March 19, 2025 - 7:00am
The much-heralded Trump-Putin call has not produced a breakthrough in the Ukraine peace process, but it may have advanced it. Russia’s agreement to a 30-day mutual halt to attacks on energy infrastructure is a sign that Putin wishes to negotiate peace (naturally, on terms acceptable to Russia), and is prepared to make a limited but significant concession in order to move the negotiations forward. Trump and Putin have also reportedly agreed on “immediate, technical-level meetings” to start drawing up the details of a comprehensive peace settlement.
Of course, this depends on both sides refraining from attacks on infrastructure during the next 30 days – and in the hours immediately following the agreement, both sides appear to have continued them. There is therefore at present no guarantee that the agreement will hold.
If Moscow and Kyiv do stick to it, the agreement to a pause in attacks on infrastructure would be a significant concession by Russia; for while Ukraine will also cease its attacks on Russian infrastructure, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electricity system have been vastly more damaging and valuable to the Russian war effort. Hence Russia’s initial refusal to agree to such a moratorium when Ukraine and France first proposed this last month. The pause in these attacks will also limit Ukrainian civilian casualties, many of which have been collateral from Russian strikes against infrastructure.
Trump did not agree to Russia’s prior demand that during a ceasefire the US stop arms supplies to Ukraine. For any US and European critics of Trump who are still capable of thinking objectively about the peace process, this should lead them to question the hysterical condemnations of the US President as a “traitor” and “Putin ally”.
On the other hand, Russia continues to reject the US-Ukraine call for a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire because the war on the ground continues to go its way. We do not yet know the final figure for Ukrainian losses during their latest defeat in Kursk, but it appears to be substantial. Having driven the Ukrainian army from the sliver of Russian territory it still held, Moscow will be free to throw all its reserves into its offensive in the Donbas.
How far and fast this will proceed is impossible to say. US military aid to Ukraine has resumed, and European aid continues. However, the advantage unquestionably lies with Russia. At best, Kyiv can hope to continue the pattern of the past year, whereby the Ukrainian army falls back very slowly from position to position, inflicting heavy casualties in the process. The chance of a much greater Ukrainian defeat cannot however be excluded.
That is why the present EU and British approach to the peace process is so very questionable from Ukraine’s point of view. For the EU may eventually have to play a critical role in persuading the Ukrainian government to accept what even in the very best circumstances will be a painful peace settlement. Instead, at present all the talk continues to be of a “coalition of the willing” providing a powerful peacekeeping force as an essential part of a peace settlement.
This is simply not going to happen. Several EU governments openly oppose it. The Russian government has repeatedly rejected it and insisted that any peacekeepers be from neutral countries. And even the British government, which together with the French is leading the push for such a force, has stated that it would only be possible with a US “backstop”, or guarantee of armed support. Trump has ruled this out.
What this British and European project can do, however, is encourage the Ukrainians to hold out for it as part of a settlement, if not as an actual goal then as a bargaining counter to try to extract concessions from Moscow in other areas. This, though, would depend on the Russians being willing to bargain — and if they don’t think it is a serious threat, why would they?
Meanwhile on the battlefield, time is not on Ukraine’s side. It is therefore hard to see why any of its serious European allies (as opposed to a politically bankrupt establishment posturing for the dregs of domestic advantage) would think that this empty proposal for a European force is to Ukraine’s advantage.
Russia continues to insist that for the duration of a complete ceasefire, Western military aid to Ukraine should be paused — by way of compensation for the military advantage that Russia would give up. The Trump administration might agree to this, but the Europeans certainly will not. Moscow also wants as many aspects of a peace settlement to be nailed down as firmly as possible before agreeing to a ceasefire.
Trump and Putin spoke of the need for “improved US-Russia relations” — a radical difference from current European rhetoric about Russia and a crucial goal for Moscow. The problem for Russia, however, as a Russian analyst told me, is that “any agreement with the US has a four-year shelf-life”; in other words, after the next elections a new US administration may tear it up. That is another reason why the Russians are trying to make any agreement as formal, detailed and internationally legitimate as possible.
Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.
lieven_anatol
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnatol Lieven’s contributions on this topic often come queasily close to presenting a purely Russian point of view. This is dressed up as ‘realism’, but there is nothing realistic about Putin’s statement that the removal of the ‘root causes of the conflict’ – i.e. the fact that Ukraine’s government and remaining population are pro-Western and do not wish to be ruled by Moscow – is a requirement even for a ceasefire. Putin wants a supine, pro-Russian Ukraine. His own actions ensure this is not going to happen. In truth these talks have not advanced the cause of peace one iota – they have simply confirmed that Putin is not really interested in it, and that in reality Trump is nothing like the deal-maker he presents in his own warped and narcissistic imagination. The failings of Lieven’s analysis are clearest from his statement that a halt to attacks on energy infrastructure mainly favours Ukraine – it means an end to very effective attacks on Russian oil refining and export capacity, while the Ukrainians have actually done a remarkable job of maintaining their energy grid despite repeated Russian attacks.
The root cause of the conflict is Ukraine being used by US Neocons to try to weaken and dismember Russia (the Wolfowitz Doctrine) and advancing NATO eastwards despite a promise not to do so.
In pursuit of that the duly elected President of Ukraine was overthrown in a CIA coup, successor picked by Nuland…(f**k the EU…). The Minsk Accords were breached by Ukraine, and admitted by Merkel to have been entered into in bad faith by the West to arm Ukraine.
The realism is that the USA has no intention of getting into a direct conflict with Russia, which would quickly turn nuclear. In fact the view that the USA would ever “go nuclear” in defence of Europe or anywhere other than the USA has always been a comforting fantasy of NATO members. In later years both McNamara and Kissinger confirmed that the USA would never have used nuclear weapons in defence of West Germany.
That leaves “Europe” as Ukraine’s “support”. It hasn’t got the military to do so and is broke. It is just posturing. The Ukraine conflict is merely being used as distraction from the dire state of the UK and EU which the ruling parties have brought about over the last 25 years of “luxury beliefs” and fantasy policies.
That might all be true, but it’s far from the whole truth. The US and EU may have helped create the opportunity for Putin to invade Ukraine, but the motivation was entirely his. No one forced him to do it.
At the same time, I note many people (perhaps you are one of these) claim that Russia is no threat to the EU/West and that their failure to defeat Ukraine after 3 years of serious effort proves this. On the other hand, they seem to be claiming (as you do here) that the European collective defence forcess are too weak to make a difference. You can’t have it both ways …
Agree with most of your last paragraph though. The EU position really is little more than posturing.
No he wasn’t “forced” to do it, anymore than someone who pre-empts an almost certain injurious situation is forced to do it. But they’d be very wise to do so.
Putin was happy with the Minsk Agreements. It is probable that the Donbas etc would join Russia eventually anyway but Ukraine/ the Neocons didn’t want that. They wanted the full Wolfowitz.
And of course Russia is no threat to the EU/West. It couldn’t take it let, alone hold it so where’s the benefit? And please don’t come out with the “imperialist Russia” thing…it can’t and won’t and doesn’t want to.
Russia tried to become part of the West. It even helped the USA after 911…but it was still rebuffed.
Well it now knows the score, and will act accordingly. And it has been driven into the sphere of China which wiser advisers, Kennan, Kissinger etc, always sought to prevent.
It needn’t have been this way.
It’s true: Ukraine making its own decisions would certainly have damaged Russia enormously. Ordinary Russians might have seen that in a democracy people have choices. Shocking!
If only Ukraine had been making its own decisions…regrettably they were made for it by others…
So Russia is essentially the bloke who beats his missus, then turns to her and says “look what you made me do!”
Clearly not.
Russia is the guy who was given promises that no threatening moves would be made, then they are and he finally decides to end the possibility of further threats.
These “neocons” have become some version of “it’s the CIA doing everything bad” that the Left fondly used to imagine was the cause almost every single international conflict. Nobody else had any agency it seemed!
The term is incredibly poorly defined probably on purpose. Wolfowitz etc al are not in power and haven’t been for decades.
To be the most convincing explanation is that Russia wants to at least control the governments of its neighbours, not necessarily to directly take them over. Of course that puts it into direct conflict with much of public opinion and civil society in those societies, which perhaps do want to join the EU for example. (And the EU is certainly no military threat to Russia!). Also were Ukraine to be an economic success as Poland has been, this would show up the corrupt Putin administration in a very poor light.
“The root cause of the conflict is Ukraine being used by US Neocons to try to weaken and dismember Russia (the Wolfowitz Doctrine)….” You say that as if it’s a bad thing…..
