Zaluzhny, the Russian Federation’s stated deNazification goal would be sufficient to bar him from elections if they are as most likely done under Russian supervision.
Not that this changes the game much, but both sides have now confirmed a telephone conversation between Putin and Trump has taken place.
Here is how the Russian media (e.g. RIA) is reporting the conversation (my emphasis added):
—–
…The conversation lasted for an hour and a half.
The two leaders discussed:
– The conflict in Ukraine.
Peskov quote – Trump spoke in favor of ceasing combat operations at the earliest opportunity and resolving the conflict via peaceful means. Putin, for his part, mentioned the necessity of removing the underlying causes of the conflict, and agreed with Trump that long-term resolution of the conflict may be achieved via peace negotiations.
– The situation in the Middle East.
– Iran’s nuclear program.
– Prisoner swap between the US and Russia.
– Bilateral economic relations between the US and Russia.
– Further contacts, including a face-to-face meeting.
Peskov quote – the President has invited Trump to visit Moscow.
—–
I’m sure today’s Vesti and Solov’ev Live will have more details. But it seems evident that Putin intends to keep talking – as I recall, more to mollify the Indians and the Brazilians than the Chinese – but not to compromise on any of his asks.
Separately, one part of the equation that Yves’ post does not really seem to address is Russia’s internal political picture, which I would argue is fairly complex. Not in terms of “political parties”, but, rather, the various key stakeholders and their respective interests, as well as public opinion as a whole. Both the military and big sections of the general public would react quite badly to a “Khasavyurt Part 2”, that’s a reference to an incredibly bad deal Yeltsin entered into to end the First Chechen War ahead of the 1996 elections. [And then spent 1997-1998 beating off a challenge by general Rokhlin, ultimately having him killed.] The officialdom appears split, but at least a fraction of it is still stuck in the old “neoliberal pro-western” frame of mind rather than the new “keynesian-nationalistic”. These are basically the people who speak with Anatol Lieven whenever he visits. And then there are the oligarchs, and who knows what they are thinking, but I stress that Putin’s literally very first public meeting after announcing the SMO was with the top 40-50 of them. So I suspect at least some are very much onboard, but how many exactly is hard to say.
I half-suspect that remaining “open to” negotiations, but in reality filibustering them a bit – either Trump gives me the sun and the moon, or I claim that the US is once again negotiating in bad faith, which it probably is – allows Putin not only to appease his BRICS partners, but to keep all of these factions more or less in line. [At least, as long as the military keeps on winning…] After all, he himself had been brought in to displace Yeltsin precisely because enough of the stakeholders said, the present government’s course isn’t working, and our survival is at stake (this was right after the Kosovo thing in 1999, which seems to have really shaken up the Russian elites of the day).
Insofar as anything Trump says, does or wants, to me the key giveaway that he and his boys do not understand what they are getting into is the assertion that after any ceasefire or peace agreement, the US will “rebuild the Ukraine’s military”. This is pure fantasy-land. Then again, were I an evil Dick Cheney clone pulling the strings behind US policy, this is precisely the kind of a poison pill I’d keep slipping into the negotiations to make sure they failed, so that the war would continue, figuratively, to the last Ukrainian, while I looked for a different avenue through which to pressure the Russians. Hell, pro-US regime change in Khazakhstan, especially if it led to a civil war type of scenario, would upset a whole truckload of apple carts for Russia, China and Iran…
To support your point (and I have a new post coming), I think an effect of Putin and other officials going on so relentlessly about US being exceedingly untrustworthy is to salt the earth in the Russian public mind about the desirability of any deal. Or to change metaphors, Putin and his team will have lashed themselves to the mast with respect to talks.
Zelensky getting roughed up by Bessant but standing pat, oh my. He does seem to be hanging on, even if by his fingernails. Too bad no one has yet set up a prediction market on how long Zelensky is in office….in Kiev, not in some foreign simulation.
