headline : "German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock has said that Ukraine and Europe need to be involved in peace talks over Ukraine, after the US president and the Russian president discussed the conflict."
reality : "German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock has said that Ukraine and Europe need to be involved in peace talks over Ukraine, after the US president told Ukraine they were on their own. "

1. Let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet; Trump hasn't fully abandoned Ukraine. As I've written a couple of pages ago, the kind of solution he has hinted at would actually be quite favorable for Ukraine and bad for Russia, relative to where things stand right now. If Trump now signs off on a much worse deal than that, one which amounts to an unconditional surrender of Ukraine, he would look weak and incompetent on the global stage.

2.The Democrats didn't signal that they would abandon Ukraine, but this doesn't have to mean that they would have kept up the support indefinitely, either.

3. I've been saying for months that peace talks would probably begin at some point in 2025, even before Trump won the election. I would have liked Ukraine to get into a stronger negotiating position before these talks, but at least they've made it through yet another winter and their front lines still haven't really collapsed. Meanwhile, Russia's economy is showing clear signs of overheating; if their offense keeps going at the current, glacial pace, this war will take too long and they'll run out of economic steam. They are in a race against time as well and basically have to pray that Ukraine collapses before them. Which is looking more likely than not, don't get me wrong, but it's nonetheless a risky proposition for Russia. This is also stuff I have been consistent on for a long long time.

If the Russians can get a satisfactory off-ramp from this conflict, they would imho be well-advised to take it. The big question is just which concessions would satisfy Putin, and whether these are in any form palatable for Ukraine. If you guys are right and "no NATO" is indeed THE paramount goal of the Russian side, it should be relatively simple to come to an understanding. If I am right and this conflict is not just about NATO, but also about the EU and the Russian sphere of influence, things will get a lot more dicey.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 13 2025 02:45am

The US has already agreed to Russia's main aim - no Nato for Ukraine. Therefore yes, it will be relatively simple to come to an understanding.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 13 2025 02:49am

Cool, so everybody can go home now?
In reality, the key points of contention which were already the crux during the Istanbul talks are still unresolved: what will be the security guarantees for both sides?



Will Ukraine be fine with just a handful of European troops standing in the demilitarized buffer zone as part of some UN peacekeeping mission, or do they insist on some obligatory support clause akin to Article 5? Would the rest of the NATO states be willing to commit to such a clause?

Will Russia be fine with troops from NATO members standing in Ukraine, no matter how few they are? And to which degree will they insist on the demiliarization of Ukraine? On the flip side, will the West be willing to accept an agreement which leaves Ukraine completely defenseless and at Russia's mercy? Will Russia actually be okay with rump-Ukraine joining the EU at some point down the line?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 13 2025 03:01am

The main point is No NATO which is achieved.

The rest is akin to deciding between tints of white paint for your living room.

This post was edited by Malopox on Feb 13 2025 03:08am

Russia will insist on more tangible guarantees than promises of the incumbent POTUS, a man who'll be out of office in less than 4 years. They know full well that Trump doesn't speak for Washington's foreign policy establishment or the MIC. They have the initiative right now, it would be foolish to give it up for mere words.

It's a lot more complicated than that. I can't stand that Vogelhirn, Baerbock, but the message is different: the US expects EU to rebuild what is left of Ukraine while cashing in on minerals and keeping the sanctions. There is also the question about the security details for Russia to stop the war. They won't be content with another Minsk and NATO creeping in anyways.
Basically, lift sanctions on nuclear and fossil energy most likely, Nordstream 2 will be operational rendering Poland a useless US marionette again. Some of the mining and agriculture rights in Ukraine and exclusive orders to rebuild by EU companies, so the EU basically puts the money from the left pocket to the right one. I think EU and US brothels are full with Ukrainian women, there is no need to discuss that as a point.
Then to finalize, an election is required in Ukraine to have a legal agreement. Zelensky, the puppet, cannot agree to anything without the mandate of the Ukrainian people.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Feb 13 2025 03:22am

Over the past month, the dollar has lost more than 30% against the ruble and is now trading at 90 rubles per dollar. What will our Scotch financial expert say? Has Putin already lost the war? Is Russian economy in ruins already?

The bulk of the ruble gains have come over the past 2 days, when the prospect of a negotiated peace and an end to the sanctions become much more realistic.