Is Europe finally waking up to the fact that Putin is making trouble in many more countries than just Ukraine. Most of the old Yugoslavia seems to be having problems with pro-Russian far right parties trying to seize power, Georgia and Moldova continue to have problems. Poland is very aware of the danger from Russia, which is why they are forging ahead on their defence spending, but does Europe recognise the awful costs that will come from not directly arming now, and confronting Putin. We have left everything very late.
(1) that Trump currently has not articulated even the basic principles of any peace plan (whilst berating Zelensky for not buying into it)
(2) the Russians continue to demand land which, fortunately, it is not in Trump’s power to give, and have not indicated that they are prepared to make any concessions of any kind.
This means that a peace (as opposed to a ceasefire) is unlikely, however much the utterly, shallow, foolish and capricious Trump talks vapidly and endlessly about it. Trump’s objectives are indeed completely opaque, other than to show to his followers that he has done “something”, and a desire to get his own back on Zelenskyy for a personal vendetta relating to Trump’s totally improper behavior in trying to pressurize Zelenskyy before, some thing for which he should properly have been successfully impeached in his first term.
Opaque is being very generous to that empty headed creature Trump (stygian might be better) He is a useful idiot puppet who will be surplus to requirements by 2027 l expect. Best Europe gets into firm negotiation involving Russia now and in doing so 1st expose that crafty tyrant Putin and hopefully encouarge opposition in Russia and dissent amongst the solviki hardmen. Still think China could be quietly encouraged to box Rus in given their trade relations. A Chinese back channel could be very useful surely and Europe may be a bit better placed to use such effectively in a negotiation senario.
I'd hazard a guess that 1) is the next card they play. I've seen suggestions that Starlink may already be with Russia's military but I don't know how credible.
There's also the one factor not raised here and that is how long Russia can carry on fighting for before its economy overheats / they start becoming very short of key equipment. As per Lawrence's piece early this year / late last year this will be in 2026 for the economy, maybe sooner according to some optimists, while in terms of military equipment that could start in the summer eg shortage of gun barrels.
I don't think there's any chance of Putin wanting to seriously negotiate until things start failing on his side and by then it might be too late for him as his minions are probably not that keen on telling him bad news.
Paragraphs 2-3 are exactly where my thinking lies. Get Ukraine out of Trumps crosshairs and get them focused on Putin. That process should then produce the terms of a truce. Then Ukraine could make its agency evident by apprising the ‘deal’. Indeed before that happened Trump might be shocked about how intransigent the Russians are going to be (Russian experts not nearly so shocked!). My view has been that the US administration does not understand Russia, its outlook and aims. A short course in Russian diplomacy might help them revise their assumptions.
Or l am wrong and the US and Russia are two illiberal regimes with common outlooks and we are in big trouble. Very big trouble. Ukraine even worse.
I left the following on the Substack of Phillips P OBrien but I suspect he will not mind my cutting and pasting it to here because I find the possibility that I might, just conceivably, be right would explain a lot of what we are seeing:
« Phillips P. OBrien liked your comment on Did You Know History Would Be Different If Zelensky Had Worn A Tie?.
I am, by no means a Foreign Policy wonk, or a close follower of American Politics. I therefore offer this thought with some humility: we are all missing the point. Try this:
Ukraine, to the people in the White House, is irrelevant except in one crucial respect, that is whether it is going to get in the way of Trump or, if he is sent off to the funny farm before or at the next presidential election in November 2028, Vance from being the next President of the United States. Consider also the statement which I found plausible on BBC NewsNight, that Musk bought the Presidency for Trump (money and X) in return for accepting Vance as VP, and Musk has made it his business in every sense to be close to Vance…the same obsessive greedy nihilism governs both men. What we are looking at is the answer, in their minds, to the question, what might prevent the Duumvirate taking office in January 2029? An answer might very well be, war with Russia on behalf of either Ukraine or Europe, neither of which are liked by the Duumvirate. What might provoke such a war? Answer might well be giving the wrong sort of « backstop » to Ukraine/the Europeans, or (as Musk has just suggested) staying in NATO. In short this is about who rules the US in 2029, and Ukraine, and Europe are just collateral damage… Plausible? »
The fury which Trump has expressed at the idea that the US might, in any way, directly or indirectly be on the hook for a fight with Russia fits this. His « be nice to Putin » campaign also fits this analysis however much we may all be tempted to think the real reason is Kompromat or something else…
I have been using ChatGPT 4.o to analyse the buggers muddle (I think that is an old strategist term) unfolding with the Ukraine/US/Russia/EU. It echoed your comments about a potential EU-initiated negotiation with Russia. You might find it interesting. It's not providing any astonishing insights and doesn't threaten the experts, just yet.
