#Zelenskyy NATO plan

[latestnews-now]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proposed a bold NATO-backed strategy to end the 'hot phase' of the war. In an interview with Sky News, he called for parts of Ukraine under Kyiv’s control to be placed under NATO’s protection, sparking global debate. Can this move bring peace or escalate tensions further? Watch now for a full breakdown of the story, including leadership changes in Ukraine’s military and updates on the conflict.

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

I posted recently about Vladimir Putin's claims to be studying a peace plan. In this post, I noted that the Ukrainian side had laid out its own four-point plan.

As I said last month, it is now likely that the war in Ukraine will end in stalemate or negotiation. According to the short summary above, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is likely to propose a ten-point peace plan at the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month.

In the plan, Zelenskyy is reported to demand Russian withdrawal from Ukraine and a release of all prisoners of war and deportees.

Ukrainian officials will also discuss the status of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.

I have already explained why Putin needs to be seen to be examining peace plan options; he needs to save face, as it is abundantly clear that Russia cannot win.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, it is possible that Ukrainian officials are once again discussing peace plans because:

The Ukrainian counteroffensive is visibly struggling

Because Russia pulled out of the Turkey-backed grain deal, Ukraine faces income shortages and neighbouring European countries such as Poland have placed bans on importing Ukrainian grain to avoid undercutting their own farmers

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant would be seriously endangered by fighting between Ukrainian and Russian soldiers

Some Western allies may struggle to continue providing weapons as their stockpiles are depleted, and at least one (Britain) has not committed itself to providing F16 planes

Ukraine cannot join NATO (or the EU) while in the middle of a war and facing severe economic damage

It is also worth noting that until the war ends, international prosecutors cannot initiate any war crimes investigations.

A negotiated settlement may therefore be unavoidable for Ukraine, especially if this war does not finish by the end of 2023.

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #22

June 7-14 2024

Vice-President Harris announced that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is moving to remove medical debt for people's credit score. This move will improve the credit rating of 15 million Americans. Millions of Americans struggling with debt from medical expenses can't get approved for a loan for a car, to start a small business or buy a home. The new rule will improve credit scores by an average of 20 points and lead to 22,000 additional mortgages being approved every year. This comes on top of efforts by the Biden Administration to buy up and forgive medical debt. Through money in the American Rescue Plan $7 billion dollars of medical debt will be forgiven by the end of 2026. To date state and local governments have used ARP funds to buy up and forgive the debt of 3 million Americans and counting.

The EPA, Department of Agriculture, and FDA announced a joint "National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics". The Strategy aimed to cut food waste by 50% by 2030. Currently 24% of municipal solid waste in landfills is food waste, and food waste accounts for 58% of methane emissions from landfills roughly the green house gas emissions of 60 coal-fired power plants every year. This connects to $200 million the EPA already has invested in recycling, the largest investment in recycling by the federal government in 30 years. The average American family loses $1,500 ever year in spoiled food, and the strategy through better labeling, packaging, and education hopes to save people money and reduce hunger as well as the environmental impact.

President Biden signed with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy a ten-year US-Ukraine Security Agreement. The Agreement is aimed at helping Ukraine win the war against Russia, as well as help Ukraine meet the standards it will have to be ready for EU and NATO memberships. President Biden also spearheaded efforts at the G7 meeting to secure $50 billion for Ukraine from the 7 top economic nations.

HHS announced $500 million for the development of new non-injection vaccines against Covid. The money is part of Project NextGen a $5 billion program to accelerate and streamline new Covid vaccines and treatments. The investment announced this week will support a clinical trial of 10,000 people testing a vaccine in pill form. It's also supporting two vaccines administered as nasal sprays that are in earlier stages of development. The government hopes that break throughs in non-needle based vaccines for Covid might be applied to other vaccinations thus making vaccines more widely available and more easily administered.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $404 million in additional humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and the region. This brings the total invested by the Biden administration in the Palestinians to $1.8 billion since taking office, over $600 million since the war started in October 2023. The money will focus on safe drinking water, health care, protection, education, shelter, and psychosocial support.

The Department of the Interior announced $142 million for drought resilience and boosting water supplies. The funding will provide about 40,000 acre-feet of annual recycled water, enough to support more than 160,000 people a year. It's funding water recycling programs in California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada and Texas. It's also supporting 4 water desalination projects in Southern California. Desalination is proving to be an important tool used by countries with limited freshwater.

President Biden took the lead at the G7 on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The PGI is a global program to connect the developing world to investment in its infrastructure from the G7 nations. So far the US has invested $40 billion into the program with a goal of $200 billion by 2027. The G7 overall plans on $600 billion by 2027. There has been heavy investment in the Lobito Corridor, an economic zone that runs from Angola, through the Democratic Republic of Congo, to Zambia, the PGI has helped connect the 3 nations by rail allowing land locked Zambia and largely landlocked DRC access Angolan ports. The PGI also is investing in a $900 million solar farm in Angola. The PGI got a $5 billion dollar investment from Microsoft aimed at expanding digital access in Kenya, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The PGI's bold vision is to connect Africa and the Indian Ocean region economically through rail and transportation link as well as boost greener economic growth in the developing world and bring developing nations on-line.

[mariacallous]

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy presented his Victory Plan at the Verkhovna Rada on October 16, stressing the end of the war depends on Ukraine’s partners and not on Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin.

The Victory Plan consists of 5 points and 3 secret subpoints.

"If the plan is supported, we can end the war no later than next year," Zelenskyy said. "If we and our partners don't strengthen now, Putin will significantly strengthen next year.”

