More on Peace in Ukraine

 

I think I wrote once that Russia uses anti-Western sentiment as a means of domestic population control. The method is straight from George Orwell's books and thus certainly holds negative connotations, but Kremin is using it at home and at the moment there is not much we can do to stop them doing that. In Russia its often called a besieged fortress mentality.

However, looking at it from this perspective one can find both a very cohesive reasons for not just Russian war in Ukraine but for pretty much every other political move or statement Kremlin ever made. All these complains about NATO expanding and encircling Russia are not because Kremlin is really concerned with that. They are to make ordinary Russian people more concerned with NATO than with domestic issues, like corruption within Kremlin. Peddling NATO expansion narrative spreads this besieged fortress narrative.

Everything else is built on top of that. Once you sold public the original premise that NATO has hostile intentions, you can also convince them of every idea that can be derived from it.

Train of thoughts goes as follows: Since NATO expands, it has hostile intentions towards Russia. Since NATO has hostile intentions towards Russia, then Russia has to defend. If Russia has to defend then more has to be spend on military, freedom of speech has to be restricted to prevent hostile propaganda, people spreading hostile propaganda has to be jailed and more. All that can be used to suppress dissent at home and defend the regime from its critics. 

Among other things this train of thoughts of derivatives justifies preventive military action against targets of NATO expansion. That is how Putin sold to Russian public his war against Ukraine. Now Putin talks about nefarious "root causes" that fundamentally goes back to the same Orwellian besieged fortress mentality on which the whole Kremlin mythos is build.

One of the pillars of Russian besieged fortress mentality is a myth that NATO promised Gorbachev to not expand eastward. Gorbachev was never promised anything of sorts, but Kremlin continues to cultivate this myth. Why? Because it can build its besieged fortress mentality on it. Train of thoughts goes as follows, if NATO gave promise and reneged on it, then NATO cannot be trusted. If NATO cannot be trusted, then anything they say can just be a convenient lie to advance their interests. 

Merge this train of thoughts into NATO expansion I outlined several paragraphs above and you will get rather cohesive logical chain that "proves" Western hostility towards Russia. Proves not to Russian elites but to common Russian people, Russian elites wish to fool with these mental gymnastics.

For Russia it's not a war over tangible things like land or political concessions. It's all about propping this intangible besieged fortress mentality.

Thus, a deal with Russia does not need to give them any land or resolve the issues with Russian speakers or "Ukrainian Nazis". Issues with Russian speakers in Ukraine or "Ukrainian Nazis" are invented by Kremlin to prop this besieged fortress mentality. They exist to "prove" that West and Ukraine has hostile intentions towards Russia and justify the whole system Putin has built.

All the deal has to do is give Russia some vague promise that all will be solved. That Nazis will be gone, that NATO will not expand, that Americans will withdraw bases and so on.

All these promises then should NOT be upheld no matter what. Yes, NOT upheld. That sound very contradictory but I will explain why they should not be upheld.

Upholding the deal and actually resolving issues and differences between NATO and Russia will inevitably dismantle the besieged fortress mentality that Putin spent so long to build. That whole train of thoughts that I outlined in several paragraphs above. Since all Russian mythos and Putin governance is built on derivate logic from Western hostility premise, elimination of Western hostility will invalidate every single derived measure Kremlin build its regime on.

If West keeps its promises, then it can be trusted, if it can be trusted, then Russia does not need to defend against it. If Russia does not need to defend against West, then there is no need to restrict freedom of speech or jail political opponents. There is also no need to keep building up military as country can finally feel safe. Since there is no longer any external threat, then country can finally focus on internal issue such as corruption. 

Since Russian elites are corrupt, they absolutely cannot afford to let country focus on corruption instead of external threat. That is why the agreement should NOT be upheld not matter what.

So, a peace agreement most favorable to Russian elites is the one that vaguely promises them everything but delivers nothing. Ukraine, or the US on behalf of Ukraine, can promise to make Russian second official, withdraw (at later date) from areas Russia annexed, not join NATO and such.

None of these should be upheld. NATO troops should be stationed in Ukraine, Ukraine should be given security guarantees and then brought into NATO.

Russia will certainly whine about "treacherous" West breaking its promises and agreements again, but they will not attack again. This whining will look like they complain to Americans and Europeans but in reality, it will be aimed at common Russians who will have no choice but to accept Western hostility towards Russian and abandon pro-Western sentiments. After that Putin will be able to not only label any opposition as traitors but also have broad public support in repressing them.

Other terms should not be upheld either. Russian should not be made official in Ukraine. Not only because Ukrainian nationalists oppose it, but also because if Russian is not official in Ukraine, Russian propaganda can continue its whine that Russians in Ukraine are oppressed to prop up besieged Orwellian fortress mentality. If Russian is actually made official in Ukraine, it will make work of Russian propagandists that much harder. Because where is Russophobia in making Russian official language?

Zelenski and Ukraine should be informally explained that they are not actually expected to fulfil such an agreement at all. They also should also be given security guarantees that will make NATO interfere if Russian attacks again. Such guarantees should come as a separate document from peace agreement with Russia.

If anything, US can sign a bilateral peace with Russia without Ukraine at all, Putin clearly nudged Trump towards it by claiming that Zelenski is illegitimate and cannot sign anything. Since such agreement does not have to be upheld, there is no need to consult Ukraine. 

US can then sign a separate security guarantees treaty with Ukraine and bring in troops. Then can come economic cooperation agreement and more.

Russia will complain about violation of such agreement because they need something to complain about, not because they actually opposed to it. 

Something like this can possibly solve the Ukrainian war.

Russian and Chinese Hybrid War Against Liberal Democracy

 

Recent bout about dangers of criminal migrants and refugees prompt me to write a detailed explanation of this problem. I was writing many times that government do not let in any dangerous or criminal refugees, such dangerous migrants are smuggled into the Western liberal democratic countries illegally. Russia is doing that using its special forces as well as affiliated mafia. They are doing it with one single person: to destroy western world from within.

Why is Russia doing it? Why does it need to destroy the West? What purpose and benefit there is in just wreaking havoc that costs Russia money and does not bring any material or financial gains?

The reason is survival. Russia and mainland Chinese regimes are very unpopular with their own people. They look at the West and see benefits western style liberal democracy brings. Then they look back and their own countries and see just how much worse Putin and Xi authoritarian system is by comparison.

Autocrats in both Moscow and Beijing are threatened by their own people and their increasingly radical and revolutionary mood. They clearly see that if they do nothing, they will one sunny afternoon will just be kicked out like Yanukovych, and his cronies were kicked out of Ukraine. For that they have a personal vendetta against Ukraine. Russian war in Ukraine is fundamentally about that. A revenge for Yanukovych and Euromaidan. Just like Napoleonic wars were revenge of then autocracies for French Revolution and beheading of Louis XVI.

However, destroying Ukraine in itself will not save autocracies in Moscow and Beijing. They know that and seek something that will actually prevent people from overthrowing them.

However, what something like that could be? What can possibly destroy an idea, an abstract concept? For the lack of any better ideas, Moscow and Beijing have settled on if not destroying every single democratic country in the world, then at least damaging and ruining them as much as possible.

Flooding democratic world with fake criminal refugees is but a part of such strategy. Such fakes refugees are there to make life of average Westerner as bad as possible, making Russian and Chinese autocracy better in comparison just because they do not have the same refugee problem.

However, this is not the only method autocratic alliance of Kremin and Beijing use. They use every trick they could possibly think of to damage or at least weaken the West and its prosperity.

Fake news, not just overt propaganda channels like Russia Today or Sputnik but also people Tucker Carson who are paid secretly. Rupert Murdoch may as well be on Kremlin's payroll as well. 

Russia has perfected clandestine methods of transferring money so payments from Kremlin will not appear in official ledgers. Instead, they will be disguised as some investments from anonymous funds or private donations.

Online trolls are another method Russia uses to attack the west; they pretend to be Westerners and spread contrarian radical messages, aimed at radicalising locals against liberal status quo.

Moscow deliberately makes these trolls to advocate illiberal solutions for alleged Western problems. Aim is to make Western societies more bigoted and less liberal and welcoming to migrants. Moscow war is on liberal democracy as well as rule of law. So, in Moscow's eyes every move away from rule of law or liberal society is a victory for Kremlin. 

Moscow wants Western societies to stop being liberal and replace rule of law with autocratic enforcement and abuse of power. If ICE officers will grab foreign looking people on the streets and forcefully repatriate them, it will look similar to how Russian riot police handles anti-Putin protesters. It will eliminate appeal, liberal democracy holds in Russian society, as people will question if government treats them any better if Russia was a democracy.

