The money comment: "... strategically, the question of a ceasefire should never resolve around issues of trust.
Given that Zelensky was apparently moving the goalposts at the last minute on the minerals deal, time arguing about Putin's basic untrustworthiness is a stance rich in irony."
Scott Bessent said on at least two shows yesterday that he had a 45 minute discussion with Zelenskyy in Kiev that was very heated. He also said that Rubio and Vance had a similar experience with Zelenskyy in Munich. The little man is unreliable. I think that is why Trump told Vance he wanted the American people to see the situation play out on national television. Nor do I think he cares about the Ukrainian men he is sacrificing; he has arguably allowed two generations to be decimated. So what does motivate Zelenskyy? Power? Money? Glory? Napoleonic complex?
“Putin may end up violating a ceasefire agreement. No one should have any illusions about Putin or his integrity. If Putin thinks it works to his advantage to break a ceasefire arrangement after agreeing to it, he probably will.” Putin’s not the only untrustworthy one in the mix. Penis Puppet President knows bad faith intimately.
Nixon's view could be expanded to include all people and all governments. Regardless of what our moral perspectives notionally require of us, people as a rule will keep to those bargains which are advantageous to them, and seek to evade those bargains which are not.
This appreciation of how realpolitik actually works serves to illustrate why an economic development deal such as what President Trump had proposed to Ukraine can be a productive first step towards establishing peace with Russia. By establishing a US economic interest in Ukraine, Trump is presenting Putin with the strategic reality of potentially attacking cities and infrastructures where US businesses are housed, while denying Putin the opportunity to decry any positioning of military forces specifically to contain the Russian military--which is exactly what any "peacekeeping" force as proposed by Starmer and the rest of Europe would be.
With a signed economic deal in hand, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio can credibly sit down with Putin's negotiating team and say "okay, let's talk about Russia's economic future."
Putin could try to sabotage such talks. Perhaps we should even anticipate that he will try to sabotage such talks.
But if Putin does, then he is sabotaging a discussion about Russia's economic future.
How long can Putin hold out against the oligarchs in the Kremlin if he is seen within the Kremlin as being willing to toss away Russia' economic future simply to perpetuate a militaristic present?
Yesterday, Peter, I asked: what will be Putin’s next move? Annnd, we’re back to square one, with a different context, but the same question: what do you think would be Putin’s best next move?
As always, I think you make an intelligent argument. The trick is how, exactly, can Putin marginalize Trump without antagonizing him? Trump and Putin are similar in many ways - strong men who don’t back down in any confrontation or negotiation. The good news is that they can respect each other, and can therefore reach a deal. They have both praised each other, publicly, several times in the past. I suspect Putin especially appreciates that Trump stood up for Putin while everyone else in the West was demonizing him. And Trump LOVES to make a deal. He just needs to have something concrete to satisfy his craving to come out on top of any negotiation.
So the bad news is, this is going to be tricky. Putin is going to have to marginalize Trump while at the same time reaching an agreement with him. Waaay above my pay grade!
The point here is that antagonizing Trump by marginalizing him would work to Putin's advantage.
Marginalizing the EU works to Trump's advantage.
Marginalizing Zelenskyy works to Trump's advantage.
Yes, these other players get offended--but the overreaction that comes from being offended is in almost every circumstance counterproductive.
If Putin can marginalize Trump, Trump's own attempts to put himself back in the spotlight will give further leverage to Putin.
Keep in mind that Putin himself helped create the opening for Zelenskyy to do a minerals deal with the US by stating publicly that he would not negotiate with Zelenskyy. That declaration made a deal with Zelensky a pivot point for Trump.
Reading this, I have an image in my mind of you playing 3D chess with Mr. Spock - and winning. Seriously, Peter, you should be advising Trump in the White House. Magnificent Man!
Putin’s best move would be to take a page from the Trump playbook and focus on winning the economic contest.
Whether he can navigate the pivot away from the ethnonationalist “Ukraine has no right to exist” rhetoric is a question, but, assuming he can, the strongest move would be to put some sort of economic cooperation deal on the table. Not just for Ukraine but for Germany as well.
Focus on restoring trade with the EU, and on a development deal for Ukraine that gets the country back on its feet.
If Russia can sell oil and natural gas to Germany again, maybe Germany can reverse the de-industrialization that has been taking place since the sanctions were put in place. Russia could use the revenue to get its own economy rebalanced as a peacetime economy.
That’s his best move.
Without a pivot away from ethnonationalism, Putin’s bst ploy would be to make the argument that, with the four oblasts of Eastern Ukraine already annexed, Russia’s strategic objectives are met, and it’s now time to resolve this through peace talks. Offer to sit down with Zelenskyy specifically and put an offer on the table.
Can Putin do either? Therein will lie the question.