The President emphasized that Moscow is not interested in peace.

"Russia isn’t seeking an honest peace. Putin only wants war. We must change the circumstances so the war ends regardless of what Putin wants," Zelenskyy said.

The key points from President Zelenskyy’s address are as follows:

Invitation of Ukraine to NATO: Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine's invitation to NATO would serve as a "proof of determination" and signal how NATO partners envision Ukraine’s role in the future "security architecture."

Strengthening Defense: This point includes operations in strategic locations to prevent the creation of buffer zones within Ukraine, enhanced anti-aircraft defenses, joint efforts with partners to shoot down Russian aircraft, expanding the use of Ukrainian drones and missiles, removing restrictions on the use of weapons, and providing access to partner intelligence.

Deterrence: Zelenskyy called for the deployment of a comprehensive non-nuclear deterrence package aimed at protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression and limiting Russia's capabilities.

Development of Strategic and Economic Potential: Zelenskyy also highlighted the need to strengthen Ukraine’s strategic and economic potential, as well as intensify sanctions against Russia.

Post-War Contribution to NATO: After the war, the Ukrainian military could apply its experience to bolster NATO and European defense efforts. The President also suggested that Ukrainian forces could eventually replace the U.S. contingent in certain areas.

According to Zelenskyy, the second, third, and fourth points have secret sub-points that are revealed to the US and certain EU countries, including Britain and Italy.

Zelenskyy had planned to unveil his Victory Plan to Ukraine's Western allies during the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting at Germany's Ramstein airbase on October 12. However, the gathering was canceled after US President Joe Biden postponed his overseas travel due to Hurricane Milton.

[tedcruzhasastupidface]

Philip Low is founder and CEO of Neurovigil, and has been a MIT research affiliate, an adjunct professor at Stanford, an oncology researcher at Harvard, and earned his PhD in computational neuroscience at USDC. He is also personally familiar with Elon Musk. These are his words, not mine. I'm going to share the thesis he published yesterday. It echoes the same themes I've been warning of, but paints a more precise picture of a defined plan. It's a heady read, so buckle up:

MY THESIS

1. The Panama Canal was just an excuse to invade Panama;

2. The tariffs were just a way to soften up Canada and Mexico before invading them both;

3. National Security was just an excuse to invade Greenland;

4. The Alien Enemies Act was just an excuse to detain Canadians and British citizens, including the tourists held in custody without due process, and have leverage over Canada and the UK before attacking Canada;

5. Grok was programmed to reveal very little about chatter regarding the invasion of Canada despite there actually being significant chatter about it on X;

6. The censorship on Social Media was to keep the People from being outraged, thus limiting their influence on Congress and making the tyranny of the executive possible. There was also specific censorship for people living in Canada to keep them in the dark before the attack on Canada which is the same reason they want to remove Canada from Five Eyes;

7. The attacks on universities and the free press were just a way to scare the public into silence and submission before calling for Martial Law and instituting a draft, which is also why senior commanders and JAGS were removed, in case Trump used the Insurrection Act against ordinary citizens. Waiving the Epstein files, having a copy of everyone’s tax returns, reminding current and former officials he could remove their security by doing that with a number of them, were ways to intimidate the “ruling class” and keep them quiet and pliable (incidentally, Putin used such techniques to initially scare rivals and detractors);

8. The President is deeply compromised. Trump does not work for the American people. He works for Elon Musk. That was also evident from the Tesla infomercial he did at the White House;

9. The Vice President who he met through Peter Thiel was chosen by Elon and works for him too. He is the one who first scolded Zelenskyy and who snubbed the German chancellor to meet the AfD which Elon is supporting;

10. Putin spoke to Elon repeatedly and Elon gave him access to Starlink terminals over Ukraine against dirt (money laundering, Epstein, past or current affiliations with Russia, etc.) on / control over Trump. USAID had paid for these terminals and was investigating Starlink. DOGE was an excuse to kill USAID and a number of other agencies regulating Elon’s companies, including CFPB which was overseeing the Tesla loan program and was to regulate X’s payment system. Elon used Trump to burn classified USAID records;

11. Putin and Elon made a deal whereby Elon would use X and his money, with assistance of JD Vance, to push nationalists in Europe and fracture the EU, help Trump get elected and use their partnership with / influence on / control of Trump to get the US out of NATO, have it abandon Ukraine militarily, without even military guarantees, and leave it and the rest of Europe at the mercy of Russia. Elon would use Trump to end American democracy, abolish the Constitutional Republic and invade Panama and Greenland and at least every place in between, including Canada and Mexico (and again use X and his wealth to prop up any foreign leader in favor of annexation), thereby achieving his fascist’s grandfather fantasy of a version of the “Technate” and rule it as Dictator like Sulla, the Roman Dictator he admires. Trump would not endorse Vance and would support Elon’s political ambitions (by merging the US with Canada, which Elon is also a citizen of, a new constitution would remove the requirement for a US born head of state);

12. The purge of the intelligence agencies, the removal of officers investigating whether Trump was a Russian asset and whether there was election interference, the confiscation of their data, and the placement of some leaders sympathetic to Russia was, among other things, precisely to prevent the Public, Congress and the Armed Forces from finding any of this out until it would be too late.

Bottom line: Elon Musk is Donald Trump’s Russian handler, and he is working alongside JD Vance to destroy Europe, and with Trump to end democracy, abolish the Constitutional Republic, and invade at least all of Central and North America, collectively the “Technate” — sympathetic to Russia and her expanding even beyond the boundaries of the former Soviet Union to subsume Europe — which he intends to rule as Dictator.

