The Trump administration has decided to resume the provision of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. It is thus aiming at escalating the conflict.
The outcome of yesterday’s talk between a Ukrainian and a U.S. delegation Saudi Arabia was not completely in favor of the European/Ukrainian idea of a 30 day ceasefire restricted to air and sea attacks. But it opened the desired pathway to prolonging the war.
The U.S. asked the Ukrainians to accept a 30 day long ceasefire offer. This would of course only be implemented if the Russian side agrees to it. Meanwhile the U.S. resumes all war support for Ukraine. The outcome demonstrates weakness on the U.S. side:
According to the latest from Riyadh, Ukraine says it is ready for a 30 day cease fire. If this is what Washington “extracted” from the Ukrainians, it is operationally meaningless. With Russia on the brink of winning in Kursk and elsewhere, the Russians won’t accept any such deal. If it is a ruse to allow the US to resume arms shipments to Ukraine, knowing Russia will reject it, the so-called peace initiative is a dead letter.
‘The ball is now in Russia’s court’ was the media slogan launched by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and obediently repeated by various European underlings.
But why would or should Russia agree to this when the idea seems to be to trap Russia:
This marks a significant shift in the US approach to ending the conflict. Previously, Washington sought to pressure Ukraine into accepting a US- and Russia-brokered deal largely on Moscow’s terms. Now, America is attempting to strong-arm Russia into accepting a ceasefire as the first step toward a broader peace plan — warning that if Moscow refuses, “we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here”, as Rubio put it.
Whether Russia will agree remains uncertain. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it does not view a ceasefire as viable without a broader framework for negotiations. But the parties are far from agreeing on this broader framework. Russia’s demands are clear: above all, legal recognition by Ukraine and the West of Russia’s annexed territories as part of the Russian Federation.
The u-turn by the Trump administration, from pressure on Ukraine to new bellicosity to Russia, leaves a question:
So what does the Trump Administration think it is doing by retying the Ukraine millstone to its neck? This isn’t Trump’s war. The Oval Office row provided him with the perfect excuse to cut Zelensky loose, even put new elections as the condition for providing much help, and provide only bare bones support (not that the US could do more than that on the weapons front) so as to blunt criticism that the US was abandoning Ukraine, as opposed to getting them to sober up about their true condition.
Yves Smith, quoted above, sees four potential reasons:
- the U.S. really believes that Russia is in a bad shape economically,
- the U.S. really believes that Russia would and wants to profit from a ceasefire,
- the neocons (i.e. Marco Rubio and the Europeans) have played Trump,
or (most likely):
Finally, Trump may, even more than before, be in “All tactics and no strategy is the noise before the defeat” mode. It is becoming more and more apparent that his top priority is dominating any interaction, no matter whether that advances any long term aim. Trump and his allies derived pleasure from beating up on Zelensky during and after the White House row. Even though Zelensky asked for it (at a minimum by not donning a suit), what did the US gain? Zelensky ran around Europe, getting support that bolstered him at home. The US, despite holding the cards, got bupkis in Riyadh aside from some optics.
Since 2014 the Ukrainian side has multiple times agreed to this or that ceasefire after its forces received a strong beating. It also immediately broke each of its promises. The defeat of its incursion into the Kursk region of Russia will have motivated it to accept the U.S. position. But what force could make it stick to a ceasefire if Russia would agree to one?
The current situation on the battle field is very much in Russia’s favor. Any pause in fighting would allow the U.S. and its allies to accumulate more arms and ammunition for Ukraine. Russian forces are well supplied and not in need of a break in the fighting. Should the Russian leadership agree to a pause it would open itself to considerable critique from Russian nationalists and hardliners.
Russia, at the same time, wants to keep its friends in China and the Global South on its side. Pressure from them is the only reason I can think of that might push Russia into accepting a temporary ceasefire deal. But there has been no public noise in this direction from China or other BRICS and Global South countries so far.
Russia has yet to receive the official result of the U.S.-Ukrainian talks. It will not react to media noise before having read those.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
from Ron Paul Institute Featured Articles
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment