Realpolitik is the term often used to describe an approach to politics that is based not on ideology or even high-minded ethical considerations, but rather on a pragmatic basis of what is the perceived national interest and how to secure those interests

politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

Russian state news agency TASS gave Russians a stiff dose of realpolitik yesterday, highlighting an article in the Washington Post claiming that the Biden Regime is advising Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zalensky to appear “open” to negotiations with Russia—not because anyone in Washington believes the time for war has ended, but merely to retain the moral high ground in the eyes of certain allies.

The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.

It is worth noting that, in the weeks right after Russia invaded Ukraine, Zelensky was willing to consider a peace plan with Russia.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators discussed the proposed deal in full for the first time on Monday, said two of the people. The 15-point draft considered that day would involve Kyiv renouncing its ambitions to join Nato and promising not to host foreign military bases or weaponry in exchange for protection from allies such as the US, UK and Turkey, the people said.

However, the nature of western guarantees for Ukrainian security — and their acceptability to Moscow — could prove to be a big obstacle to any deal, as could the status of the country’s territories seized by Russia and its proxies in 2014. A 1994 agreement underpinning Ukrainian security failed to prevent the Kremlin’s aggression against its neighbour.

As the Post notes—and I think correctly (which is unusual for them)—the goal of maintaining “openness” to negotations with Russia is simply to ensure that Ukraine always appears to be “reasonable” in the eyes of its allies, some of whom no doubt just want this war to be over.

There are two inferences from the Post’s reporting:

1. The Biden Regime wants to keep Zelensky and his inner circle in the good graces of the rest of NATO, in order to ensure an ongoing flow of weapons and material support to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as the Biden Regime has identified that as essential to American interests.

2. Ukraine’s battlefield successes depend mightily on a continued flow of arms from NATO countries, therefore it is in Zelensky’s interests to do whatever he must to keep those weapons coming.

Both inferences are, it should be noted, extremely obvious and hardly the product of any deep analysis of NATO or Eastern European geopolitics. Yet it is remarkable that TASS would opt to put such thinking in front of the Russian people. Whatever else may be said of such reporting, it is not jingoistic propaganda championing Russia’s ultimate victory in this war.

Is Putin about to have a realpolitik revelation and do whatever he must to bring hostilities to an end?

Peace is the one thing that is inarguably in everyone’s interests at this point, including Russia.

Tip Jar On Ko-Fi