Philip Low

PS. I am an award-winning computational neuroscientist and entrepreneur. I strategically design discrete physical tools and mathematical techniques to capture, unmask, leverage or create super stealth patterns in a wide spectrum of domains ranging from non-invasive brain scanning to cryptography. The technologies I have invented are worth billions of dollars, and I am their largest financial owner. I stand to benefit absolutely nothing financially from Elon’s peaceful removal from the White House. As an independent and foreign citizen, I stand to benefit nothing politically from any impeachment of Trump and Vance. I take no pleasure in writing a thesis on any Technocratic Coup. Elon became my older brother when I met him and I always regarded Elon as much closer than my own siblings. However, given how well I know him, and how dangerous he truly is, I feel, as a concerned world citizen, a sense of moral responsibility to speak out, for The People, for Freedom, despite multiple threats to my life.

[theobjectivemind]

Ukraine is standing strong, but the U.S. risks turning its back on its allies. Trump’s stance on Ukraine is not just a policy shift; it’s a betrayal of the Budapest Memorandum, an agreement the U.S. signed to guarantee Ukraine’s security in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. Russia has been violating that agreement since 2014, and now, Trump is signaling that the U.S. might follow suit.

While European nations step up, pledging billions in aid and working on a peace plan, the U.S. under Trump seems poised to abandon its role as a leader in global security. NATO unity is being tested. Allies are questioning whether they can trust America. If the U.S. won’t stand by Ukraine, what does that mean for future commitments to other allies?

Ukraine is not just fighting for itself; it’s fighting for democracy, for sovereignty, and for the very principles that Western nations claim to uphold. Turning our back now doesn’t just hurt Ukraine; it weakens our standing in the world.

The real leader in yesterday’s meeting was Zelenskyy. He continues to fight for his country, while Trump continues to undermine the alliances that keep us safe.

If you believe in standing with our allies, in keeping our word, and in resisting authoritarian aggression, keep speaking out. Support Ukraine. Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦💙💛

[gaykarstaagforever]

In case you're pretending, like our media is, that you can't figure out what the impending Ukraine deal is going to be:

Zelenskyy is going to agree to give Trump personal access to mineral wealth to avoid totally being bulldozed by Russia. So Trump will cordone off everything he wants to exploit as an effective American colonial possession, and cede the rest to Putin.

So Ukraine will lose like half of it's territory to Russia, and its government will effectively become a US puppet state. Or at least enough of one that US companies can do whatever.

It would seem counter-intuitive that Russia will agree to this, since Putin doesn't want Nato over there. But Putin understands that Trump is a useful idiot, so he knows Trump will let him fuck around with the US "part" of Ukraine. ...And Trump will probably sell a lot of the mineral rights to Russian companies anyway, because he doesn't give a fuck as long as someone pays him for them.

In effect, Russia wins, and gets to soon conquer Ukraine outright, it will just take a little longer and rely on Putin appeasing Trump. But he knows how play that game, so no problem.

And Ukrainian patriots will hate Zelenskyy, who will claim he had no choice, it was the only way to save his country in the short term. And he'll wander off into obscurity as a pro-Trump, pro-Putin stooge takes power and works to "reunify" it with Russia, with promises that US companies retain mineral rights. And Trump and Putin will do a photo op and brag about a new golden age of US-Russian peace and cooperation, while Putin plots which European nation he's going to reconquer next. Trump will call it the greatest peace deal ever, and proof that letting him do whatever he wants is the best plan for Earth, and Europe will understand that this means they're fucking dead if they don't bribe him personally to maintain the security of the alliance.

And shortly thereafter, Zelenskyy will fall out of a window or die of poisoning, and absolutely no one will care.

[dostoyevsky-official]

Once buoyed by hopes of liberating their lands, even soldiers at the front now voice a desire for negotiations with Russia to end the war. Yuriy, another commander on the eastern front who gave only his first name, says he fears the prospect of a “forever war”.

“I am for negotiations now,” he adds, expressing his concern that his son — also a soldier — could spend much of his life fighting and that his grandson might one day inherit an endless conflict.

[...] Ukraine is heading into what may be its darkest moment of the war so far. It is losing on the battlefield in the east of the country, with Russian forces advancing relentlessly — albeit at immense cost in men and equipment.

It is struggling to restore its depleted ranks with motivated and well-trained soldiers while an arbitrary military mobilisation system is causing real social tension. It is also facing a bleak winter of severe power and potentially heating outages.

[...] At the same time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is under growing pressure from western partners to find a path towards a negotiated settlement, even if there is scepticism about Russia’s willingness to enter talks any time soon and concern that Ukraine’s position is too weak to secure a fair deal right now.

US officials were unimpressed by Zelenskyy’s “victory plan”, which includes requests for massive amounts of western weaponry.

An adviser who helped prepare the document says Zelenskyy had no choice but to restate his insistence on Nato membership because anything else would have been perceived as a retreat on the question of western security guarantees, which Ukrainians see as indispensable.

[...] Although Zelenskyy’s victory plan restated old objectives, its real significance is that it shifts Ukraine’s war aims from total liberation to bending the war in Kyiv’s favour, says the senior Ukrainian official.

Multiple European diplomats who attended last week’s UN General Assembly in New York say there was a tangible shift in the tone and content of discussions around a potential settlement.

They note more openness from Ukrainian officials to discuss the potential for agreeing a ceasefire even while Russian troops remain on their territory, and more frank discussions among western officials about the urgency for a deal.

Ukraine’s new foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, used private meetings with western counterparts on his first trip to the US in the post to discuss potential compromise solutions, the diplomats said, and struck a more pragmatic tone on the possibility of land-for-security negotiations than his predecessor.

“We’re talking more and more openly about how this ends and what Ukraine would have to give up in order to get a permanent peace deal,” says one of the diplomats, who was present in New York. “And that’s a major change from even six months ago, when this kind of talk was taboo.”

[...] The biggest domestic problem for Zelenskyy might come from a nationalist minority opposed to any compromise, some of whom are now armed and trained to fight.

“If you get into any negotiation, it could be a trigger for social instability,” says a Ukrainian official. “Zelenskyy knows this very well.”

“There will always be a radical segment of Ukrainian society that will call any negotiation capitulation. The far right in Ukraine is growing. The right wing is a danger to democracy,” says Merezhko, who is an MP for Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.

[keithmosher2]

Calling Moscow

It should be all too obvious…

Feb 4: The U.S., along with Russia, vote "No" on U.N. resolution condemning Russia for the war with Ukraine.

Feb 5: DOGE obtains access to information on all U.S. citizens through the Treasury Department and OBM computer systems, with no oversight. Several of the DOGE team have ties to Russia.

Feb 6: Attorney General Pam Bondi ends FBI efforts to combat foreign influence in U.S. Politics, and ends Kleptocracy Initiative which battled corruption and returned ill-gotten gains to victims of financial crimes.

Feb 19: US and Russia - without Ukraine - enter peace talks over the Ukraine war, in which they propose that Ukraine will not get its land back, and will not enter NATO, which is to say Russia wins everything.

Feb 28: Defense Sec. Hegseth orders Cyber Command to halt Russia Planning.

Feb 28: White House "Hand Picks" the pool reporters for the Zelenskyy meeting, leaving OUT the AP and Reuters reporters, but Russian TASS reporter gets into the Oval Office for the event.

Feb 28: The Felon President and creepy Vance berate Zelenskyy, accusing him of risking World War 3, offering Ukraine nothing, not even sympathy, but demanding tribute.

If it is not clear to you that the First Felon is a Russian asset and/or agent, you are not paying attention.

[tomorrowusa]

^^^ I created that during Kamala's acceptance speech.

Republicans want to hold the whip and dictate how Americans should live their lives. Republicans hate freedom and love dictators. Their nominee, Weird Donald, is perfect for creating misery and despair.

ICYMI, here is her Thursday night speech.

In the speech she reminded listeners of the role the Biden-Harris administration played in providing intelligence to Ukraine ahead of Putin's invasion.

Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade. I helped mobilize a global response – over 50 countries – to defend against Putin’s aggression. And as President, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.

That is a contrast to Trump who would wreck NATO and undermine US national security.

Trump, on the other hand, threatened to abandon NATO. He encouraged Putin to invade our allies. Said Russia could – quote – “do whatever the hell they want.”

As the VP mentioned, she met with President Zelenskyy as Russia was preparing to attack. Here's a contemporary news story about that event.

Harris on Ukraine: World at ‘a decisive moment in history’

We have it easier than Ukrainians when it comes to defending freedom. All we need to do is to get out the vote and to vote ourselves.

A HŪGE defeat for Weird Donald and his MAGA accomplices would put an end to this dangerous autocracy-curious phase in US history,

Be a voter | Vote Save America

[darkmaga-returns]

Trump is taking action to withhold military aid from Ukraine amid an ongoing public feud with Zelensky, according to multiple reports. Bloomberg is reporting that the U.S. is “pausing all current military aid to Ukraine until Trump determines the country’s leaders demonstrate a good-faith commitment to peace.”

This, after the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the Trump Administration “has stopped financing new weapons sales to Ukraine and is considering freezing weapons shipments from U.S. stockpiles.”

The U.S. seems to be on the path to transfer the responsibility of support for Ukraine over to Europe, amid efforts to begin the process of normalization with Russia… and wasn’t that exactly what U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Trump Admin wanted when he addressed European leaders last month and said Washington’s goal was to focus on China?

SOURCE LINKS:

3 March 2025 - Trump Pauses Military Aid to Ukraine After Clash With Zelensky

3 March 2025 - U.S. Hitting Brakes on Flow of Arms to Ukraine

3 March 2025 - White House seeks plan for possible Russia sanctions relief, sources say

3 March 2025 - Ukraine’s Zelensky says end of war with Russia is ‘very, very far away’

3 March 2025 - Trump on Truth Social: “This is the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer!”

2 March 2025 - Zelensky on Sky News: “I am exchangeable for NATO”

2 March 2025 - Brian Berletic on X: “London Ukraine Summit ‘Comes Up With’ LITERALLY US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's February Directive.”

12 Feb. 2025 - Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group (As Delivered)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Luke Harding and Pjotr Sauer at The Guardian:

Ukraine reacted with gloom and dismay on Tuesday to the meeting between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia, with Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying he would never accept Russia’s ultimatums. The high-stakes negotiations between the two delegations got under way in Riyadh just hours after Russia attacked Ukraine with dozens of drones. At least two people were killed and 26 injured in strikes across the country. One drone hit the top floor of a high-rise residential building in the central city of Dolynska, in the Kirovohrad region. A mother and her two children were injured and taken to hospital. “A difficult night,” said the local governor, Andriy Raikovych. Soon after the talks concluded in Riyadh, air raid sirens wailed across the capital, Kyiv. Millions of Ukrainians were told by text message to seek shelter because of a threat from Russian ballistic missiles. Speaking in Ankara after a meeting with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Zelenskyy said Ukraine would not accept the results of talks on how to end the war with Russia that were held “behind Ukraine’s back”.

