I don't think Zelensky really means it. He knows it's a non-starter for Putin who wants to subjugate entire Ukraine and won't agree to Ukrainian NATO membership unless he's defeated. Putin sees the potential ceasefire as just a purely temporary pause for him to rebuild his military and then attack again (that's basically what he was already doing in 2014 - 2022 and what Muscovy/Russia was historically doing in many places over the past six or seven centuries). NATO membership would end those plans forever and, from the POV of Russian chauvinists believing the Ukrainians to be really Russians, would leave the Russian nation forever divided.
So I believe the whole point is to 1) appear reasonable and cooperative in Trump's eyes and 2) make Putin the one who rejects peace and deprives Trump of the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, Putin's inevitable categorical rejection of any idea guaranteeing Ukraine's security even in exchange for huge concessions to Russia will provide an opening for anti-Russian Trumpists like Lindsey Graham (and possibly Trump's own SecState and NSA) to convince Trump that Putin is planning to restart the war in a couple years, remind him of Biden's stable 50+% approval rating plunging after Afghanistan withdrawal and never recovering and scare him with visions of helicopters taking off from the roof of the US Embassy in Kyiv (and subsequently of the Dems winning big in 2028 and using Trump's unpopularity to finally imprison him). Trump does not care about international order, WWII results or Ukraine, but he does not want to look weak and for the world to laugh at him.
I expect Zelensky to keep appearing very flexible while always adding a little poison pill to every proposal. And I expect Trump to remain too ignorant to recognize Zelensky's game.
I’m sure Zelensky is saying this with Trump in mind. The Ukrainians are trying hard to establish links there. That being said, if US aid is cut off, and Europe doesn’t really step up, this is a deal that they would have to seriously consider
In this apocalyptic case NATO membership will not be an option. For that matter even a ceasefire may not be an option as Putin may just go for complete victory.
Perhaps I should add that this reminds me how Franco was always so eager to join Hitler in WWII but just always seemed to have some very reasonable conditions that just happened to be unacceptable to Hitler at the time (as Franco knew from his old friend Canaris). Zelensky was very smart to be the first to make a proposal - before Putin made any move.
Yep, I was thinking of Franco's behavior here too.
I agree with your analysis of what Zelenskyy is doing. Though Zelenskyy would take full immediate NATO membership, Putin won't and he knows Putin won't.
I'm pretty sure that Putin won't even agree to a deal under which Ukraine agrees to a new legal border with Russia along the lines of Russian annexation in late 2022, i.e. Ukraine cedes a lot of territory it still controls including the cities of Kherson and Zaporizzhia (with a pre-war population of almost a million) on the condition that the new border becomes effective at the moment of Ukrainian ascension into NATO.
I think you're right. I just hope that those people Trump trusts are also too ignorant to recognise Zelensky's game too. Those Trumpists who retain a vestige of understanding of the principles of US interests and foreign policy will hope that Zelensky's words give them leverage with Trump. But those who genuinely want to subordinate the US to Russia will be wary of this happening and will seek to portray Zelensky as a manipulator and Trump's more traditionalist advisors as more of the same kind of people who 'let him down so badly in his first administration'.
Exactly. That's why Zelensky will keep raising it while looking so-o reasonable and flexible from the point of view of those who think this is about territory.
Agreed with your initial premise! But the audience is not in the US, but in Europe. If a core of NATO countries in Europe (Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia, France, and UK) will come to a mutual understanding and back it up its arms and boots on the ground, then it will provide a de facto Article 5 protective network. Nothing the US or Germany can do about it
Andrew, The Economist (which has been well informed since 2022 and pro-Ukraine but more negative than Phillips) floated another option, ceding territory temporarily while getting informal NATO protection (including NATO troops stationed in-country) while freezing any discussion of membership for 20 years. It would allow Putin to save face; Ukraine to have the security it needs; Don Jr and the U.S. anti-Ukraine crowd to crow that NATO is off the table within putin’s lifetime; and for Trump to claim he’s solved the war, and to lobby for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trouble is, the 2014 Minsk Agreement “guaranteed” Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and look how that panned out. The NATO soldiers in- country as trip-wires would be crucial.
