Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 331504 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20269
    • View Profile
Re: Russify or else
« Reply #1801 on: April 03, 2025, 04:58:15 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-issues-terrifying-ultimatum-to-millions-living-in-occupied-ukraine/ar-AA1CdcVm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=8549d10e13bb4cb9b93ec046c6fd520c&ei=9

I thought Putin (and Trump) were demanding elections. Shouldn't that include 'Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts'?

Consent of the governed anyone?



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3843
    • View Profile
Zelensky Seeks to Stack the Deck
« Reply #1804 on: April 17, 2025, 11:50:45 AM »
Thank you, Joe Biden, for getting us in bed with this weasel:

Ukraine’s Extension Of Martial Law Exposes Zelensky’s Fear Of Losing Re-Election
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 17, 2025

The US might pressure him to assemble a government of national unity on pain of once again suspending military and intelligence aid if he refuses to dilute his power in lieu of holding elections.

Ukraine extended martial law until 6 August following Zelensky’s request earlier this week, which will prevent elections from being held over the summer like The Economist claimed late last month was a scenario that he was considering in an attempt to give himself an edge over his rivals. This move therefore exposes his fear of losing re-election. It’s not just that he’s very unpopular, but he likely also fears that the US wants to replace him after his infamous fight in the White House.

To that end, the Trump Administration might not turn a blind eye to whatever electoral fraud he could be planning to commit in order to hold onto power, instead refusing to recognize the outcome unless one of his rivals wins. As for who could realistically replace him, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed last May that the US had reportedly entered into talks with Petro Poroshenko, Vitaly Klitschko, Andrey Yermak, Valery Zaluzhny, and Dmytro Razumkov.

The New York Times (NYT) just ran a feature article on Poroshenko, who took the opportunity to propose a government of national unity (GNU) almost 18 months after this idea was first floated by Politico in December 2023, but even the article’s author felt obligated to inform readers that he’s unlikely to return to power. Citing unnamed political analysts, they assessed that “Mr. Poroshenko may be angling for an electoral alliance with General Zaluzhny…[who] has remained mostly silent about politics” till now.

Nevertheless, Poroshenko’s NYT feature article succeeded in raising wider awareness of the GNU scenario, which the Trump Administration might seek to advance over the summer. Zelensky continues to irritate Trump, most recently by alleging that Russia has “enormous influence” over the White House and accusing his envoy Steve Witkoff of overstepping his authority in talks with Putin. This comes as Ukraine continues dragging its heels on agreeing to the latest proposed mineral deal with the US.

From the US’ perspective, since the increasingly troublesome Zelensky can’t be democratically replaced through summertime elections, the next best course of action could be to pressure him into forming a GNU that would be filled with figures like Poroshenko who’d be easier for the US to work with. This could also serve to dilute Zelensky’s power in a reversal of the Biden Administration’s policy that saw the US turning a blind eye to his anti-democratic consolidation of power on national security pretexts.

The pretext could be that any Russian-US breakthrough on resolving the Ukrainian Conflict requires the approval of a politically inclusive Ukrainian government given Zelensky’s questionable legitimacy after remaining in power following the expiry of his term last May and the enormity of what’s being proposed. In pursuit of this goal, the US could threaten to once again suspend its military and intelligence aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky speedily assembles a GNU that’s acceptable to the Trump Administration.

The purpose would be to push through a ceasefire for lifting martial law, finally holding elections, and ultimately replacing Zelensky. The GNU could also help prevent the fraud that he might be planning to commit if he decides to run again under these much more politically difficult circumstances, especially if they invite the US to supervise their efforts, both before and during the vote. Through these means, the US could therefore still get rid of Zelensky, who might think that extending martial law will prevent this.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/ukraines-extension-of-martial-law

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74625
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #1805 on: April 18, 2025, 10:33:19 AM »
Interesting.

Note too Sec. Rubio's statement of today/yesterday that the President has run out of patience with Putin's bullturds and has a matter of days to defecate or get off the pot, with America moving on, because "this is not our war".