“It feels like the US is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war,” Zelenskyy told reporters. He added: “Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment?” Zelenskyy also said he would seek the return of occupied eastern and southern towns and villages via diplomatic means, emphasising: “They will be Ukrainian. There can be no compromise.” Reuters reported that Zelenskyy has postponed a visit to Saudi Arabia planned for Wednesday to avoid giving the US-Russia talks “legitimacy”. It was absurd for Moscow to talk about peace while killing Ukrainians, said Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the head of Zelenskyy’s office. The latest salvo of 176 drones fired at Ukraine represented Russia’s actual “negotiating position”, he posted. Without criticising the Trump administration directly, he said the high-level US-Russia talks had not been properly prepared, adding that they were merely a forum for more Russian “ultimatums”.

“Encouragement rather than coercion, a voluntary and bizarre renunciation of strength in favour of disheartening and unmotivated appeasement of the aggressor,” Podolyak wrote, summing up Kyiv’s negative reaction. There is widespread scepticism that Russia would abide by any ceasefire deal unless it was underpinned by security guarantees – from the US and other western powers. Podolyak said there was no point in having a “fake peace” that would lead to “an inevitable continuation of the war”. Ukrainians have bitter memories of two deals signed with Russia in the Belarus capital, Minsk, after Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 and began a covert invasion of the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Russia repeatedly violated both ceasefires. There are fears that a quick deal between Washington and Moscow would amount to Minsk 3 – another agreement that Russia would swiftly break. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last weekend, Zelenskyy said Russia was ready to expand its invasion and “wage war” against Nato.

[...] More immediately, there were concerns that a Trump-Putin deal would demand that Ukraine hold elections immediately after a ceasefire came into force, and before any final agreement was reached. The goal, Ukrainian commentators suggested, would be to replace Zelenskyy with a weaker leader, or even a pro-Russian candidate. Ukraine is not obliged to hold elections under martial law. Few Ukrainians think they are practical at a time when Russia’s invasion has forced millions of citizens to flee abroad and when soldiers are fighting and dying on the frontline. European embassies in Kyiv agree. The White House excluded Kyiv and European nations from its direct talks with Russia, the first bilateral contact between the two sides since before Moscow’s 2022 invasion.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is right: Their nation will never accept Russia’s ultimatums because they are sick and tired of Russia kicking them around.

See Also:

AP, via HuffPost: Russia And U.S. Agree To Work Toward Ending Ukraine War In A Remarkable Diplomatic Shift

[alcestas-sloboda]

As I said, here are some of the quotes of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, taken from his various interviews and compiled with the help of his wife into a book "Лицар Свободи" ("The Knight of Freedom").

About the UN:

"The multi-volume UN resolutions lie on the shelves and are not implemented in relation to the nations. And since the day this organization was founded, we have not heard a single thing in defense of the Chechen people during the worst repressions. And in general, about all repressed peoples of the old regime"

About Budapest memorandum:

"Therefore, we need to turn to the UN to protect Ukraine, help it, protect it from sabotage. It’s better to let these nuclear weapons be in Ukraine than in Russia. They have absolutely no control over it there. If we come together with a common position and program, we can stop the nuclear disaster and the killing of peoples. The only thing we lack is unity"

About ruscism:

"To peoples of the former USSR I wish nothing. What they deserve, they themselves do. The peoples of the former, present, or future Union and, in particular, Russia, are sick of ruscism. And this is a very dangerous and serious chronic disease. Ruscism is scarier than all other misanthropic ideologies. And this terrible disease can probably be cured only by the most difficult tests. Russians are probably the only people on earth who do not believe in anything at all. Spiritless, immoral and hopelessly behind the level of human development. Not inclined to spirituality, and, accordingly, to morality. And this, unfortunately, on a massive scale. What is happening now... Chechnya is just an excuse. And at the root of it all lies the misanthropic ideology. And for this, you have to pay."

About peace between Ichkeria and Russia (compare it to Zelenskyy’s peace plan):

"But there can be peace between Chechnya and Russia only if these criminals are handed over to us. Either the world community will condemn them and bring them to justice, or they will hand them over to us. This is the first condition. The withdrawal of troops from the territory of the Republic, so that we can at least bury people, tally up the casualties and accounts - is also an indispensable condition. Another condition is the restoration of material and moral damages, once again inflicted on our people. And guarantees of the international community of security to the citizens of the Chechen Republic and its state integrity. Under these conditions, peace will come. Without them, we will fight to the last. Both Russia and Chechnya. Russia as a state will not be on our land. And it has no chance here. But we have"

The importance of NATO for the European security:

"In vain, the Russians think that now they will intimidate the world with their army, criminals, and nuclear weapons. Humanity can no longer be intimidated. Everyone has already been through that, everyone has gone through this hell of ruscism. Either Russia will disappear as a state, or it will have to turn to the world community. And for this, humanity must make efforts so that there are no blocs, no military confrontations in the world. Especially the Russian bloc. Only one bloc is needed - NATO, and it must be expanded. Let countries join a single military bloc to protect the interests of all peoples of the globe. And the weaker the people, the greater the protection should be. Then there will be calm and peace on Earth. It's time to kick Russia out of the UN. Humanity must protect itself from ruscism by putting itself in the shoes of the Chechens. In this way, they will protect themselves from future destruction"

One of the interviews given to Ukrainian journalists:

"How long will this war last?"