Potential Risks of This Approach
If Europe Successfully Negotiates Peace, Trump Loses Influence
If the EU pulls off a diplomatic win, Trump has less reason to claim victory. He risks looking irrelevant to the process, which would hurt his political image.
Putin Might Exploit the Vacuum
If Trump steps back too much, Putin might escalate the war, making it harder for Trump to broker peace later. Ukraine Could Strengthen Its Ties to Europe Instead of the U.S.
If Trump ignores Ukraine, Zelensky may seek even deeper EU cooperation, making Ukraine less reliant on Washington.
This would reduce U.S. leverage in any future negotiations.
Final Verdict: Smart Short-Term Play, but Unpredictable Long-Term Risks
This approach makes sense in the short term, as it avoids political risks and shifts responsibility to the EU.
However, Trump must be careful—if he waits too long, Europe might forge a deal without him, or Putin might take advantage of U.S. inaction.
The best-case scenario for Trump is that Europe struggles, Ukraine fails to get a good deal, and he can step in later as the “real” dealmaker.
I think we have not yet seen peak perfidy from Trumps USA.Obviously lifting sanctions will be next. Furthermore Europe could effectively be blocked from using frozen Russian assets via OFAC type regs and regulations affecting Euro banks doing business in the USA ie any clearing dollars. So I think using frozen assets is a non starter once Trump hears about lans to do so. I would also regard US forces in Europe as a potential threat now to European security. No just unreliability but as a potential blocking force should Europe be put in a situation where it thought it was in its interests to take action e.g. close the Baltic or take action against Kaliningrad.
Is one of the problems that non-Americans assume we know the USA, when in fact we don't. This applies especially to the British and other Anhlophones. Because we have the same language, share some history, see American TV, films, and music, and possibly have American friends, we think we 'get' America. In fact we probably only 'get' a segment that largely reflects us (e.g. the coasts, largely liberal, transatlantic, etc.). Anything outside that is dismissed as brash, retrograde, or 'deplorable', when in fact it is just different and needs a different approach. I remember an article in the THES making this point about 30 years ago, but I don't see it made often outside cliches (e.g. 'two countries divided by a common language'). Outside UCL, is there a UK or European centre for US or North American studies on the same basis as SSEES or SOAS?
I think we have to consider what happens if Ukraine and the US do sign the deal on minerals.
I think this would be theatre rather than a serious attempt to invest in Ukrainian mineral extraction;. It would allow Trump to claim he's done a great deal and 'got back' $300bn, but in reality, even with the best will in the world and with no war raging, it would take years to see results in terms of minerals actually being extracted and exported. Trump will be long gone before that can happen, and the actual detailed terms would have been negotiated by future leaders and companies, probably over several years..
But although it would be theatre, that doesn't mean it would be unimportant. Trump is a showman. Having made such a fuss about the 'deal', he'd have to claim it brings peace. That could change the dynamic; maybe there's some kind of way forward here whereby Trump claims he's got $300bn and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, Europe steps up and actually provides Ukraine with much more support, and Trump doesn't withdraw support completely as he'll have a stake, however fictional in reality, in Ukraine not being overrun by Putin..
To be clear, I don't want to sound optimistic; this is indeed an extremely dangerous time, Trump is the loosest of loose cannons, and Vance et al are in the mix as well. But the 'deal' is going to be a factor, if it gets signed.