I've mentioned Syria before (a few times, sorry!), but it seems like a really good time to raise it again, in relation to this point you make:
"The Biden Administration has taken what was an unexpected strategic opportunity to make the world safer and more democratic, and through bungling, arrogance and, crucially, an inability to learn—has made things much worse and the world less secure."
You could swap 'Biden' for 'Obama' and the paragraph would remain 100% true for Syria and the wider 'Arab Spring'.
Any why do I say it's a good time to bring this up again? Because events of the last 72 hours have demonstrated - at least for those paying attention (and I've seen from a your tweets / skeets that you have) - that the 'escalation management' approach to strategic threats has utterly, utterly failed.
A Syrian opposition coalition which includes Hayat Tahrir Ash-Sham (HTS) as a major component has captured the second largest city in Syria from the Assad regime. At the time of writing it's not clear to me what progress has been made to capturing the city of Hama. to put this in a US context, it's a bit like if rebels who've controlled Oregon for years have captured the whole of California in 2 days, Arizona and New Mexico in the following 24 hours and we're trying to establish whether Texas has also gone or whether it's just probing attacks reaching Houston.
The Syrian regime is two things, and only two things: a protection/extortion racket and a network of competing gestapos/mafias. Without Russian air power and Iranian and Hezbollah infantry, there's almost nothing left. It has virtually no legitimacy with any community in Syria. But from Obama onwards, after some initial moves towards supporting those pushing for a better, safer, free-er, more prosperous country, the US has fallen back on a policy of not rocking the boat, of appeasement, of determination to preserve the status quo. With the totally unsurprising result the status quo is fundamentally unstable, dangerous (to Syrians, the region and the wider world), sets a precedent to other 'bad actors' (authoritarian tyrants) and storing up further bloodshed, war and disruption.
From foolish, ideological dreams of regime-change in Iraq to the opposite extreme, the last couple of decades have been a disaster for US / Western foreign policy and a massive squandered opportunity.
Obama only made performative objections to Russia's annexation of Crimea and Donbas. Granted that the US then, much like now, sent money and weapons, but turned a blind eye to the subjugation of the Tatars and the invasion of "little green men", not to mention a downed airliner.
You could swap out "Biden" for "Bush and Clinton" and it would be 100% true for the collapse of the USSR. I don't know how the US bungled that so bad. Well, I do know: the US sent in a bunch of thieving corporate looters, instead of supporting democracy and human rights. Capitalist greed defeated democracy.
Really not my area of expertise, but I thought that the US pushed for German reunification and was supportive of Central Europe going on a pathway that led to EU membership. So I would say there was a lot done well there.
It feels like the ball was dropped with Russia, but I suspect the task was also probably much harder. Central Europe evidently had relatively strong civil societies and national identities that probably helped the transition from communism. Russia was probably more intertwined with the structures and identity of the USSR, which must have made things harder.
I was following the former USSR countries. The US did not act well. Not in Russia, not in the Baltics, not in Ukraine, not in Central Asia. The US didn't do that well in Mongolia either.
Eurocentrism?
Basically sending in "sell it all off and loot the remains!" advisors was a really bad move and quite unpopular for obvious reasons. The countries which *rejected* US advice did better. They remember.
I've been really curious about how effective the NK contingent has turned out to be. I presume they are from the more elite brigades and therefore reasonably well trained, and therefore might do better - after a learning curve - than the criminals and poorly trained average Russian recruits. On the other hand, this is not their own country that they are being made to fight for. And how many of them are indeed in the fight at the front lines?
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. I reckon in the end Ukraine will be forced to give up territory in exchange for some security umbrella. I doubt full NATO membership will be part of it. Perhaps a compromise will be reached, in the form of a NATO partnership with Ukraine. Not unlike staying on a front porch where you could remain forever. It's rather depressing to see the return of 19th century Realpolitik in Europe, as it has only led to more war and bloodshed.