Final and the most ambitious angle of Russian attacks is directly sponsoring parties that advocate illiberal ideas and policies. Moscow certainly wants to see people like Geert Wielders, Le Pen and Alice Weidel in power as they will destroy all the appeal, Western way of life has among anti-Putin Russians. They will also destroy German economy and reduce French and Germans to a slave labor for building skyscrapers in Moscow.

In view of the above, it's pretty clear that Kremin has a comprehensive strategy for its unconventional hybrid war against Europe, the US and collective West. Moscow sees democracy and liberal way of living in itself as a threat to its existence, existence of its ruling class to be precise. Because of that they are willing to wage a war of utter destruction even if it harms both sides equally. Kremlin thinks all sacrifices are worth it if they can destroy liberal democracy or at least make it unappealing to an average Russian.

Because of Kremlin's extreme agenda, the West should develop a cohesive and decisive response to Kremlin's hybrid war. It should outsmart Putin, expose Kremlin's links to "patriotic" politicians in the West, disrupt its networks of paid client media, prevent these people from receiving money from Moscow, prevent trolls from flooding online spaces with paid messages and more. 

The response to Kremlin hybrid war should also be smart and hybrid. Acting recklessly will instead lead towards playing right into Kremlin's trap. West should stop Putin but not the cost of destroying freedom and democracy that made Western world great and appealing across the world in the first place.

Doing nothing is not an option either. Left unopposed, Le Pen and AfD may eventually take over the governments, and all will be lost.

Hopefully West will be able to prevail against Kremlin's hybrid warfare, and this time end autocratic rule in Russia for good.

Russia Should Negotiate with Europe Directly

 

So far Russia have continuously refused to negotiate with Europe, calling them weak and irrelevant. However, reality of situation on the ground is such that only negotiations between Russia and Europe can end this war and Russia will have to talk to Brussels of they will destroy themselves in Ukrainian meatgrinder. 

Russia certainly dislikes Europeans. They fear EU soft power and hate their meddling in what they perceive as Russian backyard. Moscow certainly does not want to talk to Europe and would like to avoid it at all costs. They clearly perceive that these negotiations will not be easy and they will not be able to get as much as say Trump willing to offer them.

However, there is no alternative to negotiations with Europeans. Fundamentally Russian conflict is not with Ukraine or the United States, but with EU. Thus, to end it, they will have to negotiate with Brussels. 

Trump maybe sympathetic to Russian position, but he has little power to actually do anything. Maximum the US can do is pull the financial support for Ukraine. That will not stop the war however as Europeans are more than willing to pay for weapons for Ukraine as well as send them their own. The US is no USSR and could not send its troops to change government in Kyiv or Brussels, that will destroy the very system on which Americans have built their global power. Anything short of that will not stop the war. Americans do need their European allies to help them against China so they will not screw them over.

Marko Rubio made it clear than the US has not stake in this war, he said it's not our war. Americans do not really understand what the war is about, they find the whole affair utterly pointless, but willing to play a mediator in the conflict. Thus, they listen to Russia but that does not mean they are endorsing Russian point of view. Russians erroneously perceive Steve Witkoff as authority to write peace unliterary. In reality he is more of an advocate for Russian cause, with Keith Kellogg being his counterpart for Ukrainian side. Marko Rubio will then try to mediate peace between the positions of these two people and sides they represent, and it will only be accepted if both sides considered it acceptable. It will not be forced on Europe or Ukraine.

Then there is also an option to negotiate with Ukraine but that does not work either. Moscow sees former Soviet states as its subordinates and only able to talk to them in language of ultimatums rather than negotiate with them as equals. Ukraine understands it all too well and will not be willing talk with someone who does not treat them as equal. There is no point in talking to someone who treats anything you say as nonsense and that is how Russia behaves towards Ukraine. The fact that Putin dared to call Zelenski illegitimate puts final nail in the coffin of direct talks. No matter what is agreed, Russia can later dismiss it as null and void as it was signed by a president they do not recognise. Thus, direct talks between Russia and Ukraine are out of question either.

That only leaves Europe. Starmer, Macron and von den Leyen have managed to build trust with Ukrainian leadership and therefore able to represent their interests in a reasonable manner. Russian counterparts are able to see them as equal enough to actually negotiate rather than dictate conditions. They will consult with Ukraine on details to make sure Kyiv is ok with the terms. 

