KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I think the “strategy” is much simpler: he does not care about Ukraine and despises Zelensky personally. His administration and appointees to various departments are full of people with the same thought process; in fact, most of them are openly so. I said this months ago. There is no 4D chess or anything: you get what you see and what has been said for a very long time.
Europe (and most certainly Ukraine) simply cannot replace the most crucial components of the military assistance provided by the US. Regardless of the amount of money they through at it. Trump has great leverage over both, Ukraine and Europe. And he will use it. I think there was a report a few days ago that either Starmer or Macron (or someone else?) specifically asked for at the very least US intel provision if they were to deploy a “peace keeping” mission to Ukraine. This is irreplaceable. As is targeting data. Among many other things. Trump doesn’t have nearly as much leverage over Russia/Putin. He said he wants to end the war. He never said that the peace will be just or otherwise (“just” peace is impossible here anyway and the term is relative to begin with). He wants an end and he will get it, one way or another. That is, whether the peace will be negotiated or due to an inability of one side to continue the fight. The latter is clearly Ukraine. His process of thought is likely along these lines: Ukraine can end this now while we are involved and get the best deal they can get in the circumstances, accept the losses and Russian position (with, perhaps, some minor adjustments in the Ukrainian favour, for Trump’s own ambition to declare his greatness); otherwise, we will not be involved and the later inevitable loss on the battlefield or some other negotiated end of hostilities (before the loss happens) will be a lot worse than what is possible now. In other words, this is the meaning of “with us, you have cards; without us, you don’t have any cards”. Everything else is an invention of the wondering minds, as it was when everyone said that it will be better than it was under Biden because Trump will force Russia and provide super weapons and remove all restrictions (of which there are hardly any in place anyway), put super sanctions on Russia (of which there are hardly any left anyway), and so on. Europeans can go to war with Russia over Ukriane if they like, but without the US participation, including weapons deliveries or provision of intel. This much is clear. I understand the mental gymnastics, but at this point in time what I wrote above strongly appears to be the case.
I said a few days ago that the end appears to be closer than it ever was. We will see what happens. And I can’t even say that if it ends this way, it is the worst deal for Ukraine. Far from ideal for Europe (though not the worst either), but definitely not as bad for Ukraine as it could be. This is what happens when people get detached from reality, have no strategy, and don’t even know what the end goals are. For the United States this certainly appears to be the longevity of the “as long” part in “as long as it takes”; what should “take” has still not been defined by anyone, which is completely ridiculous.
Those who think that this a loss for Trump - far from it. He made it abundantly clear that this is not his war and it was a mistake to begin with: never would have happened if he was in charge. True or not, he is entitled to this position and the loss is not on him. What is true, he said that the US should never have gotten involved. He never proclaimed some goals of humiliating Russia, complete victory over Russia., etc. He said it will end under his presidency.
Furthermore, he wants a workable relationship with Russia because Russia has a lot more to offer. “A lot more to offer” is actually a strange thing to say here because Ukraine has nothing to offer to the US and their current interests. The “mineral deal” is, perhaps, something he decided grab on the fly and probably knows that it doesn't mean squat (I’d be surprised if he actually believes there is much to be had here).
We shall see what happens. To me it seems everything has been laid out rather openly and nicely for a very long time. Sometimes, there is nothing hiding behind and no grotesque plan beyond what is obvious. Sometimes, of course, there isn’t. Which is the case here will surely be revealed rather sooner than later. I’d bet my money on the former and have been saying this much from the beginning.
Europe (and most certainly Ukraine) simply cannot replace the most crucial components of the military assistance provided by the US. Regardless of the amount of money they through at it. Trump has great leverage over both, Ukraine and Europe. And he will use it. I think there was a report a few days ago that either Starmer or Macron (or someone else?) specifically asked for at the very least US intel provision if they were to deploy a “peace keeping” mission to Ukraine. This is irreplaceable. As is targeting data. Among many other things. Trump doesn’t have nearly as much leverage over Russia/Putin. He said he wants to end the war. He never said that the peace will be just or otherwise (“just” peace is impossible here anyway and the term is relative to begin with). He wants an end and he will get it, one way or another. That is, whether the peace will be negotiated or due to an inability of one side to continue the fight. The latter is clearly Ukraine. His process of thought is likely along these lines: Ukraine can end this now while we are involved and get the best deal they can get in the circumstances, accept the losses and Russian position (with, perhaps, some minor adjustments in the Ukrainian favour, for Trump’s own ambition to declare his greatness); otherwise, we will not be involved and the later inevitable loss on the battlefield or some other negotiated end of hostilities (before the loss happens) will be a lot worse than what is possible now. In other words, this is the meaning of “with us, you have cards; without us, you don’t have any cards”. Everything else is an invention of the wondering minds, as it was when everyone said that it will be better than it was under Biden because Trump will force Russia and provide super weapons and remove all restrictions (of which there are hardly any in place anyway), put super sanctions on Russia (of which there are hardly any left anyway), and so on. Europeans can go to war with Russia over Ukriane if they like, but without the US participation, including weapons deliveries or provision of intel. This much is clear. I understand the mental gymnastics, but at this point in time what I wrote above strongly appears to be the case.
I said a few days ago that the end appears to be closer than it ever was. We will see what happens. And I can’t even say that if it ends this way, it is the worst deal for Ukraine. Far from ideal for Europe (though not the worst either), but definitely not as bad for Ukraine as it could be. This is what happens when people get detached from reality, have no strategy, and don’t even know what the end goals are. For the United States this certainly appears to be the longevity of the “as long” part in “as long as it takes”; what should “take” has still not been defined by anyone, which is completely ridiculous.
Those who think that this a loss for Trump - far from it. He made it abundantly clear that this is not his war and it was a mistake to begin with: never would have happened if he was in charge. True or not, he is entitled to this position and the loss is not on him. What is true, he said that the US should never have gotten involved. He never proclaimed some goals of humiliating Russia, complete victory over Russia., etc. He said it will end under his presidency.
Furthermore, he wants a workable relationship with Russia because Russia has a lot more to offer. “A lot more to offer” is actually a strange thing to say here because Ukraine has nothing to offer to the US and their current interests. The “mineral deal” is, perhaps, something he decided grab on the fly and probably knows that it doesn't mean squat (I’d be surprised if he actually believes there is much to be had here).
We shall see what happens. To me it seems everything has been laid out rather openly and nicely for a very long time. Sometimes, there is nothing hiding behind and no grotesque plan beyond what is obvious. Sometimes, of course, there isn’t. Which is the case here will surely be revealed rather sooner than later. I’d bet my money on the former and have been saying this much from the beginning.