Agreed! I was thinking last night of all the economic goodies Putin could offer Europe, but Trump is in a mindset now of what can others do for AMERICA. He’s probably pretty annoyed with many European leaders, and is tired of them using the U.S. endlessly. I can’t think of what, exactly, Putin can offer Trump for America’s direct benefit, besides some of Russia’s mineral wealth. Putin needs to craft what Trump would consider a lucrative deal - discounted oil, or mineral exploration leases, or something else that is tangible wealth. If you ever think of a detailed package, I’d love to hear it!
He offers an ally against radical Islam. I think that is part of what Trump is so frustrated about. He does not want to kick Ukraine to the curb but as unreliable as Zelenskyy is what choice does he have? And if Musk pulls the Starlink plug it is done.
Vladimir Putin can make his strongest moves not by opposing the US but by marginalizing the US.
He should not try to put together an economic deal to entice Donald Trump. I would argue that neither should Putin put together an economic deal to entice Europe.
Putin needs to put an economic deal together to entice Ukraine.
That's going to be a difficult hill to climb, given the intensity with which Putin has sought to end Ukraine's economic present as well a future.
However, marginalizing President Trump and Ursula von der Leyden is what would give Russia the leverage it needs to conclude a peace deal on its own terms.
The tragedy here is that if you watch the first 20 minutes you can see there was a deal on the table in good faith and you could see it was a rational and logical first step towards peace and with more of an implicit US security guarantee (by way of a shared stake) than I was expecting would be on the table. Then Zelensky burned it to the ground in real time. Whether out of petulance or because he came with no intention of signing it I don’t know. But he insulted Trump and Vance and the US. He has done a disservice to his country, his allies and the cause of peace.
My hope is that his countrymen remove him from office as soon as he is back in Ukraine and replace him with a pragmatist.
As I had noted this morning regarding the minerals deal, inking this framework--which the text that had been made public by the Kyiv Independent made clear was a BINDING agreement--established an articulable interest for the United States in Ukraine's security and sovereignty.
While it's not a formal "war guarantee" such was what Neville Chamberlain offered Poland in 1939, it's perhaps an even stronger commitment--one of shared economic interest. Under the mineral deal, the US cannot recoup any investment revenue if Russia decides to attack Ukraine again. Even the most isolationist portions of the MAGA coalition are likely to understand the need to protect revenue streams.
Yes, that is a cynical and money-grubbing form of security guarantee, but it's because it is cynical and money-grubbing that it would be sustainable.
There are a lot of questions regarding the true extent of Ukraine's mineral wealth. Politico-Europe argued the other day that this deal was a bad one for the United States because it overstated Ukraine's mineral resources.
However, I think that misses the point. Trump was aligning US economic interest with Ukrainian economic interest. By doing that, Trump pulls Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and even out of Europe's sphere of influence. The only way for Russia to combat that economic play is to find an economic play if their own to make--which requires Russia to find an off-ramp to end the war.
If Russia and the EU suddenly find themselves in a competitive bidding process to develop Ukraine's mineral resources, militarily Ukraine becomes invulnerable to attack.
Moving the quest for peace out of the military paradigm and into the economic paradigm is a course fraught with pitfalls and minefields, but to my thinking it's the course with the beset chance at producing a lasting peace for Ukraine.
I like your POV. It is imminently reasonable. I guess I am something of an isolationist because I do not want American soldiers sacrificed fighting ideological wars. That is an elitist POV and I despise elitism. But I do not include trade and commercial agreements in that. Arguably global trade is a foundation of advanced civilization. I think Zelenskyy's push for security assurances is a back door or a precursor in to NATO. Russia will never go for that.
Global trade—or what historian Sarah Paine calls the “maritime order”—plays a major role in why there has not already been a third world war.
When all the world is engaged in commerce, breaking apart into military alliances becomes very difficult. Even the EU, despite sanctioning Russian oil after Putin’s invasion, continued to take delivery of Russian oil.
Zelenskyy very desperately wants to join NATO, but he needs the unanimous approval of existing NATO countries. That’s going to be an uphill battle right there. But even before the question of unanimous consent comes into play, just to even apply Ukraine has to resolve its claim over the Crimea and its claim over the Donbass.
The EARLIEST Ukraine could ever hope to join NATO is 2035.
The money comment: "... strategically, the question of a ceasefire should never resolve around issues of trust.
Given that Zelensky was apparently moving the goalposts at the last minute on the minerals deal, time arguing about Putin's basic untrustworthiness is a stance rich in irony."
Scott Bessent said on at least two shows yesterday that he had a 45 minute discussion with Zelenskyy in Kiev that was very heated. He also said that Rubio and Vance had a similar experience with Zelenskyy in Munich. The little man is unreliable. I think that is why Trump told Vance he wanted the American people to see the situation play out on national television. Nor do I think he cares about the Ukrainian men he is sacrificing; he has arguably allowed two generations to be decimated. So what does motivate Zelenskyy? Power? Money? Glory? Napoleonic complex?