I can't imagine any compromise because Russia has a vote. Hamas and Hezbollah are likelier to accept the existence of Israel than Russia is to accept the existence of Ukraine. This has nothing to do with the territory. Just as Mussolini styled himself as a Roman emperor and invaded Greece because that's what a Roman emperor would do (rather than for any rational reason), Putin styles himself as a Russian emperor, so he must control Ukraine. He's so obsessed with it, he spent the first half hour of his interview with Tucker Carlson lecturing him about Russian history and showing him letters from 1650's (supposedly proving that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia - never mind that the majority of modern European states did not exist even at the beginning of the 20th century, let alone the 1650's).
I don't think Putin's military force makes it to late 2025. I've been watching all the points of regime collapse.
The railways have admitted that they need new locomotives, but they have no actual way to get them. They can't make them. If they bought them from China, the Chinese company making them would be hit with sanctions and would lose access to the lucrative European and North American market, so they won't do it. (They'd get caught. The locomotives have to be made custom to fit the Russian track gauge and they're rather hard to smuggle.)
More and more elements of the Russian economy and government program (including its military) are now being propped up by selling the National Welfare Fund's reserves of gold. That... runs out eventually. I'm not sure when because the rate at which it is being depleted is *increasing*, as other methods of propping up various parts of the economy fail and they resort to gold. But it looks likely to run out before the end of 2025.
At that point, no support from Iran (which demands gold), no way to prop up the currency (selling gold is the last way they have left), no way to reduce the ruble supply to prevent hyperinflation (selling gold is the last way they have left), no way to import smuggled foreign goods (no access to foreign currency and nobody wants rubles so using gold is the last way they have left), etc.
Unless it is actually defeated on the battlefield and routed, I just can't see him agreeing (even tacitly) to Ukrainian NATO membership. Even in terrible shape but still in position, his force will be able to keep up enough fire to make it clear to NATO members that ascension of Ukraine will mean immediate invocation of Article 5. He needs to be losing really badly to actually give up. I'm talking about either collapse of his forces in the field or dire domestic situation.
Yep. As you say, Putin's "Russian Tsar" mentality is utterly clear yet many people seem to be pretending that Putin is thinking differently.
This ends with Putin's removal. I don't know exactly when or how that happens, but Zelensky was already making jokes about it in _Servant of the People_ so *he* knows that it's necessary. And the Russian regime is collapsing so fast I'm sure it *will* happen.
The problem with foreign policy "realists" is that they play with abstract concepts like "rational actor" and "maximization of power" while utterly disregarding actual realities of regimes in question.
Oh, Ukraine will retake all its territory even if that happens. It will just take a lot longer and be a lot bloodier. The key thing to remember is that the Russian Federation is approaching corpse status. The only surprising thing is that the vultures haven't started nibbling away at it (though China rewriting their maps to show Vladivostok as Hǎishēnwǎi is definitely a vulture circling)
Overall this is a depressing update, Phillips. The idea that Zelensky will agree to some Russian occupation would have been unthinkable before the election and what it shows is he is trying to get the best he can given what he views as the limitations in place. Frankly, nobody can trust a Trump appointee as they will only serve corrupt and malignant ends when comes to US security at this point.
The only true security Ukraine or other adjacent states will have is belonging to NATO. And nothing prevents the rest of NATO from aiding Ukraine and coming to their defense as a sort of implied Article 5. This comes with risks, but it is the best we have given the US and Germany have no backbone or are outright joining the likes of Hungary.
Agree Paul. Putin has a veto on any ceasefire or armistice in this war but he has no veto on NATO membership. If NATO invites Ukraine to join and is prepared to invoke Article 5 if Putin plans on continuing to fight then too bad for Putin.
However, this is a moot point since the US would never extend a NATO invitation while Trumpists rule the US. Nor would Orban or Fico.
The only way to stop Russia’s pathological fantasy of magical thinking that Ukrainians are really Russians is for Ukraine to join NATO. Period.
