Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

Big if true, highlighting mine:

http://johnhelmer.net/blinken-concedes- ... offensive/

David Ignatius (lead image, left) has been a career-long mouthpiece for the US State Department. He has just been called in by the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken (right) to convey an urgent new message to President Vladimir Putin, the Security Council, and the General Staff in Moscow.

For the first time since the special military operation began last year, the war party in Washington is offering terms of concession to Russia’s security objectives explicitly and directly, without the Ukrainians in the way.

The terms Blinken has told Ignatius to print appeared in the January 25 edition of the Washington Post. The paywall can be avoided by reading on.

The territorial concessions Blinken is tabling include Crimea, the Donbass, and the Zaporozhye, Kherson “land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia”. West of the Dnieper River, north around Kharkov, and south around Odessa and Nikolaev, Blinken has tabled for the first time US acceptance of “a demilitarized status” for the Ukraine. Also, US agreement to restrict the deployment of HIMARS, US and NATO infantry fighting vehicles, and the Abrams and Leopard tanks to a point in western Ukraine from which they can “manoeuvre…as a deterrent against future Russian attacks.”

This is an offer for a tradeoff – partition through a demilitarized zone (DMZ) in the east of the Ukraine in exchange for a halt to the planned Russian offensive destroying the fortifications, rail hubs, troop cantonments, and airfields in the west, between the Polish and Romanian borders, Kiev and Lvov, and an outcome Blinken proposes for both sides to call “a just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity”.

Also in the proposed Blinken deal there is the offer of a direct US-Russian agreement on “an eventual postwar military balance”; “no World War III”; and no Ukrainian membership of NATO with “security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5.”

The U.S. is backing down. This is good news for anyone who doesn't want World War 3. This comes hot after the RAND think tank recommended de-escalation (reading between the lines, what RAND really said was the US needs all these resources it is sending to Ukraine in order to fight the Chinese *sigh*, but it is still something).

If that is true, then that is very bad news.

It sends the message that Putin can do whatever he wants and others will just bow down. We have such p*****s for world leaders these days, even the those with by far the most powerful military in the world.

There would never actually be world war 3, Russia and Putin are not so delusional as to do anything to trigger NATO involvement, because they know that'd be suicide.

Thankfully, after following the link and viewing the website, I have more than enough reason to doubt the authenticity of this "article". It is literally just some guy's ramblings and conspiracy theory website. Remember anyone can publish anything on the internet, doesn't make it true, or mean they should be taken seriously.

^ The site put me off at first too, but John Helmer is not a nobody and he has deep connections in Washington. It would be foolish to write off what his sources are telling him. Pepe Escobar, who is somewhat more partisan, has his take on the cables too:

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/a-panicked ... nt-refuse/

The novelty here is that for the first time since the start of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the Americans are actually proposing a variation of the “offer you can’t refuse” classic, including some concessions which may satisfy Russia’s security imperatives.

Crucially, the US offer totally bypasses Kiev, once again certifying that this is a war against Russia conducted by Empire and its NATO minions – with the Ukrainians as mere expandable proxies.

...

The message from Washington may, at first glance, give the impression that the US would admit Russian control over Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye, and Kherson – “the land bridge that connects Crimea and Russia” – as a fait accompli.

Ukraine would have a demilitarized status, and the deployment of HIMARS missiles and Leopard and Abrams tanks would be confined to western Ukraine, kept as a “deterrent against further Russian attacks.”

What may have been offered, in quite hazy terms, is in fact a partition of Ukraine, demilitarized zone included, in exchange for the Russian General Staff cancelling its yet-unknown 2023 offensive, which may be as devastating as cutting off Kiev’s access to the Black Sea and/or cutting off the supply of NATO weapons across the Polish border.

The US offer defines itself as the path towards a “just and durable peace that upholds Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Well, not really. It just won’t be a rump Ukraine, and Kiev might even retain those western lands that Poland is dying to gobble up.

The possibility of a direct Washington-Moscow deal on “an eventual postwar military balance” is also evoked, including no Ukraine membership of NATO. As for Ukraine itself, the Americans seem to believe it will be a “strong, non-corrupt economy with membership in the European Union.”