Quite possibly, Zelenskyy’s motivation is simply getting attention.
With stunts like this Zelenskyy is on everyone’s mind. He is at center stage.
A good portion of what motivates many people within politics is simply the desire to be noticed.
So a toddler just seeking attention. Good attention, bad attention, it matter's not.
There is "on stage" and there is "back stage."
What we saw yesterday was "on stage," and it was quite a show.
All that matters is whether or not a reasonable deal gets done. The rest is mostly theater.
Last night I said to my (very) Left husband “I guess Zelenskyy doesn’t want peace.” His reply “Russia invades his country and now he’s the @$&?!”
Life is so much more complicated but he and our son cemented in their beliefs and refuse open discourse, not just TDS.
I do wish President Trump would cease the slander and malice and name calling, it would help him tremendously.
“Putin may end up violating a ceasefire agreement. No one should have any illusions about Putin or his integrity. If Putin thinks it works to his advantage to break a ceasefire arrangement after agreeing to it, he probably will.” Putin’s not the only untrustworthy one in the mix. Penis Puppet President knows bad faith intimately.
Richard Nixon made an excellent point about the Russians: they will keep agreements they see as being in their best interest to keep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGzJaTH6lHU
Nixon's view could be expanded to include all people and all governments. Regardless of what our moral perspectives notionally require of us, people as a rule will keep to those bargains which are advantageous to them, and seek to evade those bargains which are not.
This appreciation of how realpolitik actually works serves to illustrate why an economic development deal such as what President Trump had proposed to Ukraine can be a productive first step towards establishing peace with Russia. By establishing a US economic interest in Ukraine, Trump is presenting Putin with the strategic reality of potentially attacking cities and infrastructures where US businesses are housed, while denying Putin the opportunity to decry any positioning of military forces specifically to contain the Russian military--which is exactly what any "peacekeeping" force as proposed by Starmer and the rest of Europe would be.
With a signed economic deal in hand, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio can credibly sit down with Putin's negotiating team and say "okay, let's talk about Russia's economic future."
Putin could try to sabotage such talks. Perhaps we should even anticipate that he will try to sabotage such talks.
But if Putin does, then he is sabotaging a discussion about Russia's economic future.
How long can Putin hold out against the oligarchs in the Kremlin if he is seen within the Kremlin as being willing to toss away Russia' economic future simply to perpetuate a militaristic present?
Yesterday, Peter, I asked: what will be Putin’s next move? Annnd, we’re back to square one, with a different context, but the same question: what do you think would be Putin’s best next move?
As always, I think you make an intelligent argument. The trick is how, exactly, can Putin marginalize Trump without antagonizing him? Trump and Putin are similar in many ways - strong men who don’t back down in any confrontation or negotiation. The good news is that they can respect each other, and can therefore reach a deal. They have both praised each other, publicly, several times in the past. I suspect Putin especially appreciates that Trump stood up for Putin while everyone else in the West was demonizing him. And Trump LOVES to make a deal. He just needs to have something concrete to satisfy his craving to come out on top of any negotiation.
So the bad news is, this is going to be tricky. Putin is going to have to marginalize Trump while at the same time reaching an agreement with him. Waaay above my pay grade!
The point here is that antagonizing Trump by marginalizing him would work to Putin's advantage.
Marginalizing the EU works to Trump's advantage.
Marginalizing Zelenskyy works to Trump's advantage.
Yes, these other players get offended--but the overreaction that comes from being offended is in almost every circumstance counterproductive.
If Putin can marginalize Trump, Trump's own attempts to put himself back in the spotlight will give further leverage to Putin.
Keep in mind that Putin himself helped create the opening for Zelenskyy to do a minerals deal with the US by stating publicly that he would not negotiate with Zelenskyy. That declaration made a deal with Zelensky a pivot point for Trump.
Reading this, I have an image in my mind of you playing 3D chess with Mr. Spock - and winning. Seriously, Peter, you should be advising Trump in the White House. Magnificent Man!
Putin’s best move would be to take a page from the Trump playbook and focus on winning the economic contest.
Whether he can navigate the pivot away from the ethnonationalist “Ukraine has no right to exist” rhetoric is a question, but, assuming he can, the strongest move would be to put some sort of economic cooperation deal on the table. Not just for Ukraine but for Germany as well.
Focus on restoring trade with the EU, and on a development deal for Ukraine that gets the country back on its feet.
If Russia can sell oil and natural gas to Germany again, maybe Germany can reverse the de-industrialization that has been taking place since the sanctions were put in place. Russia could use the revenue to get its own economy rebalanced as a peacetime economy.