The update and the comments are unsettling. For over 1000 days now, we have witnessed the war in Ukraine. Jonathan Brown commented on Syria and is correct to bring this subject into the realm of what we need to understand. Add to that Iran's role in Syria and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah as well as any destabilizing activity it likes. Not to mention the deliberate stop signs put up by Orban and the Republican anti-majority in power in the US. The list can go on and on when one thinks more globally. Think about including conflicts in the continents we chose to ignore, but which add fodder and fuel to changes in the world order. Then there is also one more element of the storm, China.
I recall the lightened moods I felt when the Cold War ended. I also recall the amazement and pride I felt witnessing the Arab Spring. That spectrum of hope has collapsed. While we beat on the errors and weaknesses of the US foreign policy and to be fair the EU's as well, it feels like we are in the midst of a perfect storm. Is it any wonder that the fear of escalation sounds so hollow a goal? Wars by proxy are still war.
NATO membership appeared to require the unanimous agreement of the current members (or am I out of date). At last report I read, that agreement is unavailable, so Zelensky's seemingly reasonable proposal collides with some European opinions.
Your article was necessary, and I believe Biden's tragedy of pacifism will define his legacy in geopolitics as well as in the persecution of the Federal cases that should have precluded Trump's return as a candidate.
Putin is no doubt working with his usual devotees to avoid Nato membership for Ukraine, though Ukraine rightly sees that as the only option for any semblance of a lasting peace. Given Trump's lack of support for Nato, would the other members disagree with a negative US position on this? It clearly would be in their own best long-term interest to speak out..
Lastly, perhaps in the final stretch of the Biden administration, Zelensky could finally mount an attack on the Kerch Strait bridge with US weapons and tell the world that he had the support of Biden, whether or not he did. There would be nothing Biden could do to Ukraine at that point.
I have a grim view on this process. Nobody cares what Zelensky wants or says. He has nearly zero leverage. The entire focus is on enticing Putin to end the destruction. NATO membership is not a negotiable topic. I'm not even sure we can describe what lies ahead a "negotiation." Trump is prepared to accept any terms, just like he fully acceded to the Taliban's demands.
Biden's pathetic support for Ukraine was not enough for me to vote for Trump, but made Trump's win more palatable. I hope Trump will rise to the moment and be a Reagan...
I think an agreement would have to include assurances of western aid so that Ukraine gets stronger. After a ceasefire, Russia might be reluctant to start again, and Putin won’t be around forever. I think this alternative would be better for Ukraine than the current trajectory, which is not good.
I think if Ukraine can get a deal along the lines of what Kellogg is saying, they should take it. I don’t think Russia will agree to a deal with Ukraine in NATO, so maybe that’s a starting position, but even a deal with frozen lines and no legal recognition of the land Russia took looks good for Ukraine, provided they continue to receive western aid.
But without NATO protection, any agreement just gives Putin a breather and as Zelinski says, Putin will come back - the 1994 Budapest memorandum, the 1997 treaty of friendship the 2003 Treaty on State border & the 2014 & 2015 Minsk agreements. Russia,, with or without Trump, will always reneg agreements and try to take over Ukraine. The Russians have been doing this for hundredsi of years. Ukraine needs NATO protection to stop Russia.
I don't think Zelensky really means it. He knows it's a non-starter for Putin who wants to subjugate entire Ukraine and won't agree to Ukrainian NATO membership unless he's defeated. Putin sees the potential ceasefire as just a purely temporary pause for him to rebuild his military and then attack again (that's basically what he was already doing in 2014 - 2022 and what Muscovy/Russia was historically doing in many places over the past six or seven centuries). NATO membership would end those plans forever and, from the POV of Russian chauvinists believing the Ukrainians to be really Russians, would leave the Russian nation forever divided.