Is Europe finally waking up to the fact that Putin is making trouble in many more countries than just Ukraine. Most of the old Yugoslavia seems to be having problems with pro-Russian far right parties trying to seize power, Georgia and Moldova continue to have problems. Poland is very aware of the danger from Russia, which is why they are forging ahead on their defence spending, but does Europe recognise the awful costs that will come from not directly arming now, and confronting Putin. We have left everything very late.
You rightly pick up
(1) that Trump currently has not articulated even the basic principles of any peace plan (whilst berating Zelensky for not buying into it)
(2) the Russians continue to demand land which, fortunately, it is not in Trump’s power to give, and have not indicated that they are prepared to make any concessions of any kind.
This means that a peace (as opposed to a ceasefire) is unlikely, however much the utterly, shallow, foolish and capricious Trump talks vapidly and endlessly about it. Trump’s objectives are indeed completely opaque, other than to show to his followers that he has done “something”, and a desire to get his own back on Zelenskyy for a personal vendetta relating to Trump’s totally improper behavior in trying to pressurize Zelenskyy before, some thing for which he should properly have been successfully impeached in his first term.
Opaque is being very generous to that empty headed creature Trump (stygian might be better) He is a useful idiot puppet who will be surplus to requirements by 2027 l expect. Best Europe gets into firm negotiation involving Russia now and in doing so 1st expose that crafty tyrant Putin and hopefully encouarge opposition in Russia and dissent amongst the solviki hardmen. Still think China could be quietly encouraged to box Rus in given their trade relations. A Chinese back channel could be very useful surely and Europe may be a bit better placed to use such effectively in a negotiation senario.
The United States has suspended military assistance to Ukraine. This probably means that provision of military intelligence is also suspended.
1. What prevents Elon Musk from blocking Starlink so that Ukraine can't use it on the battlefield?
2. Will the United States give Russia military intelligence?
3. Will Elon Musk offer Starlink to Russia's military?
I'd hazard a guess that 1) is the next card they play. I've seen suggestions that Starlink may already be with Russia's military but I don't know how credible.
There's also the one factor not raised here and that is how long Russia can carry on fighting for before its economy overheats / they start becoming very short of key equipment. As per Lawrence's piece early this year / late last year this will be in 2026 for the economy, maybe sooner according to some optimists, while in terms of military equipment that could start in the summer eg shortage of gun barrels.
I don't think there's any chance of Putin wanting to seriously negotiate until things start failing on his side and by then it might be too late for him as his minions are probably not that keen on telling him bad news.
Paragraphs 2-3 are exactly where my thinking lies. Get Ukraine out of Trumps crosshairs and get them focused on Putin. That process should then produce the terms of a truce. Then Ukraine could make its agency evident by apprising the ‘deal’. Indeed before that happened Trump might be shocked about how intransigent the Russians are going to be (Russian experts not nearly so shocked!). My view has been that the US administration does not understand Russia, its outlook and aims. A short course in Russian diplomacy might help them revise their assumptions.
Or l am wrong and the US and Russia are two illiberal regimes with common outlooks and we are in big trouble. Very big trouble. Ukraine even worse.
I left the following on the Substack of Phillips P OBrien but I suspect he will not mind my cutting and pasting it to here because I find the possibility that I might, just conceivably, be right would explain a lot of what we are seeing:
« Phillips P. OBrien liked your comment on Did You Know History Would Be Different If Zelensky Had Worn A Tie?.
I am, by no means a Foreign Policy wonk, or a close follower of American Politics. I therefore offer this thought with some humility: we are all missing the point. Try this:
Ukraine, to the people in the White House, is irrelevant except in one crucial respect, that is whether it is going to get in the way of Trump or, if he is sent off to the funny farm before or at the next presidential election in November 2028, Vance from being the next President of the United States. Consider also the statement which I found plausible on BBC NewsNight, that Musk bought the Presidency for Trump (money and X) in return for accepting Vance as VP, and Musk has made it his business in every sense to be close to Vance…the same obsessive greedy nihilism governs both men. What we are looking at is the answer, in their minds, to the question, what might prevent the Duumvirate taking office in January 2029? An answer might very well be, war with Russia on behalf of either Ukraine or Europe, neither of which are liked by the Duumvirate. What might provoke such a war? Answer might well be giving the wrong sort of « backstop » to Ukraine/the Europeans, or (as Musk has just suggested) staying in NATO. In short this is about who rules the US in 2029, and Ukraine, and Europe are just collateral damage… Plausible? »
The fury which Trump has expressed at the idea that the US might, in any way, directly or indirectly be on the hook for a fight with Russia fits this. His « be nice to Putin » campaign also fits this analysis however much we may all be tempted to think the real reason is Kompromat or something else…
I have been using ChatGPT 4.o to analyse the buggers muddle (I think that is an old strategist term) unfolding with the Ukraine/US/Russia/EU. It echoed your comments about a potential EU-initiated negotiation with Russia. You might find it interesting. It's not providing any astonishing insights and doesn't threaten the experts, just yet.