You mean something like this?
https://polymarket.com/event/zelenskyy-out-as-ukraine-president-before-july
This short reader´s comment on Gordon Hahn´s page, from yesterday, Febr. 15th, 2025:
“Came back from Ukraine 5 days ago. My take: army crumbling, total war weariness in population. Trump is the coup de grace. Even Asov commander Berlitzki ready for peace. Russia could walk through soon but for one consideration: there’s still a fierce Ukrainian nationalism and I don´t see how Russia could occupy peacefully all of Ukraine. Especially as insurgents would be resupplied thru Poland. Only solution is some person with Nationalist credentials who reigns in the worst fanatics, softens the language laws and foreign policy wise follows Moscow’s line. Some sort of Ukrainian Petain. Seems to me that Salushny could fit the bill. No need for exile government. What do you think?”
https://gordonhahn.com/2025/02/13/ukraines-battlefront-collapse-zelenskiy-v-zaluzhniy-2-0-and-a-split-of-the-maidan-regime/
The commenter is this guy:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/02/links-2-8-2025.html#comment-4174544
Indeed, that´s why it was oddly familiar.
It would be desireable to hear commentaries by such visitors elaborating more on their experience.
Along such people as Russian reporters. Or non-indoctrinated Ukrainians who are independent from the West.
p.s. The insanity in Germany speaking out of such places as DER SPIEGEL, SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG or German SoD Boris Pisto”le”rius after Vance´s Munich speech is unabated whilst we are in the year #4 of this war now.
Russia. Is. Not. Going. Back.
Putin has expressed “disappointment” that the Minsk accords were a head-fake delaying tactic confirmed by Merkel. Russia will not make the same mistake again.
Note also that things aren’t going so well at home for Z – four attacks (of recruitment centers) in 5 days (via El País)
The US/EU may feel like they can keep stalling, but every moment they wait now also risks Z being coup’d or otherwise rendered powerless from within. Part of me wants to believe that there are secret communications between restive anti-Z elements in Ukraine and Russia. Oh to be a cleaning lady!
Since you mention Merkel & Minsk – allow me to quote parts from a brand new review of Merkel´s Memoirs in the LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS by none other than, ahem, hailed Christopher Clark:
A Degree of Light-Heartedness
by Christopher Clark
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n03/christopher-clark/a-degree-of-light-heartedness
“(…)
In the difficult years that followed the invasion, Merkel supported the sanctions regime imposed by the EU and the US but remained committed to the diplomatic process. Working through the ‘Normandy Format’, in which the leaders of France and Germany brokered compromises between Russia and Ukraine, she supported the quest for a regional settlement that would meet the needs of both parties. This was arduous work: at the Minsk meeting of 11 February 2015, the leaders and their delegations argued over the peace proposals for seventeen hours non-stop, while tall Belarusian women in waitress uniforms, all the same height and with the same upright posture, entered and exited the room at half-hourly intervals ‘moving in co-ordinated fashion’ and carrying trays bearing glasses of freshly brewed tea. ‘From the most acrimonious battles of words to resigned silence, we went through all imaginable mood fluctuations.’
The implementation of these deals was always patchy. Successive ceasefires were broken (mostly by the Russian-backed separatists)
(…)
At the Paris summit of 9 December 2019, the parties seemed close to a final agreement; on this occasion it was Zelensky who broke ranks. Protesters in Kyiv – supported by his predecessor, Poroshenko – were denouncing the agreement as a capitulation.
(…)
In one of the most fascinating passages of the memoirs, Merkel reflects on the impact of the Covid pandemic on the Minsk process.
(…)
For the first time, I got the feeling that Putin had lost interest in the Minsk agreement … While in Paris, [Zelensky] publicly invited Putin to a further meeting of the Normandy Four. There was no chance of this. Putin was already avoiding all contact due to his fear of Covid infection. Anyone who wanted to speak to him had to self-isolate first. That was not an option for us … Minsk was dead in the water: of that I was certain.
(…)”
This is it. Anything missing???
Apparently Mr. Clark settles on the rather original view that Covid offered Putin the perfect pretext to end Minsk and thus prepare to take over Ukraine. So it´s all due to a virus. How handy.
p.s. Clark also reproduced the lies over Putin´s dog, Merkel´s alleged fear and Putin ignoring latter. It is well known what a piece of garbage these memoirs are. But why on Earth is Clark paid to honour it with a high-profile review. Ok, last question is rhetorical.
But how are we supposed to believe any scholarship these propagandists publish? When is Clark telling the truth when is he not?
And finally: why do a PR piece on something that already is nothing but self-adulation.
As Clark´s finishing phrase on Merkel:
“Above all, they will remember a politician who showed the world how power can be wielded without vanity.”