I don’t know whether you’re trying to convince yourself about that rubbish about a Ukrainian “coup” in 2014. The president fled after his goons have been shooting a lot of peaceful protesters in the Maidan square. Of course we could also say on this analogy that Yeltsin staged a coup with his much more bloodier assault on the Russian Parliament buildings, and therefore the entire Russian government including Putin as his handpicked successor iis illegitimate. Of course consistency is not really a feature of a lot of pro-Russian apologists!
However whether it was a coup or not, Ukraine was not posing any kind of security threat to Russia. But Russia obviously wants is to control Ukraine’s government directly or indirectly. Ironically Ukrainian national identity has been much strengthened by the 3 Russian successive invasions, which war often manages to achieve. If some country is shelling and destroying your town it’s difficult to actually love the people who are doing it.
If Ukraine doesn’t see an advantage in the energy infrastructure ceasefire, then why are they so eager to accept it?
This is all just preliminary skirmishing and the real negotiations are yet to come. But both sides are taking this seriously now. I’d say Donald Trump has shown great skill as a dealmaker so far.
Joe Biden and the European leaders have had 3 years to try to end this war and did absolutely nothing. Donald Trump has had less than two months and he brings the two sides to a partial ceasefire. To you, that’s a delusional narcissist at work. Not to me.
I hope you’re right and I am wrong and that this might be a prelude to a lasting peace, but I think it is very unlikely. Under American pressure the Ukrainians have already offered a complete ceasefire, to which this Russian response is the absolute minimum required to avoid publicly snubbing Trump, with all the unpredictable consequences that might entail. There is no reason to suppose however that it is offered in good faith, and it has clearly been chosen because it will be very easy to claim that the Ukrainians have breached it, or that subsequent Russian attacks were false flag operations by the Ukrainians. Putin is just stringing Trump along.
The bottom line is that Putin is not operating according to a ‘realist’ calculus of cost and benefit to Russia’s national interest. If he had been he would never have launched his full-scale war in the first place, but persisted with his previous highly successful grey zone tactics in the Donbass and within Ukrainian politics. He is an old man in a hurry, who believes his task is to restore Russian ‘greatness’ – a status completely unrelated to its real economic or military capacity. This includes a commitment to controlling the sites of the origin myths of the Russian state, Crimea and Kyiv, which in turn requires a denial that Ukrainians are actually a separate nation of their own. It also includes the claim that no former Soviet state has the right to join international organisations Russia does not control, or even to have a domestic political system whose openness, pluralism and democracy might set an example to the Russian people that would pose a threat to his gangster kleptocracy. He is not going to give up on these goals, which are just as clearly something no Ukrainian government, whether that of Zelensky or anyone else, could possibly agree to.
This is not to say that there aren’t compromises to be made, especially when it comes to territory. Ukraine is not going to get Crimea or the Donbass back, and I think privately many Ukrainians have accepted their country might be better off without them. It is what happens to the rest of Ukraine that matters, and here Putin’s demands – Ukrainian disarmament and neutrality, an end to any prospect of looking westward – are clearly just intended as a prelude either to another invasion or the installation of another Yanukovych-style puppet and the transformation of Ukraine into another Belarus. There is no room for compromise there.
Finally – yes, I agree that the Biden administration ran out of ideas on how to end the conflict, but the problem was that they were too timid rather than that they weren’t prepared to talk to Putin. They forced the Ukrainians to fight with one hand behind their backs when it came to preventing attacks from within Russian territory. Above all neither they nor the Europeans were prepared to really cripple the Russian economy by definitively turning off the oil export taps, because they feared the price spikes and inflation that would result. That short-term pain would have been worth it, however.
You may be right that no lasting peace comes out of these talks. But is there any reason not to try?
In science sometimes people will argue about whether theories are valid or not. But that kind of debate never accomplishes anything. It’s too abstract for the real world. To learn, you need to do the experiment.
In science or in negotiating a peace treaty, the only way to find out whether something works is trial and error. There’s no harm in trying to find a peaceful solution. Both sides always have the option of fighting to fall back on.
Luckily, we in the West have a good cultural reference point that can be brought into play here. Putin is Sauron (the Dark Lord). Russia is Mordor (inhabited mostly by orcs). Trying to negotiate a peace in that circumstance doesn’t seem likely to bear fruit.