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74625
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74625
    • View Profile
WSJ: How Trump could make muscular mediation work in Ukraine
« Reply #1807 on: April 22, 2025, 02:17:50 PM »
How Trump Could Make ‘Muscular Mediation’ Work in Ukraine
A stronger power can force adversaries to accept a compromise, but history shows it isn’t easy.
By Alan J. Kuperman
April 22, 2025 1:21 pm ET


President Trump’s coercive diplomacy to forge peace in Ukraine has prompted widespread derision. But I have comparatively studied such “muscular mediation” and can attest that it can work—though it is difficult and risky. Whether Mr. Trump succeeds will depend on overcoming hurdles that have bedeviled past efforts.

In theory, muscular mediation is easy, assuming the intervener is stronger than the opposing sides and any external meddlers. The mediator first proposes a compromise, which typically is rejected by at least one side that still hopes to do better on the battlefield. The mediator then coerces that side by weakening it militarily until it agrees to the proposal, but unfortunately that emboldens the other side. The mediator then has to coerce the other side too, demonstrating that neither will be permitted to achieve victory—at which point both sides agree to the compromise in principle and then negotiate the details.

If coercive diplomacy is so straightforward, why does it often fail or backfire? My research identifies four main challenges:

• The first coercion—forcefully threatening one side—is hard to make credible. This is especially true if the muscular mediator initially tries to coerce a traditional ally, who doubts the intervener would undermine its reputation for reliability. In Nagorno-Karabakh a decade ago, Russia withheld military aid to pressure its traditional ally Armenia to withdraw troops from Azerbaijan. But Armenia was skeptical of the threat, so it refused—until suffering a massive battlefield defeat in 2020. The U.S. faced a similar problem in Ukraine because President Volodymyr Zelensky thought he had a blank check—until Mr. Trump humiliated him on television in the Oval Office in February.

• The second coercion—threatening the other side—is even harder to make credible. That is because the intervener must plausibly threaten to flip-flop. In Bosnia this nearly prevented the Dayton peace deal of 1995. The U.S. had spent three years condemning and coercing Serb forces, so when Bosnian forces recaptured even more territory than the U.S. had proposed, they refused to give it back. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had to make extraordinary efforts to convince them that if they refused, the U.S. really would switch sides. Mr. Trump has similar credibility problems in threatening Russia, after spending his first months in office blaming Ukraine for the war.

• Excessive demands can backfire. This danger arises if the mediator tries to coerce one side to surrender a vital interest, but inadvertently provokes a military escalation. In Kosovo, when the U.S. threatened airstrikes in 1999 unless Yugoslavia agreed to an independence referendum in three years, Belgrade instead launched a lightning military offensive that displaced half the ethnic Albanian population. Mr. Trump faces a similar risk with Russia, which could resort to nuclear weapons if he threatened to help Ukraine recapture lost territory, especially Crimea.

• The mediator must have enough leverage—and be willing to use it. In some cases, however, the mediator proves unwilling to use its coercive power due to competing interests. One example is from 2023, when Russia again was trying to forge compromise in Nagorno-Karabakh but at the same time needed help evading Western sanctions over Ukraine. As a result, Vladimir Putin refrained from coercing Azerbaijan, allowing it to reconquer the enclave and displace the historic Armenian majority. Mr. Trump faces a similar dilemma as he seeks both peace in Ukraine and rapprochement with Russia.

Two of these hurdles already are overcome—Mr. Trump credibly threatened Ukraine; and he has no intention of violating Russia’s vital interests, while Ukraine can’t escalate the war significantly. That leaves two more challenges. First, Mr. Trump must decide that peace in Ukraine is more important than coziness with Russia. Then he must confront Mr. Putin with an ultimatum and deadline—in private, to avoid loss of face—either to accept a total cease-fire in return for the lifting of sanctions, or to suffer intensified sanctions and renewed U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

If Mr. Putin agreed to such a total cease-fire, as Mr. Zelensky has, negotiations could begin on the details. Russia should get its top priority of not permitting Ukraine to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (which is impossible anyway with the country partly occupied). A rump Ukraine need not recognize any territorial annexation and should be free to get economic and security assistance from Europe, while peacekeepers monitor the cease-fire line. This wouldn’t be a peace deal but an armistice, as has worked on the Korean Peninsula for 72 years.