"This war will last fifty years. Perhaps there will be a temporary pause, but the war will continue. Its scale will expand, it will smolder for a long time, and the foci of smoldering will spread more widely. Probably, until Russia as a state does not disappear"

[mariacallous]

Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House has raised expectations of a fresh push for peace in 2025, with the US leader committed to seeking some kind of deal to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While the exact nature of Trump’s peace plan is still unknown, it is expected to involve significant Ukrainian territorial concessions.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s negotiating position is already coming into focus. While Ukrainian officials continue to rule out officially ceding land to Moscow, there appears to be growing recognition in Kyiv that the complete liberation of the country is no longer militarily feasible. Instead, Ukraine has begun indicating a readiness to temporarily compromise on territorial issues, while at the same time underlining the critical importance of security guarantees.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy used his first meeting with Trump since the US presidential election to emphasize the need for credible security commitments in any negotiated settlement. During a three-way chat together with French President Emmanuel Macron in December 2024, the Ukrainian leader reportedly stressed to Trump that a ceasefire alone “would not be enough” to end the war with Russia.

Zelenskyy and other senior Ukrainian officials have reiterated this position on multiple occasions in recent weeks, expressing their readiness to seek a diplomatic solution while insisting that it must be accompanied by credible long-term security guarantees that will prevent any repeat of the present Russian invasion. In essence, Ukraine’s position can be summed up as “no peace without security.”

It is not yet clear what kind of security guarantees Ukraine can realistically expect to receive. Ukrainian officials continue to push for NATO membership, which is seen in Kyiv as being by far the most credible deterrent against future Russian aggression. However, leading NATO members including the US and Germany remain reluctant to extend an invitation to Ukraine amid concerns over the possibility of a direct clash between the alliance and Russia.

Bilateral security pacts could potentially serve as a solution to this impasse, but any agreements would need to include firm commitments to defend Ukraine against a renewed Russian invasion. Zelenskyy stated in early 2025 that security guarantees of this kind would only be effective if provided by the US. As yet, there is no indication that the United States or other key allies are prepared to undertake such a major step.

Preliminary discussions are also believed to be underway exploring the possible deployment of a multi-national peacekeeping force to monitor a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with a number of European nations potentially providing troops. This approach could temporarily reduce the likelihood of a return to full-scale hostilities, but skeptics argue that such a force would be challenging to maintain and would not serve as a long-term solution to the Russian threat.

In the absence of a plausible peacekeeping operation, some have suggested that Ukraine’s Western partners could ensure a viable peace by vowing to dramatically increase military support and provide the country with sufficient arms to deter Moscow. However, given the regular delays and consistent shortfalls in the delivery of Western military aid during the current war, this option would be unlikely to satisfy Kyiv or convince the Kremlin to abandon its plans for the complete conquest of Ukraine.

With all sides now increasingly acknowledging the necessity of territorial concessions, solving the long-term security conundrum looks set to be the main obstacle to ending the largest European war since World War II. Indeed, unless Ukraine’s security concerns can be satisfactorily addressed, there is unlikely to be any peace agreement at all.

Ukrainians are acutely aware that Russian President Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to his ultimate goal of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian national identity entirely. Putin’s insistence on a neutral and disarmed Ukraine is seen in Kyiv as a clear indication that he has no interest in a viable peace agreement and intends to renew his invasion as soon as he has had an opportunity to rearm.

They also understand that any ceasefire without credible security guarantees would leave their country in a militarily, economically, and geopolitically unsustainable position. In such circumstances, Ukraine would be unable to attract the international investment needed to rebuild the country, while the millions of Ukrainians who fled the Russian invasion in 2022 would be unlikely to return. A weakened, demoralized, depopulated, and internationally isolated Ukraine would be in no shape to resist a fresh Russian onslaught.

Unless Ukraine is offered long-term security commitments, many Ukrainians may reluctantly conclude that it would make more sense to continue the fight now rather than accept terms that would amount to a national death sentence. If their Western partners respond by reducing military support, Ukraine’s prospects would be extremely dim. This would be equally dangerous for Europe, which would be confronted by the prospect of a collapsing Ukraine and a resurgent Russia.

All this can be avoided if Western leaders provide Ukraine with watertight security guarantees capable of deterring Putin and preventing further Russian aggression. However, that will require the kind of bold leadership and political courage that have been in strikingly short supply in Western capitals since the onset of Russia’s invasion almost three years ago.

[generallemarc]

I just heard about this but what do you think about this situation about Joe Rogan and Ukraine where he seems to blame Zelenskyy and Biden for launching missiles in Russia and potentially escalating a possible world war III?

Trump voice wrong. Biden didn't launch shit-he gave Ukraine permission to do what it had already been doing with American weapons(attack into Russian territory) only at a longer range than just the Kursk border. And if Russia had been planning on taking this nuclear, they'd have done it when we started giving them these missiles in the first place because they'd have been idiots not to expect this. Nothing short of a direct combat between NATO and Russian forces could escalate this to WW3 at this point, and anyone saying otherwise is either an idiot or deliberately lying in order to fearmonger.

[theculturedmarxist]

It has been clear for some time that US corporate news media have explicitly taken a side on the Ukraine War. This role includes suppressing relevant history of the lead-up to the war (FAIR.org, 3/4/22), attacking people who bring up that history as “conspiracy theorists” (FAIR.org, 5/18/22), accepting official government pronouncements at face value (FAIR.org, 12/2/22) and promoting an overly rosy picture of the conflict in order to boost morale.