Maybe Ukraine should just continue fighting indefinitely then. They are very plucky, and on the side of truth/justice, etc etc
Is this missing a /sarc tag?
Provided the West gives it every weapon it has in its arsenal, sure.
Whilst Europe dismisses the root causes of the Ukraine war, then there will not be peace but more bloodshed, billions wasted on destroying property and increasing isolation for Western Europe.
Root causes started in 2014 with the US backed coup of a pro-Russian president and the start of the Donbass war. Zekensky was elected to deescalate the Donbass war but when in office, escalated it with American military aid. This directly led to Putin’s special military operation in order to protect the Russian speaking population in east Ukraine.
Other root causes were the failure of Ukraine to maintain neutrality as well the failure to address the constitutional crisis with pro-European oligarchs wanting a Unitary state and pro-Russian oligarchs wanting a Federal state.
Ukraine’s problems largely arised due to the internal conflict between these two sets of oligarchs with both mired in corruption.
The second most important issue for Ukrainians after the war is endemic corruption in the country.
“Pro-Russian President”? You mean “Paid Russian Stooge”! Don’t believe me? Where does he live now? Why would Ukraine want to “maintain neutrality” when the world’s most evil people live right next door to it?
Nice sleight of hand with the “remaining population are pro-Western” — maybe consult an electoral map of Ukraine from before 2014 and ask yourself, “which Ukrainians”? No doubt the denizens of Lvov and environs feel that way, but it’s a big country with a population that is FAR from homogenous.
Trump has been made to look a fool. All his bravado about ending the war and he can’t even manage a ceasefire despite sucking up to Putin.
The Russians can’t believe their luck. Trump has sat them back at the top table and got absolutely nothing in return.
Art of the deal my a**e!
You think a war can be ended on the back of a phone call??
Have a word with yourself.
I wasn’t the one claiming it could be, Trump was.
It’s looking more like the war will end with Americas capitulation rather than a deal but we’ll see
America isn’t actually involved so risks nothing and can’t “capitulate”. Regrettably Europe is edging closer to getting involved but hopefully Italy, Poland etc will stop that.
The final peace deal will probably be similar to the one Ukraine rejected but with loss of the Donbas etc.
I thought you’ve claimed constantly it’s an American proxy war? Therefore Trump giving Russia everything it wants can be classed as a capitulation.
It’s the latest in a long line of American success stories. Korea remains partitioned, Vietnam was an abject surrender, the Taliban run Afghanistan, the Iranians run Iraq, the Kurds have been abandoned….now you can add the Ukrainians to the list
Of course it’s a proxy war exactly as Rubio said. By involved I mean actually involved in the fighting. It isn’t and won’t.
And yes, your list is correct. However South Korea is in the US Empire, Vietnam is now essentially capitalist of the state variety, Iraq and Iran pose no great threat to Israel (the actual point of it all…). The Kurds are “collateral”…incidentally I wonder how the “Marsh Arabs” are doing these days…
So it depends on your definition of “American success”… It looks fairly successful for the USA to me, not so much for the “recipient” countries and peoples but that’s the way the game goes.
It can all be dressed up as “rule based”, or “moral” but it is about sheer naked force and the advantage and benefit to individual countries…or more correctly their ruling class.
And yes the USA is selling expensive LPG to Germany…who’d have thunk it…lol
Why would Poland stop it? They know they will be next, and unlike the rest of Europe, their military is strong (they are after all right next to Russia). As to Italy, who has ever suggested that they participate anyway?
It looks like nothing of the sort. You’ve no idea what the outcome, including the longer term might look like, and the reason being you can’t think straight due to trying to find ways to denigrate Trump.
I’d call it TDS, but it goes beyond a cliché.
Trump Derangement Syndrome – you have to be deranged to believe in Trump!
I don’t “believe” in him; rather that he’s a symptom of decades of progressivism. Those who display TDS are ultimately to blame for the reaction.
Why is criticism of Trumps policy automatically labelled as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Much like those who call every criticism of Israel antisemitism, or criticism of a Muslim as Islamophobia, it’s simply a lazy way of trying to shut down the conversation.
Trump said he’d finish the war in a day. It’s now two months later and his only “achievement” is seemingly a different partial ceasefire for each side, neither of which is being adhered to
You are attacking Donald Trump for trivial things and ignoring the big thing he accomplished.
Yes, Donald Trump did make hyperbolic statements about how quickly he would act. That he didn’t meet the letter of his boasts should not obscure the fact that he met the spirit. He has acted blazingly fast.
And the fact that he has not accomplished much in the way of results should not obscure the fact that he has accomplished a great deal in the way of process. For the first time since shortly after the war started Donald Trump has both sides working toward an agreement to end the war. That’s big.
Think process, not result. Ukraine made an offer, Russia made a counteroffer, and Ukraine accepted it. It doesn’t matter much what the deal was or whether it is broken. The mediation process is in place and it’s working. People are not just talking, they are doing.
The mediation moves on next week to expanding the ceasefire to the Black Sea. Both countries would benefit from that just like they both benefit from the ceasefire on energy infrastructure. Another win-win that will be hard for either country to turn down.
And both parties would benefit from a full ceasefire, which becomes more possible the stronger the foundation for it is laid. By then the war will likely be at an end.
In my view, Donald Trump is conducting a textbook case in how to do a mediation. In my view, you’re condemning Donald Trump by grousing about the trivial and turning a blind eye to the significant. I wouldn’t call it Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I do think it’s wrong.
Have you ever participated in a negotiation, especially a mediation? It doesn’t sound like it. This is major progress, not a failure in any way.
A mediator meets with each party separately, by turns, in confidence. This is just the first round and already there has been a substantive offer by Ukraine, a counteroffer by Russia, and acceptance (in process) by Ukraine. Now two parties which are at war are talking seriously about peace. That doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, but it’s a good sign.
Donald Trump hasn’t given the Russians anything. The US is clearly on Ukraine’s side, but as mediator he is playing it fair. The purpose of mediation is to explore possibilities, so no one can predict the outcome, and there is still a long way to go. But your condemnation of Donald Trump is premature.
I like what I see. Both Donald Trump’ and Vladimir Putin see this as not just about the war in Ukraine but something bigger. That’s good. As president and general Dwight Eisenhower said, if you can’t figure out how to solve a problem, expand it.
That applies in negotiations too. Don’t haggle and make the negotiations a zero-sum game. Try for a win-win that gives everyone something by creatively bringing other things into play.
I worry about Volodymyr Zelensky in that regard. He’s too caught up in protecting his negotiating position and in drawing red lines. That attitude is not going to serve him well. I hope he has learned that from the lecture he got in the Oval Office.
Zelensky’s attitude is to stay alive, very little else. He’s doing rather well so far
His negotiating position is based an attempt to recover from an untrustworthy aggressor the land that they have stolen from his country by force. Don’t you worry about Zelensky, he’s not worrying about your expert opinion.
I’m just worried that Volodymyr Zelensky will chase after an ideal deal that’s never going to happen and spurn a deal that would give him most of what he wants. He’s not doing a good job negotiating. Whether that will make a difference or not is hard to say.
Just one small problem with getting promises of compromise from Putin. He regularly and unflinchingly breaks them.
So? If Vladimir Putin breaks his promise, then you are back to fighting, and no worse off than you were before. If he keeps his promise, you have peace. No reason not to do that deal. At least then you have the possibility of peace.
The longer the war goes on, the more Russians die. That in itself is a good thing.
Ukraine is suffering from the war more than Russia. That’s a bad thing.
Russians are almost unique, in that they can make the world a better place simply by dying.
Can’t one say “arse” on UnHerd?
Interesting views, which I agree with.
Just one correction. There was no Trump-Putin agreement to an energy infrastructure ceasefire. Russia offered the ceasefire if Ukraine would agree to it. Ukraine has indicated that they will agree, but have not yet done so, meaning there is no agreement in place. Donald Trump is just a mediator without power to agree to anything on Ukraine’s behalf.
That’s important to keep in mind. Ukraine will decide what it wants to do, not the US and not Europe. The US and Europe may promise to do certain things to facilitate the agreement, and may even sign it, but it will be an agreement between Ukraine and Russia and no one else.
This is indeed an important step. The negotiations are well underway and proceeding apace. Godspeed and God’s blessing.
Hard to know if the Russians really are committed.
Makes the interesting point that Russia does have to bargain for the possibility that the US position changes again in 4 years time. Also assuming that anything Trump says has a half life of more than a few years. I don’t trust Putin (who is the person responsible for this war) an inch. But I can see why he might not trust Trump (or the Europeans).