So I believe the whole point is to 1) appear reasonable and cooperative in Trump's eyes and 2) make Putin the one who rejects peace and deprives Trump of the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, Putin's inevitable categorical rejection of any idea guaranteeing Ukraine's security even in exchange for huge concessions to Russia will provide an opening for anti-Russian Trumpists like Lindsey Graham (and possibly Trump's own SecState and NSA) to convince Trump that Putin is planning to restart the war in a couple years, remind him of Biden's stable 50+% approval rating plunging after Afghanistan withdrawal and never recovering and scare him with visions of helicopters taking off from the roof of the US Embassy in Kyiv (and subsequently of the Dems winning big in 2028 and using Trump's unpopularity to finally imprison him). Trump does not care about international order, WWII results or Ukraine, but he does not want to look weak and for the world to laugh at him.
I expect Zelensky to keep appearing very flexible while always adding a little poison pill to every proposal. And I expect Trump to remain too ignorant to recognize Zelensky's game.
I’m sure Zelensky is saying this with Trump in mind. The Ukrainians are trying hard to establish links there. That being said, if US aid is cut off, and Europe doesn’t really step up, this is a deal that they would have to seriously consider
In this apocalyptic case NATO membership will not be an option. For that matter even a ceasefire may not be an option as Putin may just go for complete victory.
Perhaps I should add that this reminds me how Franco was always so eager to join Hitler in WWII but just always seemed to have some very reasonable conditions that just happened to be unacceptable to Hitler at the time (as Franco knew from his old friend Canaris). Zelensky was very smart to be the first to make a proposal - before Putin made any move.
Yes, France was very cagey on that. As, interestingly, was Mussolini in 1939. However Franco could stay out of the war, and did. Zelensky is in it!
But also keep in mind Franco was still in a tenuous position in 1939-40 and joining the Axis would have put his own rule in jeopardy in the end.
Yep, I was thinking of Franco's behavior here too.
I agree with your analysis of what Zelenskyy is doing. Though Zelenskyy would take full immediate NATO membership, Putin won't and he knows Putin won't.
I'm pretty sure that Putin won't even agree to a deal under which Ukraine agrees to a new legal border with Russia along the lines of Russian annexation in late 2022, i.e. Ukraine cedes a lot of territory it still controls including the cities of Kherson and Zaporizzhia (with a pre-war population of almost a million) on the condition that the new border becomes effective at the moment of Ukrainian ascension into NATO.
I think you're right. I just hope that those people Trump trusts are also too ignorant to recognise Zelensky's game too. Those Trumpists who retain a vestige of understanding of the principles of US interests and foreign policy will hope that Zelensky's words give them leverage with Trump. But those who genuinely want to subordinate the US to Russia will be wary of this happening and will seek to portray Zelensky as a manipulator and Trump's more traditionalist advisors as more of the same kind of people who 'let him down so badly in his first administration'.
The strong voices around Trump are all anti Ukraine, and oppose NATO membership. It’s why this plan will struggle
Zelensky's hope is that Putin will reject it quickly and become the one seen as the obstacle to peace.
Anything smacking of Ukraine in NATO is a non-starter.
Exactly. That's why Zelensky will keep raising it while looking so-o reasonable and flexible from the point of view of those who think this is about territory.
Agreed with your initial premise! But the audience is not in the US, but in Europe. If a core of NATO countries in Europe (Nordics, Baltics, Poland, Czechia, France, and UK) will come to a mutual understanding and back it up its arms and boots on the ground, then it will provide a de facto Article 5 protective network. Nothing the US or Germany can do about it
Andrew, The Economist (which has been well informed since 2022 and pro-Ukraine but more negative than Phillips) floated another option, ceding territory temporarily while getting informal NATO protection (including NATO troops stationed in-country) while freezing any discussion of membership for 20 years. It would allow Putin to save face; Ukraine to have the security it needs; Don Jr and the U.S. anti-Ukraine crowd to crow that NATO is off the table within putin’s lifetime; and for Trump to claim he’s solved the war, and to lobby for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trouble is, the 2014 Minsk Agreement “guaranteed” Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and look how that panned out. The NATO soldiers in- country as trip-wires would be crucial.