Europeans certainly will not offer Kremlin a deal as good as Witkoff did, but Witkoff's deal is fundamentally an illusion that will never work. It is Europeans Union that needs Ukraine and other post-soviet states as its members, not Americans. Thus, if Kremlin has a problem with that, they will have to take it to Brussels, not Washington DC.

The US has no interests in Kyiv and thus no stake in conflict. Yes, Americans may take greater role in Ukraine and its minerals if peace deal is approved but that is hypothetical future. The present is conflict between Kremlin and Brussels and only these two sides can solve it. The longer Kremlin will continue to deny this reality, the more soldiers it will lose.

Brussels, Starmer and Macron certainly will be hard to deal with, but they are not the worst among those who have stake in this conflict. Poland and most of former Eastern Bloc is also actively participating in this conflict, backing Ukraine above and beyond their Western counterparts. Poland however is not interested in negotiations with Russia. Poland wants Russia partitioned into several small states that will be dominated by Warsaw. Thus, Kremlin may want to negotiate with Brussels a deal that at least preserves Russia in one piece.

Because of the above the fastest way to end war is direct negotiations between Brussels and Kremlin. If Kremin continues to act through Washington, it will make process much longer and ultimately will not make a final peace deal any better for Kremlin than the one they can get from Brussels. 

Why Peace in Ukraine has to be Framed as an American victory over Russia

 

Russian leaders like Western plots to against Russia as that allow them to rally people around themselves. Kremlin, say they oppose western troops in Ukraine but in reality, something like that is easier to sell to people then a democratic choice of Ukrainian people. 

Russia elites like to see the world in terms of Great Powers and power hierarchies. Big countries carve world between themselves, small ones just powerless watch. 

Russian elites biggest fear is that people from below usurp powers of those above and overthrow them.

Euromaidan is an example of just such situation: common people removed privileged people with authority. To Russia that is unacceptable not from perspective of losing pro-Russian leaders but from perspective that it shows that common people have the power to remove authorities.

Russia would like to instil sense that common people are completely powerless and can do nothing against authorities. Big guys decide, small people just shut up and obey. If Kremlin fails to instil and maintains this idea among people in Moscow, they might try to overthrow Putin.

Ukraine is problem to Kremlin precisely because it is an example of people doing just that, overthrowing authority. To Moscow it would be better if it was a CIA coup. That way they can frame the whole thing not as an expression of popular will but as a game between big players

For Moscow it is much easier to take an L from the US and accept that CIA have outplayed them in Ukraine than accept that small common people just overthrew the government they did not like and replaced it with the one they choose. That is why Moscow keeps spreading these lies about CIA plot. It's the optics they want.

Because of the above, for Moscow a peace deal that favors Ukraine, that is signed bilaterally with Americans is better than a deal, more favorable to Russia, but signed with Ukrainians instead. That way Russia can maintain that even if Russia lost, they are still playing in the big league with the biggest guys out there. This big-league status is what it's all about, not a few provinces and towns in Ukraine. Russia wants its big-league status back.

That is why Russia is so dismissive of both Ukraine and Europeans. Signing anything with them will make Russia look like they are on the same level with these guys, not something Russia wants. Russia wants to be seen equal only to the US and above Europe and Ukraine

Because of that a peace deal that is acceptable to Russia has to look like the US and Russia are carving spheres of influence, and countries like Ukraine are mere pawns who fall one or another way and have no say in the matter.

Such peace deal can favour Ukraine and address some of Kyiv concerns, but it has to be worded as US demands to Russia, not Ukraine demands to Russia. Putin can accept demands from someone bigger but not from someone smaller. Losing to the US will not make him look like a pushover weakling. Losing to Ukraine will.

In soccer parallels if English National Team loses to German or Brazil, people will be upset but they will accept the results without much issue because Germany and Brazil are strong teams and you cannot win against them all the time. In contrast if English National Team loses to Wales, Albania or Andorra, fans will be shocked. How could England lose to someone this weak and small. Some soul searching will definitely follow.

There are no leagues on international level, but on national best teams play premier league and weaker ones are relegated to 2nd, 3rd and so on. Russia is concerned if they are still in Premier Leage or are they are being demoted.

In the same way when it comes to peace in Ukraine, Russia can accept a loss to the US but not to the EU or Ukraine. Peace deal has to be framed as Russian loss to Americans and signed biliteracy between the two. Ukraine and Europe have to be consulted on actual terms of the deal, but in the final text, it has to be worded in a way like the whole thing was written in Washington DC.