Briefly Noted: Where Are We Now Re Russia/Ukraine?

Dem and Deep State controlled media in the US continues to push the war mongering scare talk against Russia, amplifying the Zhou regime’s bullying tough talk. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. Russia appears no more likely—despite Zhou regime media chatter—to “invade” Ukraine than it ever has been. Ukraine itself maintains that they see no such threat. Placing US troops on “heightened alert” is also no big deal—in the overall context it only amounts to saber rattling and is not a serious threat. So ignore the MSM nonsense about the US being about to “send troops to defend Ukraine.” Russia itself—in stark contrast with the Zhou regime—has maintained a calm demeanor, simply responding to US hysterics by urging the US to abandon hysterics.

In that context it’s worth considering the point of hysterical outbursts, especially when they come from the 800 lb. military gorilla on the world stage. Hysterical outbursts are usually part of an effort to force someone else to back down, to give in. Putin surely understands that and just as surely entered into the current contretemps knowing that hysterics would be the likely initial US response. Putin, after all, has famously stated (free quote from memory): “The US almost always does the right thing, but only after trying everything else.”

So, again: What is Putin demanding. On the face of things, Putin’s maximalist demand is that NATO roll back to its pre-1997 scale. That would, presumably, include jettisoning Poland and the Baltics from NATO membership. However, there is obviously some room for negotiation. The true bottom line appears to be 1) a halt to NATO expansion towards the Russian border (obviously Ukraine is the prime target of this demand) and a halt to “color revolutions” on its borders (think: Belarus, Kazakhstan), and 2) a halt to stationing offensive weapons near Russia’s borders (Poland, in particular, comes to mind). Contrary to Conrad Black’s attempts today to portray aggressive NATO moves as totally reasonable (Biden’s Ukraine Scramble—but it’s still worth reading), it’s very difficult to gainsay the reasonableness of what Putin has said: The advent of hypersonic weapons, which would place NATO missiles mere minutes if not seconds from Moscow, has fundamentally changed strategic considerations.

And so Putin wants security guarantees. And he wants those guarantees in writing. He has been watching US regimes for decades now and the lesson he has learned is that the US cannot be trusted unless it is forced into legally binding commitments. He has said that in so many words. Thus, Putin’s moves come at a time when he is convinced that he has decisive leverage. Consider two facts in that regard. The US—with policy driven by the military and intel establishments, and fueled by greedy and corrupt political crime families—is overextended and in no position to coerce Russia. Not militarily and not economically. Again, whereas Trump, by using US energy resources as leverage, was able to enhance US influence within NATO, the Zhou regime has cast those gains away in order to cater to domestic extreme Leftists—with major ramifications at home and abroad. We see that now with Germany—a major economic power—and France—a nuclear power—entering into separate talks with Russia. Putin has successfully driven a wedge into NATO, and exposed the total lack of respect in the EU for Zhou.

That, I believe, is the correct context within which to view current developments. I also recommend a critical reading of two articles by a former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern:

What Brought Biden to the Table?

Are Neocons Worried at Pace of US-Russia Talks?

It’s important to understand that, while Putin definitely wanted to bring the US to the negotiating table, that desire was specific rather than general. Putin had a very specific agenda in mind—not just empty blathering—and that’s why he put that agenda in writing for all the world to read, knowing that the US would initially respond with militaristic threats and posturing rather than real diplomacy. But the US is being dragged inexorably to the table and, while maintaining a high volume of public rhetoric, has also climbed down to the extent of agreeing to respond in writing. That’s the beginning of actual negotiations, and the US is demanding—or is the right word “entreating”—the Russian side to maintain confidentiality.

Here I offer an extended quote from the second article by McGovern. The first and longest part of the quote is from a CNN transcript:

Officials Tightlipped: Good Sign

Following the initial U.S.-Russia talks in Geneva on (9/10 Jan.), there was an abundance of reporting, much of it sourced to the officials involved. After a few days, though, that abruptly stopped, probably by mutual agreement not to complicate negotiations by having to deal with media reporting – accurate or not. The only noteworthy exception was an interview given by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov who has been very close to President Putin for many years. On Jan. 16, Peskov appeared on "Fareed Zaharia GPS" to talk about "Russia’s demands".

PESKOV: I officially can tell you that there are no Russian troops … on Ukrainian soil. But there are Russian troops on the territory of the Russian federation next to Ukrainian borders. And we find it necessary to keep those troops there [because of] the very tense situation and very unfriendly environment created by various training of NATO, jet fighters, NATO spy planes, NATO’s military infrastructure moving towards our borders. We have to respond. … That’s why we have our military guys on our territory there.