Whatever remains of value in Ukraine has already been swallowed not only by its monumentally corrupt oligarchy, but most of all, investors and speculators of the BlackRock variety. Assorted corporate vultures simply cannot afford to lose Ukraine’s grain export ports, as well as the trade deal terms agreed with the EU before the war. And they’re terrified that the Russian offensive may capture Odessa, the major seaport and transportation hub on the Black Sea – which would leave Ukraine landlocked.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the entire Russian Security Council – including its Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev – have reason to believe anything coming from the US establishment, especially via mere minions such as Blinken and the Washington Post. After all the stavka – a moniker for the high command of the Russian armed forces – regard the Americans as “non-agreement capable,” even when an offer is in writing.

This walks and talks like a desperate US gambit to stall and present some carrots to Moscow in the hope of delaying or even cancelling the planned offensive of the next few months.

I hope it's not true but considering the USA's track record for stabbing allies in the back it honestly would not surprise me in the least if something like this did happen. Not saying I believe a conspiracy source, just saying look at all the other countries lately that were really counting on us and we let them down when they needed us the most.

The US is an unreliable ally.

This is the RAND think tank report that appeared shortly before all this:

Avoiding a Long War: U.S. Policy and the Trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

This is the same think tank who in 2019, were writing about ways the US could piss off and destablilise Russia aka. Extend Russia, much of which the US did and has been doing for years. Now RAND have changed their tune and soon afterwards these concessions are reportedly offered to Russia. Could be coincidence or maybe the US glowies are just playing some other game, you never know. It could be just a stalling tactic to acquire more time to prepare for the coming offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Helmer_(journalist)

He has had a career but now he's become just another mouthpiece of Kremlin, including telling direct lies in their interest.

I've been keeping track on what Blinken says and does and such a sudden change of direction would ruin a lot already invested. It's precisely against USA interest in Europe to make a deal with Russia over head of Ukraine now, because that would embolden Iran, China and other potential troublemakers, not to mention losing their position of global world power and desired ally... and not to mention billions of dollars already invested in Ukrainian defense. It would basically cross out all the efforts made so far.

It does not make sense and it's claimed by a man who has already told blatant lies benefitting Kremlin.

I think its unlikely the US would just capitulate.

The only circumstances maybe if Russia stopped at the Donbas, abandoned its policy of seeking a multi-polar world, agreed not to undermine US power in anyway, allied against China and Putin left office...maybe

There`s a lot of rubbish and rumours floating around, although the RAND report is interesting as its a US think tank government use to build policy on.

The RAND report makes sense as an analysis from the point of view of USA interest.
My country has its own point of view of interest, convergent with USA but taken further.

The US has a history of throwing its "friends" under the bus when its in their interest.

The UK in Suez & BREXIT, , Saddam`s Iraq in 1990, Shia Muslims 1991, the Kurds, Argentina in 1982, South Vietnam 1974/75.

That`s just the ones that come to mind there`s many more examples in recent history.

The East Europeans would be wise to be careful, there not losing NY over Lithuania

http://www.news.cn/english/2021-10/01/c_1310221820.htm

You don't have to be Einstein's dog to realise the CCP is watching what happens in Ukraine.
Decisively defeating pootin's imperial ambitions is the best defence against the CCP's "imperial" ambitions.

https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and ... erallPos=3

How did US abandon UK in Brexit?

Definitely, we have to have strong army for ourselves because no one will fight for us if we don't. I see it as the decisive difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine. NATO or not, everyone cares for themself first. Expecting USA to fight your war while you don't is as foolish as it sounds.

Cliffs: russia can’t afford to pay for prolonged war. The $ they made selling oil/gas last year isn’t coming this year and bills are piling up. putin is expected to launch some kind of major offensive strike by Spring in an attempt to end the war on his terms with a win. Ukraine is preparing to defend themselves and Hoping russia suffers massive financial losses that carry forward for decades.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... esilience/

But Russia was still a nation that functioned afterward though. Sure, other states left it and became their own countries, but it was still a functioning nation, so how dry was it bled therefore really?

Another thing is, Putin invaded Ukraine because he said it was because he wanted to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. If this is the case, what if NATO were to put out a statement saying they decided to reject Ukraine joining them... That way Ukraine doesn't join NATO, and Putin could then back off since his motivation for waging war is then taking away?

No, he said he was liberating Ukraine from nazis.

But we know he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. Why should NATO bow to putin and decline membership to a sovereign country that wants to be protected from russia’s aggression? Why should Ukraine or NATO trust a deal with putin’s russia even if they were willing to make one? Ukraine made a deal with russia years ago to get rid of their nuclear weapons in exchange for an agreement from russia to never invade or attack them.. and look how that turned out.

putin’s russia cannot be trusted by Ukraine or NATO, so no deal can be made. Only an eventual end to war one way or another with someone winning and someone losing.