For most of the war, most of the US coverage has been as pro-Ukrainian as Ukraine’s own media, now consolidated under the Zelenskyy government (FAIR.org, 5/9/23). Dire predictions sporadically appeared, but were drowned out by drumbeat coverage portraying a Ukrainian army on the cusp of victory, and the Russian army as incompetent and on the verge of collapse.

Triumphalist rhetoric soared in early 2023, as optimistic talk of a game-changing “spring offensive” dominated Ukraine coverage. Apparently delayed, the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in June. While even US officials did not believe that it would amount to much, US media papered over these doubts in the runup to the campaign.

Over the last three months, it has become clear that the Ukrainian military operation will not be the game-changer it was sold as; namely, it will not significantly roll back the Russian occupation and obviate the need for a negotiated settlement. Only after this became undeniable did media report on the true costs of war to the Ukrainian people.

Overwhelming optimism

In the runup to the counteroffensive, US media were full of excited conversation about how it would reshape the nature of the conflict. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe (4/21/23) he was “confident Ukraine will be successful.” Sen. Lindsey Graham assured Politico (5/30/23), “In the coming days, you’re going to see a pretty impressive display of power by the Ukrainians.” Asked for his predictions about Ukraine’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told NPR (5/12/23), “I actually expect…they will be quite successful.”

Former CIA Director David Patraeus, author of the overhyped “surge” strategy in Iraq, told CNN (5/23/23):

I personally think that this is going to be really quite successful…. And [the Russians] are going to have to withdraw under pressure of this Ukrainian offensive, the most difficult possible tactical maneuver, and I don’t think they’re going to do well at that.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius (4/15/23) acknowledged that “hope is not a strategy,” but still insisted that “Ukraine’s will to win—its determination to expel Russian invaders from its territory at whatever cost—might be the X-factor in the decisive season of conflict ahead.”

The New York Times (6/2/23) ran a story praising recruits who signed up for the Ukrainian pushback, even though it “promises to be deadly.” Times columnist Paul Krugman (6/5/23) declared we were witnessing “the moral equivalent of D-Day.” CNN (5/30/23) reported that Ukrainians were “unfazed” as they “gear up for a counteroffensive.”

Cable news was replete with buzz about how the counteroffensive, couched with modifiers like “long-awaited” or “highly anticipated,” could turn the tide in the war. Nightly news shows (e.g., NBC, 6/15/23, 6/16/23) presented audiences with optimistic statements from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other figures talking about the imminent success.

Downplaying reality

Despite the soaring rhetoric presented to audiences, Western officials understood that the counteroffensive was all but doomed to fail. This had been known long before the above comments were reported, but media failed to include that fact as prominently as the predictions for success.

On April 10, as part of the Discord leaks story, the Washington Post (4/10/23) reported that top secret documents showed that Ukraine’s drive would fall “well short” of its objectives, due to equipment, ammunition and conscription problems. The document predicted “sustainment shortfalls” and only “modest territorial gains.”

The Post additionally cited anonymous officials who claimed that the documents’ conclusions were corroborated by a classified National Intelligence Council assessment, shown only to a select few in Congress. The Post spoke to a Ukrainian official who “did not dispute the revelations,” and acknowledged that it was “partially true.”

While the Post has yet to publish the documents in full, the leaks and the other sources clearly painted a picture of a potentially disastrous counteroffensive. Fear was so palpable that the Biden administration privately worried about how he could keep up support for the war when the widely hyped offensive sputtered. In the midst of this, Blinken continued to dismiss the idea of a ceasefire, opting instead to pursue further escalating the conflict.

Despite the importance of these facts, they were hardly reported on by the rest of corporate media, and dropped from subsequent war coverage. When the Post (6/14/23) published a long article citing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s cautious optimism about the campaign, it neglected to mention its earlier reporting about the government’s privately gloomier assessments. The documents only started appearing again in the press after thousands were dead, and the campaign’s failure undeniable.

In an honest press, excited comments from politicians and commentators would be published alongside reports about how even our highest-level officials did not believe that the counteroffensive would amount to much. Instead, anticipation was allowed to build while doubts were set to the side.

Too ‘casualty-averse’?

By July, Ukrainian casualties were mounting, and it became clearer and clearer that the counteroffensive would fail to recapture significant amounts of Ukrainian territory. Reporting grew more realistic, and we were given insights into conditions on the ground in Ukraine, as well as what was in the minds of US officials.

According to the Washington Post (8/17/23), US and Ukrainian militaries had conducted war games and had anticipated that an advance would be accompanied by heavy losses. But when the real-world fatalities mounted, the Post reported, “Ukraine chose to stem the losses on the battlefield.”

This caused a rift between the Ukrainians and their Western backers, who were frustrated at Ukrainians’ desire to keep their people alive. A mid-July New York Times article (7/14/23) reported that US officials were privately frustrated that Ukraine had become too afraid of dying to fight effectively. The officials worried that Ukrainian commanders “fear[ed] casualties among their ranks,” and had “reverted to old habits” rather than “pressing harder.” A later Times article (8/18/23) repeated Washington’s worries that Ukrainians were too “casualty-averse.”

Acknowledging failure

After it became undeniable that Ukraine’s military action was going nowhere, a Wall Street Journal report (7/23/23) raised some of the doubts that had been invisible in the press on the offensive’s eve. The report’s opening lines say it all:

When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces.

The Journal acknowledged that Western officials simply “hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.”