ZAKARIA: Do you have some kind of a timeline that you are – at which point you will then say the negotiations have failed and are you then prepared to take military action?

PESKOV: No one is threatening anyone with military action. This will be just a madness to do that. But we will be ready to take counteractions. So if you continue to say "Listen, Russians, we’re not going to take into account your concerns, NATO will continue to expand … we’re not going to say that we will not deploy any offensive weapons on Ukraine’s territory. …" If you tell us that, we will have to do something. [Emphasis added.]

What is the timeline? … Well, of course, we’re not speaking about tomorrow. We’re not speaking about hours, but what was meant by our president is that we don’t want to see a process for the sake of the process. So we don’t want to see a month-long or yearlong negotiation discussing our disagreements. We want to feel for the beginning the readiness to take into account our concerns. Right now unfortunately we fail to do that. [Emphasis added.]

It’s seems that Peskov was sending—within the constraints of diplomatic language—a very clear message to the Zhou regime: We won’t state a timeline, but it won’t be indefinite and we’re not satisfied with your delaying tactics. In other words, Peskov’s message was: You’re over a barrel, and it’s high time you recognize that and respond accordingly. Soooo …

Surprise! Blinken, Lavrov to Geneva

Few expected the announcement on Jan. 18 that Lavrov and Blinken would meet on Jan. 21. One can imagine increased apprehensiveness on the part of the neocons, and others who favor tension more than détente, at the unusually rapid continuation of the bilateral negotiations. Worse still, from their point of view, Blinken said he would provide – this week – written comments on Russian concerns.

THE Question: Did someone on the U.S. side take Peskov seriously?

The official silence was briefly broken by Blinken on the (Jan. 23) Sunday TV talk shows. Blinken told Face the Nation, for example, that the path of diplomacy and dialogue is clearly the most responsible thing to do.

And that’s exactly what Putin had been demanding: Diplomacy and mutual respect.

"We are answering some of the concerns Russia may have, Russia is answering the many concerns that we have. … We’ll see if … there are things we can do again on a reciprocal basis that would actually advance collective security in a way that answers some of what we are hearing [from Russia], and Russia answering a lot of what Russia is hearing from us." (To no one’s surprise, in order to balance his remarks, Blinken included the obligatory warnings of "massive consequences" if Russia invades Ukraine.) [Emphasis added.]

The Written Response

Unless the neocons and their Ukrainian proxies manage to disrupt the process, the next step will be the US response to what Russia has put on the table. One encouraging sign comes unofficially from Russian media reports that Blinken told Lavrov that when the US response is handed over, the US does not want the contents released to the media. Political commentator and popular talk show host Vladimir Solovyov commented that this suggests that the White House does not want the Western press to jump on Biden’s proposals before they can be digested and evaluated by the Kremlin. Seems a good guess.

With regard to McGovern’s reference to “the neocons and their Ukrainian proxies”, I think there’s a broader context here. That the government that the US installed in Kiev after overthrowing the elected Ukraine government is a proxy for outside interests can hardly be doubted. That neocons, broadly defined, are part of that mix is also beyond doubt. However, there are other anti-Russian groups involved, and those include Globalists who are very specifically opposed to Putin’s nationalist vision of Russia and of a multi-polar world that would allow Russia to regain at least portions of its past influence. Yes, George Soros and his WEF minions have been active in Ukraine for many years. Putin’s initiative is a definite setback for their agenda, but the reaction of Germany—which is under heavy WEF influence—suggests that Putin’s timing was well chosen. The confluence of unrest generated by Covid Regime repression as well as by energy woes in Europe (and notably in Germany) may well explain why the Globalists feel a need to reconsider hostility to Putin at this juncture.

Again, I think we can see in this the result of the corrupt DC Establishment’s blind opposition to Trump. That opposition—spanning our bought Congress, the Intel Community, the Military, and financial interests—shortsightedly refused to consider the logic of Trump’s strategy of cooperation with Russia for common purposes. Key among those common purposes, of course, was cooperation against the Chinese threat. We see the results now of the coup against Trump. With the Globalist faction seeking to utilize the US military for muscle on the world stage—and threatening something very like that on the domestic US front as well—Russia has been forced into aligning more closely with perhaps its biggest long term strategic threat: China. Nobody ever said the Globalists were actually smart. But perhaps once Putin has the security guarantees he’s seeking—in writing—a more constructive relationship over that long term will be possible.