I've mentioned Syria before (a few times, sorry!), but it seems like a really good time to raise it again, in relation to this point you make:
"The Biden Administration has taken what was an unexpected strategic opportunity to make the world safer and more democratic, and through bungling, arrogance and, crucially, an inability to learn—has made things much worse and the world less secure."
You could swap 'Biden' for 'Obama' and the paragraph would remain 100% true for Syria and the wider 'Arab Spring'.
Any why do I say it's a good time to bring this up again? Because events of the last 72 hours have demonstrated - at least for those paying attention (and I've seen from a your tweets / skeets that you have) - that the 'escalation management' approach to strategic threats has utterly, utterly failed.
A Syrian opposition coalition which includes Hayat Tahrir Ash-Sham (HTS) as a major component has captured the second largest city in Syria from the Assad regime. At the time of writing it's not clear to me what progress has been made to capturing the city of Hama. to put this in a US context, it's a bit like if rebels who've controlled Oregon for years have captured the whole of California in 2 days, Arizona and New Mexico in the following 24 hours and we're trying to establish whether Texas has also gone or whether it's just probing attacks reaching Houston.
The Syrian regime is two things, and only two things: a protection/extortion racket and a network of competing gestapos/mafias. Without Russian air power and Iranian and Hezbollah infantry, there's almost nothing left. It has virtually no legitimacy with any community in Syria. But from Obama onwards, after some initial moves towards supporting those pushing for a better, safer, free-er, more prosperous country, the US has fallen back on a policy of not rocking the boat, of appeasement, of determination to preserve the status quo. With the totally unsurprising result the status quo is fundamentally unstable, dangerous (to Syrians, the region and the wider world), sets a precedent to other 'bad actors' (authoritarian tyrants) and storing up further bloodshed, war and disruption.
From foolish, ideological dreams of regime-change in Iraq to the opposite extreme, the last couple of decades have been a disaster for US / Western foreign policy and a massive squandered opportunity.
Not going to disagree on this. The Obama administration made an absolute hash of Syria, a move which has had impact up until today
Obama only made performative objections to Russia's annexation of Crimea and Donbas. Granted that the US then, much like now, sent money and weapons, but turned a blind eye to the subjugation of the Tatars and the invasion of "little green men", not to mention a downed airliner.
You could swap out "Biden" for "Bush and Clinton" and it would be 100% true for the collapse of the USSR. I don't know how the US bungled that so bad. Well, I do know: the US sent in a bunch of thieving corporate looters, instead of supporting democracy and human rights. Capitalist greed defeated democracy.
Some countries turned out OK despite this. Russia was not one of them.
Really not my area of expertise, but I thought that the US pushed for German reunification and was supportive of Central Europe going on a pathway that led to EU membership. So I would say there was a lot done well there.
It feels like the ball was dropped with Russia, but I suspect the task was also probably much harder. Central Europe evidently had relatively strong civil societies and national identities that probably helped the transition from communism. Russia was probably more intertwined with the structures and identity of the USSR, which must have made things harder.
I was following the former USSR countries. The US did not act well. Not in Russia, not in the Baltics, not in Ukraine, not in Central Asia. The US didn't do that well in Mongolia either.
Eurocentrism?
Basically sending in "sell it all off and loot the remains!" advisors was a really bad move and quite unpopular for obvious reasons. The countries which *rejected* US advice did better. They remember.
I've been really curious about how effective the NK contingent has turned out to be. I presume they are from the more elite brigades and therefore reasonably well trained, and therefore might do better - after a learning curve - than the criminals and poorly trained average Russian recruits. On the other hand, this is not their own country that they are being made to fight for. And how many of them are indeed in the fight at the front lines?
I’ve not seen anything reliable on this. If I do, will pass it on
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. I reckon in the end Ukraine will be forced to give up territory in exchange for some security umbrella. I doubt full NATO membership will be part of it. Perhaps a compromise will be reached, in the form of a NATO partnership with Ukraine. Not unlike staying on a front porch where you could remain forever. It's rather depressing to see the return of 19th century Realpolitik in Europe, as it has only led to more war and bloodshed.