That’s his best move.
Without a pivot away from ethnonationalism, Putin’s bst ploy would be to make the argument that, with the four oblasts of Eastern Ukraine already annexed, Russia’s strategic objectives are met, and it’s now time to resolve this through peace talks. Offer to sit down with Zelenskyy specifically and put an offer on the table.
Can Putin do either? Therein will lie the question.
Agreed! I was thinking last night of all the economic goodies Putin could offer Europe, but Trump is in a mindset now of what can others do for AMERICA. He’s probably pretty annoyed with many European leaders, and is tired of them using the U.S. endlessly. I can’t think of what, exactly, Putin can offer Trump for America’s direct benefit, besides some of Russia’s mineral wealth. Putin needs to craft what Trump would consider a lucrative deal - discounted oil, or mineral exploration leases, or something else that is tangible wealth. If you ever think of a detailed package, I’d love to hear it!
He offers an ally against radical Islam. I think that is part of what Trump is so frustrated about. He does not want to kick Ukraine to the curb but as unreliable as Zelenskyy is what choice does he have? And if Musk pulls the Starlink plug it is done.
Vladimir Putin can make his strongest moves not by opposing the US but by marginalizing the US.
He should not try to put together an economic deal to entice Donald Trump. I would argue that neither should Putin put together an economic deal to entice Europe.
Putin needs to put an economic deal together to entice Ukraine.
That's going to be a difficult hill to climb, given the intensity with which Putin has sought to end Ukraine's economic present as well a future.
However, marginalizing President Trump and Ursula von der Leyden is what would give Russia the leverage it needs to conclude a peace deal on its own terms.
“Difficult hill to climb”, definitely! We’ll see what he does.
The tragedy here is that if you watch the first 20 minutes you can see there was a deal on the table in good faith and you could see it was a rational and logical first step towards peace and with more of an implicit US security guarantee (by way of a shared stake) than I was expecting would be on the table. Then Zelensky burned it to the ground in real time. Whether out of petulance or because he came with no intention of signing it I don’t know. But he insulted Trump and Vance and the US. He has done a disservice to his country, his allies and the cause of peace.
My hope is that his countrymen remove him from office as soon as he is back in Ukraine and replace him with a pragmatist.
I agree, and it showcases the refreshingly different approach the Trump team are bringing to… well pretty much everything actually.
As I had noted this morning regarding the minerals deal, inking this framework--which the text that had been made public by the Kyiv Independent made clear was a BINDING agreement--established an articulable interest for the United States in Ukraine's security and sovereignty.
While it's not a formal "war guarantee" such was what Neville Chamberlain offered Poland in 1939, it's perhaps an even stronger commitment--one of shared economic interest. Under the mineral deal, the US cannot recoup any investment revenue if Russia decides to attack Ukraine again. Even the most isolationist portions of the MAGA coalition are likely to understand the need to protect revenue streams.
Yes, that is a cynical and money-grubbing form of security guarantee, but it's because it is cynical and money-grubbing that it would be sustainable.
There are a lot of questions regarding the true extent of Ukraine's mineral wealth. Politico-Europe argued the other day that this deal was a bad one for the United States because it overstated Ukraine's mineral resources.
However, I think that misses the point. Trump was aligning US economic interest with Ukrainian economic interest. By doing that, Trump pulls Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and even out of Europe's sphere of influence. The only way for Russia to combat that economic play is to find an economic play if their own to make--which requires Russia to find an off-ramp to end the war.
If Russia and the EU suddenly find themselves in a competitive bidding process to develop Ukraine's mineral resources, militarily Ukraine becomes invulnerable to attack.
Moving the quest for peace out of the military paradigm and into the economic paradigm is a course fraught with pitfalls and minefields, but to my thinking it's the course with the beset chance at producing a lasting peace for Ukraine.
I like your POV. It is imminently reasonable. I guess I am something of an isolationist because I do not want American soldiers sacrificed fighting ideological wars. That is an elitist POV and I despise elitism. But I do not include trade and commercial agreements in that. Arguably global trade is a foundation of advanced civilization. I think Zelenskyy's push for security assurances is a back door or a precursor in to NATO. Russia will never go for that.
Global trade—or what historian Sarah Paine calls the “maritime order”—plays a major role in why there has not already been a third world war.
When all the world is engaged in commerce, breaking apart into military alliances becomes very difficult. Even the EU, despite sanctioning Russian oil after Putin’s invasion, continued to take delivery of Russian oil.
Zelenskyy very desperately wants to join NATO, but he needs the unanimous approval of existing NATO countries. That’s going to be an uphill battle right there. But even before the question of unanimous consent comes into play, just to even apply Ukraine has to resolve its claim over the Crimea and its claim over the Donbass.
The EARLIEST Ukraine could ever hope to join NATO is 2035.