Potential Risks of This Approach
If Europe Successfully Negotiates Peace, Trump Loses Influence
If the EU pulls off a diplomatic win, Trump has less reason to claim victory. He risks looking irrelevant to the process, which would hurt his political image.
Putin Might Exploit the Vacuum
If Trump steps back too much, Putin might escalate the war, making it harder for Trump to broker peace later. Ukraine Could Strengthen Its Ties to Europe Instead of the U.S.
If Trump ignores Ukraine, Zelensky may seek even deeper EU cooperation, making Ukraine less reliant on Washington.
This would reduce U.S. leverage in any future negotiations.
Final Verdict: Smart Short-Term Play, but Unpredictable Long-Term Risks
This approach makes sense in the short term, as it avoids political risks and shifts responsibility to the EU.
However, Trump must be careful—if he waits too long, Europe might forge a deal without him, or Putin might take advantage of U.S. inaction.
The best-case scenario for Trump is that Europe struggles, Ukraine fails to get a good deal, and he can step in later as the “real” dealmaker.
I think we have not yet seen peak perfidy from Trumps USA.Obviously lifting sanctions will be next. Furthermore Europe could effectively be blocked from using frozen Russian assets via OFAC type regs and regulations affecting Euro banks doing business in the USA ie any clearing dollars. So I think using frozen assets is a non starter once Trump hears about lans to do so. I would also regard US forces in Europe as a potential threat now to European security. No just unreliability but as a potential blocking force should Europe be put in a situation where it thought it was in its interests to take action e.g. close the Baltic or take action against Kaliningrad.
Is one of the problems that non-Americans assume we know the USA, when in fact we don't. This applies especially to the British and other Anhlophones. Because we have the same language, share some history, see American TV, films, and music, and possibly have American friends, we think we 'get' America. In fact we probably only 'get' a segment that largely reflects us (e.g. the coasts, largely liberal, transatlantic, etc.). Anything outside that is dismissed as brash, retrograde, or 'deplorable', when in fact it is just different and needs a different approach. I remember an article in the THES making this point about 30 years ago, but I don't see it made often outside cliches (e.g. 'two countries divided by a common language'). Outside UCL, is there a UK or European centre for US or North American studies on the same basis as SSEES or SOAS?
I think we have to consider what happens if Ukraine and the US do sign the deal on minerals.
I think this would be theatre rather than a serious attempt to invest in Ukrainian mineral extraction;. It would allow Trump to claim he's done a great deal and 'got back' $300bn, but in reality, even with the best will in the world and with no war raging, it would take years to see results in terms of minerals actually being extracted and exported. Trump will be long gone before that can happen, and the actual detailed terms would have been negotiated by future leaders and companies, probably over several years..
But although it would be theatre, that doesn't mean it would be unimportant. Trump is a showman. Having made such a fuss about the 'deal', he'd have to claim it brings peace. That could change the dynamic; maybe there's some kind of way forward here whereby Trump claims he's got $300bn and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, Europe steps up and actually provides Ukraine with much more support, and Trump doesn't withdraw support completely as he'll have a stake, however fictional in reality, in Ukraine not being overrun by Putin..
To be clear, I don't want to sound optimistic; this is indeed an extremely dangerous time, Trump is the loosest of loose cannons, and Vance et al are in the mix as well. But the 'deal' is going to be a factor, if it gets signed.