But if Mr. Trump is unwilling to play hardball with Russia, he has no hope of forging an agreement. Russia would simply continue taking territory, and Mr. Trump could go down in history as the U.S. president who lost Ukraine.

Mr. Kuperman is a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74625
    • View Profile
WSJ: A moment of truth in Ukraine
« Reply #1808 on: April 24, 2025, 05:44:54 PM »


A Moment of Truth in Ukraine
The missile strike on civilians is clarifying about the war’s causes.
By The Editorial Board
April 24, 2025 5:38 pm ET

Vladimir Putin’s overnight missile assault on civilians in Kyiv is a grim moment that strips away the false pretenses and excuses about the Russian dictator’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s also an opening for President Trump to rethink his strategy, which is failing to produce peace.

Mr. Putin’s onslaught included more than 200 missiles and explosive drones. At least 12 are dead and dozens more wounded. The images of bodies pulled from rubble are horrifying, even after three years of carnage.


But the assault is clarifying about the war and its causes. Mr. Putin didn’t invade because Ukraine might join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which the Trump Administration has ruled out anyway. Mr. Putin’s war isn’t about Russian ties to Crimea, which he swallowed before he rolled tanks toward Kyiv. It isn’t about a few provinces, as Mr. Putin pummels civilians far from the front lines. It isn’t about a lack of U.S. respect for Mr. Putin’s security concerns.

Mr. Putin, an enemy of the United States, wants to subsume Ukraine as a free nation. Readers may think this states the obvious, but this basic truth is the starting point for any productive negotiation with Mr. Putin.

President Trump responded to Mr. Putin’s indiscriminate killing with a post on social media. “Vladimir, STOP!” he said. But such pleading only works if backed by consequences if Mr. Putin doesn’t stop. Mr. Trump has given Mr. Putin chances to make peace. His plan of pre-emptive concessions is contradicted by Russian missiles.

Vice President JD Vance attracted some notice this week for outlining a deal with Ukraine, but this remark deserved more attention: “We’ve really tried to understand things from the perspective of both the Ukrainians and the Russians. What do Ukrainians care the most about? What do the Russians care the most about? And I think that we’ve put together a very fair proposal.”

This reveals the Administration’s cardinal error. As Korean War historian T.R. Fehrenbach put it, there are tigers in the world. And you can’t deal with a tiger by soliciting his perspective on his hunger. Mr. Trump can’t want his legacy to be handing Ukraine to Mr. Putin, and there’s still an opening to start dealing with the Russian as the tiger who ignores the President’s entreaties and shoots missiles at apartment buildings

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20467
    • View Profile
Trump Zelensky Putin
« Reply #1809 on: April 25, 2025, 06:56:34 AM »
two of the triad do not want peace

so this will not happen in a day a month a quarter
and no time soon if ever.

Trump backed himself into the proverbial corner during the campaign

now he is pleading .......

and of course we have a mass media and deep state and half the nation working diligently to make sure he fails at this.  Party over peace and lives saved.   

He tried and may still succeed and he deserves credit for this.  Rick Grenell says at least the topic of peace is being talked about .The only problem only by Trump - no one else .

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74625
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #1810 on: April 25, 2025, 12:34:25 PM »
I have not seen Stick applied to Putin only Carrot.   It looks like we are going to walk away and leave it to the Euros.

Can't say this is wrong-- there were no good outcomes here, but the Dems and WSJ will look to pin "losing Ukraine" on Trump to offset Biden's Afghanistan.