I can't imagine any compromise because Russia has a vote. Hamas and Hezbollah are likelier to accept the existence of Israel than Russia is to accept the existence of Ukraine. This has nothing to do with the territory. Just as Mussolini styled himself as a Roman emperor and invaded Greece because that's what a Roman emperor would do (rather than for any rational reason), Putin styles himself as a Russian emperor, so he must control Ukraine. He's so obsessed with it, he spent the first half hour of his interview with Tucker Carlson lecturing him about Russian history and showing him letters from 1650's (supposedly proving that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia - never mind that the majority of modern European states did not exist even at the beginning of the 20th century, let alone the 1650's).
Yep, Putin has to come onboard. OTOH, his military force will be in terrible shape in late 2025
I don't think Putin's military force makes it to late 2025. I've been watching all the points of regime collapse.
The railways have admitted that they need new locomotives, but they have no actual way to get them. They can't make them. If they bought them from China, the Chinese company making them would be hit with sanctions and would lose access to the lucrative European and North American market, so they won't do it. (They'd get caught. The locomotives have to be made custom to fit the Russian track gauge and they're rather hard to smuggle.)
More and more elements of the Russian economy and government program (including its military) are now being propped up by selling the National Welfare Fund's reserves of gold. That... runs out eventually. I'm not sure when because the rate at which it is being depleted is *increasing*, as other methods of propping up various parts of the economy fail and they resort to gold. But it looks likely to run out before the end of 2025.
At that point, no support from Iran (which demands gold), no way to prop up the currency (selling gold is the last way they have left), no way to reduce the ruble supply to prevent hyperinflation (selling gold is the last way they have left), no way to import smuggled foreign goods (no access to foreign currency and nobody wants rubles so using gold is the last way they have left), etc.
Unless it is actually defeated on the battlefield and routed, I just can't see him agreeing (even tacitly) to Ukrainian NATO membership. Even in terrible shape but still in position, his force will be able to keep up enough fire to make it clear to NATO members that ascension of Ukraine will mean immediate invocation of Article 5. He needs to be losing really badly to actually give up. I'm talking about either collapse of his forces in the field or dire domestic situation.
Yep. As you say, Putin's "Russian Tsar" mentality is utterly clear yet many people seem to be pretending that Putin is thinking differently.
This ends with Putin's removal. I don't know exactly when or how that happens, but Zelensky was already making jokes about it in _Servant of the People_ so *he* knows that it's necessary. And the Russian regime is collapsing so fast I'm sure it *will* happen.
Here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjH1rUWS3-c
The problem with foreign policy "realists" is that they play with abstract concepts like "rational actor" and "maximization of power" while utterly disregarding actual realities of regimes in question.
The joke actually gets used at least twice more during the series, IIRC! That's the most dramatic time, though.
Certainly if the US cuts off all aid and Europe does not step up with massive aid, it’s hard to see Ukraine retaking all it’s territory
Oh, Ukraine will retake all its territory even if that happens. It will just take a lot longer and be a lot bloodier. The key thing to remember is that the Russian Federation is approaching corpse status. The only surprising thing is that the vultures haven't started nibbling away at it (though China rewriting their maps to show Vladivostok as Hǎishēnwǎi is definitely a vulture circling)
Overall this is a depressing update, Phillips. The idea that Zelensky will agree to some Russian occupation would have been unthinkable before the election and what it shows is he is trying to get the best he can given what he views as the limitations in place. Frankly, nobody can trust a Trump appointee as they will only serve corrupt and malignant ends when comes to US security at this point.
The only true security Ukraine or other adjacent states will have is belonging to NATO. And nothing prevents the rest of NATO from aiding Ukraine and coming to their defense as a sort of implied Article 5. This comes with risks, but it is the best we have given the US and Germany have no backbone or are outright joining the likes of Hungary.
Agree Paul. Putin has a veto on any ceasefire or armistice in this war but he has no veto on NATO membership. If NATO invites Ukraine to join and is prepared to invoke Article 5 if Putin plans on continuing to fight then too bad for Putin.
However, this is a moot point since the US would never extend a NATO invitation while Trumpists rule the US. Nor would Orban or Fico.
The only way to stop Russia’s pathological fantasy of magical thinking that Ukrainians are really Russians is for Ukraine to join NATO. Period.
‘If Trump were to favor the outward facing over the inner circle, that would be a notable departure’ Scott Bessent was not the choice of Musk
Agree. And it will be interesting to see how influential he is.
The update and the comments are unsettling. For over 1000 days now, we have witnessed the war in Ukraine. Jonathan Brown commented on Syria and is correct to bring this subject into the realm of what we need to understand. Add to that Iran's role in Syria and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah as well as any destabilizing activity it likes. Not to mention the deliberate stop signs put up by Orban and the Republican anti-majority in power in the US. The list can go on and on when one thinks more globally. Think about including conflicts in the continents we chose to ignore, but which add fodder and fuel to changes in the world order. Then there is also one more element of the storm, China.
I recall the lightened moods I felt when the Cold War ended. I also recall the amazement and pride I felt witnessing the Arab Spring. That spectrum of hope has collapsed. While we beat on the errors and weaknesses of the US foreign policy and to be fair the EU's as well, it feels like we are in the midst of a perfect storm. Is it any wonder that the fear of escalation sounds so hollow a goal? Wars by proxy are still war.
Americans need to keep talking about Ukraine. We don’t want to wake up to a disastrous Trump deal with Uncle Vladimir.
NATO membership appeared to require the unanimous agreement of the current members (or am I out of date). At last report I read, that agreement is unavailable, so Zelensky's seemingly reasonable proposal collides with some European opinions.
Pretty shocking "worst month ever" reporting here, despite acknowledging in the piece that Ukraine lost 0.5$ of its territory in November... https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2024/dec/04/how-ukraine-faced-worst-month-battlefield-in-two-years-visualised?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Your article was necessary, and I believe Biden's tragedy of pacifism will define his legacy in geopolitics as well as in the persecution of the Federal cases that should have precluded Trump's return as a candidate.
Putin is no doubt working with his usual devotees to avoid Nato membership for Ukraine, though Ukraine rightly sees that as the only option for any semblance of a lasting peace. Given Trump's lack of support for Nato, would the other members disagree with a negative US position on this? It clearly would be in their own best long-term interest to speak out..
Lastly, perhaps in the final stretch of the Biden administration, Zelensky could finally mount an attack on the Kerch Strait bridge with US weapons and tell the world that he had the support of Biden, whether or not he did. There would be nothing Biden could do to Ukraine at that point.
I have a grim view on this process. Nobody cares what Zelensky wants or says. He has nearly zero leverage. The entire focus is on enticing Putin to end the destruction. NATO membership is not a negotiable topic. I'm not even sure we can describe what lies ahead a "negotiation." Trump is prepared to accept any terms, just like he fully acceded to the Taliban's demands.
Biden's pathetic support for Ukraine was not enough for me to vote for Trump, but made Trump's win more palatable. I hope Trump will rise to the moment and be a Reagan...
I think an agreement would have to include assurances of western aid so that Ukraine gets stronger. After a ceasefire, Russia might be reluctant to start again, and Putin won’t be around forever. I think this alternative would be better for Ukraine than the current trajectory, which is not good.
I think if Ukraine can get a deal along the lines of what Kellogg is saying, they should take it. I don’t think Russia will agree to a deal with Ukraine in NATO, so maybe that’s a starting position, but even a deal with frozen lines and no legal recognition of the land Russia took looks good for Ukraine, provided they continue to receive western aid.
But without NATO protection, any agreement just gives Putin a breather and as Zelinski says, Putin will come back - the 1994 Budapest memorandum, the 1997 treaty of friendship the 2003 Treaty on State border & the 2014 & 2015 Minsk agreements. Russia,, with or without Trump, will always reneg agreements and try to take over Ukraine. The Russians have been doing this for hundredsi of years. Ukraine needs NATO protection to stop Russia.