One Post column (7/26/23) asked, “Was Gen. Mark Milley Right Last Year About the War in Ukraine?” Columnist Jason Willick acknowledged that “Milley’s skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to achieve total victory appears to have been widespread within the Biden administration before the counteroffensive began.”

And when one official told Politico (8/18/23), “Milley had a point,” acknowledging the former military head’s November suggestion for negotiations.  The quote was so telling that Politico made it the headline of the article.

Even Rep. Andy Harris (D-Md.), co-chair of the congressional Ukraine Caucus, publicly questioned whether or not the war was “winnable” (Politico, 8/17/23). Speaking on the counteroffensive’s status, he said, “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.”

Newsweek (8/16/23) reported on a Ukrainian leadership divided over how to handle the “underwhelming” counteroffensive. The Washington Post (8/17/23) reported that the US intelligence community assessed that the offensive would fail to fulfill its key objective of severing the land bridge between Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

As the triumphalism ebbed, outlets began reporting on scenes that were almost certainly common before the spring push but had gone unpublished. One piece from the Post (8/10/23) outlined a “darken[ed] mood in Ukraine,” in which the nation was “worn out.” The piece acknowledged that “Ukrainian officials and their Western partners hyped up a coming counteroffensive,” but there was “little visible progress.”

The Wall Street Journal (8/1/23) published a devastating piece about the massive number of amputees returning home from the mine-laden battlefield. They reported that between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians had lost one or more limbs as a result of the war—numbers that are comparable to those seen during World War I.

Rather than dwelling on the stalled campaign, the New York Times and other outlets focused on the drone war against Russia, even while acknowledging that the remote strikes were largely an exercise in public relations. The Times (8/25/23) declared that the strikes had “little significant damage to Russia’s overall military might” and were primarily “a message for [Ukraine’s] own people,” citing US officials who noted that they “intended to demonstrate to the Ukrainian public that Kyiv can still strike back.” Looking at the quantity of Times coverage (8/30/23, 8/30/23,  8/23/23, 8/22/23, 8/22/23, 8/21/23, 8/18/23), the drone strikes were apparently aimed at an increasingly war-weary US public as well.

War as desirable outcome

The fact that US officials pushed for a Ukrainian counteroffensive that all but expected would fail raises an important question: Why would they do this? Sending thousands of young people to be maimed and killed does nothing to advance Ukrainian territorial integrity, and actively hinders the war effort.

The answer has been clear since before the war. Despite the high-minded rhetoric about support for democracy, this has never been the goal of pushing for war in Ukraine. Though it often goes unacknowledged in the US press, policymakers saw a war in Ukraine as a desirable outcome. One 2019 study from the RAND Corporation—a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon—suggested that an effective way to overextend and unbalance Russia would be to increase military support for Ukraine, arguing that this could lead to a Russian invasion.

In December 2021, as Russian President Vladimir Putin began to mass troops at Ukraine’s border while demanding negotiations, John Deni of the Atlantic Council published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine,” which laid out the US logic explicitly: Provoking a war would allow the US to impose sanctions and fight a proxy war that would grind Russia down. Additionally, the anti-Russian sentiment that resulted from a war would strengthen NATO’s resolve.

All of this came to pass as Washington’s stance of non-negotiation successfully provoked a Russian invasion. Even as Ukraine and Russia sat at the negotiation table early in the war, the US made it clear that it wanted the war to continue and escalate. The US’s objective was, in the words of Raytheon boardmember–turned–Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “to see Russia weakened.” Despite stated commitments to Ukrainian democracy, US policies have instead severely damaged it.

NATO’s ‘strategic windfall’ 

In the wake of the stalled counteroffensive, the US interest in sacrificing Ukraine to bleed Russia was put on display again. In July, the Post‘s Ignatius declared that the West shouldn’t be so “gloomy” about Ukraine, since the war had been a “strategic windfall” for NATO and its allies. Echoing two of Deni’s objectives, Ignatius asserted that “the West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked,” and “NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland.”

In the starkest demonstration of the lack of concern for Ukraine or its people, he also wrote that these strategic successes came “at relatively low cost,” adding, in a parenthetical aside, “(other than for the Ukrainians).”

Ignatius is far from alone. Hawkish Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) explained why US funding for the proxy war was “about the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done”: “We’re losing no lives in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians, they’re fighting heroically against Russia.” The consensus among policymakers in Washington is to push for endless conflict, no matter how many Ukrainians die in the process. As long as Russia loses men and material, the effect on Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukrainian victory was never the goal.

‘Fears of peace talks’

Polls show that support for increased US involvement in Ukraine is rapidly declining. The recent Republican presidential debate demonstrated clear fractures within the right wing of the US power structure. Politico (8/18/23) reported that some US officials are regretting potential lost opportunities for negotiations. Unfortunately, this minority dissent has yet to affect the dominant consensus.

The failure of the counteroffensive has not caused Washington to rethink its strategy of attempting to bleed Russia. The flow of US military hardware to Ukraine is likely to continue so long as this remains the goal. The Hill (9/5/23) gave the game away about NATO’s commitment to escalation with a piece titled “Fears of Peace Talks With Putin Rise Amid US Squabbling.”

But even within the Biden administration, the Pentagon appears to be at odds with the State Department and National Security Council over the Ukraine conflict.  Contrary to what may be expected, the civilian officials like Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are taking a harder line on perpetuating this conflict than the professional soldiers in the Pentagon. The media’s sharp change of tone may both signify and fuel the doubts gaining traction within the US political class.