I’m not sure why the agreement of the Europeans is considered necessary by the author. They are in no position to veto any US-Russia-Ukraine agreeement. It might be helpful, but surely not necessary.
It’s not that Russia needs European agreement to end the war or even to win it militarily; but one of Russia’s declared goals is a new security architecture for Europe, i.e. a settlement involving normal peaceful relations and trade.
I can very well imagine that Russia is eying the disparity in population sizes between it and its Asia neighbours with apprehension, and would much prefer a peaceful back yard and thriving market for its exports rather than the paranoid if ineffectual basket-cases our “leaders” are determined should be our future.
There is little to stop Russia from winning the war. Whether Russia can win the peace as well remains very much an open question, and one Russia cannot solve on the battlefield or on its own or even with the US.
Russia’s goal is untrammelled imperial expansion. Trump is happy with that as he seeks the same end. There is quite a lot available to stop Russia winning the war – but it’s like Israel in Gaza, there is no ‘victory’ to be had.
One thing that Russia is NOT going to get is “peaceful relations and normal trade” with Western Europe (the US might be a different matter). At best, it might get “uneasy relations, and very little trade (Hint: no gas pipelines to Western Europe)”.
I’m not sure we can make any predictions with great certainty right now.
I’d like to think that Russia wouldn’t be rewarded by having all sanctions removed fairly soon, but I can see this might happen. Once the US takes a decision, other countries usually fall into line. I’m not convinced that Europe can hold out to a different line from the US here – are there many examples of this happening before ? Besides which, European leaders and countries don’t all have the same views. There may well be all sorts of tradeoffs if (and it’s far from certain) we’re heading to some sort of settlement.
It feels like Europe is just going through the motions. Like planning for a European/NATO peacekeeping force in Ukraine that the Russians will never tolerate.
As we have comparatively recently learned, pipelines can mysteriously explode.
Russia has basically said that they would be very happy to have a total ceasefire as long as Ukraine surrenders. Trump goes on and on about the wonderful economic advantages to Russia and the USA if the war ends – and is trying to find a way to throw Ukraine under the bus.
The problem for Russia, however, as a Russian analyst told me, is that “any agreement with the US has a four-year shelf-life”; in other words, after the next elections a new US administration may tear it up. That is another reason why the Russians are trying to make any agreement as formal, detailed and internationally legitimate as possible.
.
The problem with Russia is that any agreement with Russia has zero shelf-life
Exactly.
All pro Russian clowns on here never answered simple questions:
1) why should we trust Russia to abide by any new agreement?
There was Budapest memorandum and Russia broke it.
2) why do Sweden and Finland join NATO?
Because if you are not in NATO you suffer like Ukraine unless you become pro Russian shithole like Belorusia.
Does anyone seriously believe the USA will put itself at risk for any other country in NATO? If so I have a bridge in London they can buy…
Not under Trump, at any rate.
Or any other US President…past or present. Their job is to look after the USA…no-one else.
No one else other than Israel.
The NATO agreement requires them to. I accept that Trump may see things differently, but previous US administrations on both sides would have.
Why should Russia trust the West, which has attacked/invaded Russia five or six times in the past 200 years and broke its promise not to move NATO east after 1991?
Perhaps you can point us to this signed agreement that NATO wouldn’t move eastward? Because I can show one from Russia that promised to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty.
Also NATO, didn’t move eastward as it’s a voluntary alliance. Those eastern bloc countries moved west, because they feared what would happen to them if they didn’t.
Ukraine shows they were right to do so
NATO expansion is the very reason Ukraine was attacked and it also signed an agreement to be “perpetually neutral”. The Americans & Russians signed it too, for the record, so everyone broke it, although the Russians were the last to do so.
Furthermore, a number of NATOs newest members were strong-armed into joining as a precondition for EU membership (Montenegro, Macedonia, possibly Albania) or had puppets installed to create the illusion of legitimacy and popular support (Georgia, Ukraine).
It’s strange that you simp so hard for NATO while simultaneously being critical of European dependence on the Americans (in your other comments).
NATO is America’s primary tool for dominance in Europe and has weakened the old continent immeasurably since “the end of history”.
American (partial) withdrawal was always going to happen, but this last crop of Eurocrats is so indoctrinated in American hegemony that they were blind to it and are now spending money we don’t have for things we wouldn’t need if they weren’t stupid enough to follow the US into every military adventure-cum-disaster.
Dubious pro Russian history to put in mildly. Why do you accept every single statement of Russia’s? Might it not be that they have a particular interest in dissembling and deceiving. After all they recognised Ukrainian independence in 1991, which normally involves that nation being able to set up its own government! I think it is very questionable with that the reason that Russia invaded Ukraine was because of NATO expansion. By the way as I’ve mentioned everybody knows that no Western state is a threat to Russia and I presume Russia’s intelligent services know this as well.
The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO this was only ever remotely on the agenda after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Of course the real underlying reason for the successive waves of Russian aggression is the Russia wants to control the Ukraine the government that Ukrainians elect, if not the entire country directly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=Ukraine's%20Declaration%20of%20Sovereignty%2C%20adopted,nuclear%20free%20principles%22%20(art.
Regarding American hegemony in Europe, NATO was set up precisely for the reasons that you can read about, to deter Soviet aggression, which was in line with American containment policy. As far as I can see deterring Communism which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people was a thoroughly good thing. Please point to some some substantive advantages – perhaps the defence industry? but nothing was to stop Europe developing its own which indeed it did. And the decline European defence spending is much more recent since the end of the Cold War, and since then American resentment as increased because they were by then definitely paying the lion’s share of defence.
Apparently something I wrote above is verboten and can’t therefore be voted on…? Or edited for that matter.
“Five or six times”? Ok, so there was Napoleon and Hitler. What are the other three or four?
Quite. The pro Russian apologists on this forum just come up with any old thing. I’m A realist and I think Ukraine is going to have to accept a painful peace, this does not mean I have to accept every single shred of pro Russian propaganda.
This is an outrageous argument – some chutzpah!. The “West” as kind of meaningful geopolitical entity didn’t exist for the period that you’re talking about. It might have been a cultural concept, but it was only a geopolitical one after World War 2.
The aggressors from the (geographic) West included Napoleon, who was not leader of something called the West, and Hitler, with whom before he betrayed them, the Soviet Union was perfectly happy to work in conjunction with in carving up Poland and destroying its intelligence here and military leadership. I love the “five or six times” – whose vagueness in itself is an indication that this is propaganda rather than some historic reality, Where do you get your other 3 or 4 occasions from?
In any case, neither France , Germany nor Poland, nor the US is going to invade Russia today. WE all know that, so I presume Putin’s good intelligent services know that as well! But again, pro Russian apologists don’t seem to have any concept that Russia might have real objectives that differ from its stated fears, but the stated fears might be a much more sympathetic argument to its “useful idiots” in the West.
Lastly, the Russians have invaded many more times than they have ever been invaded, indeed this territorial expansion includes much of Ukraine and formally, Poland on two occasions, and the Baltic states.
The pro-Russian lot amaze me in their contortions. Every single Western action is interpreted in the most negative possible light, even when there are obvious divisions between the Western countries. On the contrary every Russian statement is treated as Holy Writ. We still have a freeish speech; they have none. The Russians have also broken numerous ceasefire agreements – and of course legally agreed to respect or Ukrainian independence back in 1991.
Russia holds the British with total contempt. I don’t think because someone declares yourself anti woke you are somehow exempt from this. Russia recklessly came very close to poisoning an entire British town not so many years ago. On that occasion it lied and lied again rather than doing anything to assist the British authorities.
We absolutely have to be realistic about any peace settlement, but we don’t have to buy into every single piece of pro-Putin propaganda.
Not necessarily zero but as European history shows “peace agreements” tend to lead to resumed wars in the end. Maybe not always but frequently.
This hasn’t aged well!
How so?
There can be no ,legitimacy in Moscow’s position unless to retreat to pre-2014 positions. Moscow can talk till, its blue in the face?. So can Trump. That’s the bottom line.
Europe’s problem is that its “leaders” have talked themselves into a situation that they can’t walk back without making themselves look like fools. They must also know that the EU’s disastrous handling of the war has serious implications not just for the future of NATO but for the future of the EU also.
They actually ARE fools and already look like that to anyone who considers the facts.
The UK and EU are economically and militarily weak, and all due to their own policies. If it wasn’t so dangerous their posturing would be laughable. Unfortunately it is very far from that.
You are right, they are weak. However, Russia’s aggression has surely taught them they will have to strengthen as quickly as possible, and whatever the cost, to be able to face Russia’s inevitable future aggression.