Everyone Cries, 'Peace, Peace!' But What Are The Prospects?

It’s difficult to keep track of the Trump machinations in preparation for proposed peace talks. One day funding for Ukraine will be cut off, the next day funding will continue, and so on. The one constant so far seems to be that Trump wants to continue the Anglo-Zionist narrative that this is a war between Russia and Ukraine, and the US wants to assume the role of an honest broker who became involved only to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Now, he says, we’re willing to listen to both sides to help find a solution. Of course, most of the American public, no matter how they feel about the war, will fail to recognize this narrative as totally counter factual. Never mind about the sabotage of the Nordstream Pipeline and of the Istanbul peace talks by the Anglo-Zionist combine.

This morning Judge Nap had an exchange with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern on the prospects for actual peace breaking out. McGovern acknowledged that his view—that prospects are quite good—is an outlier. Most observers, he acknowledged, believe that, while Putin may go through the motions, he will ultimately reject Trump’s framing of the issues and will reject any form of ceasefire—demanding, instead, a comprehensive settlement of security issues between the US and Russia. McGovern believes that there will be room in the talks—once it comes down to Putin and Trump going mano a mano—for good old fashioned horse trading.

To give some idea of what he means, here’s an example:

The terms are not all that far apart. I'm an outlier on this but, you know, when you talk even about entry into NATO, I think I've said this before, [Fred] Fleitz and [Keith] Kellogg say, ‘Well, [how about] no [NATO] entry for 10 years,’ and everybody says: ‘No! The Russians will never buy that!’ Well, what if the Russians come back and say, ‘50 years—how about 50 years?’ And Trump says, ‘No, no—how about 35?’ Deal! What's NATO gonna look like in 35 years [anyway]? That's what I ask.

In support of this—in my view—far fetched scenario, McGovern cites a very recent article by well known (in geopolitical circles) Russian think tanker, Dmitry Trenin:

WHAT UKRAINE SHOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER RUSSIA’S VICTORY

Trenin, a former strongly pro-Western thinker who became a Ukraine hawk of sorts, sets out four scenarios, the last of which McGovern thinks is actually plausible. However, I’ll provide the broader context of the article.

A Russian Mission of Liberation

In civilizational, cultural, and historical terms, Ukraine – or most of it – belongs to the Russian world. Today, however, it’s held hostage by anti-Russian forces backed by the West. These forces use Russian people against Russia, fighting with persistence, cunning, and brutality – despite catastrophic losses.

Moscow’s historic mission does not end with the liberation of Donbass and Novorossiya. We must free all of Ukraine from the neo-Nazi Bandera regime and its foreign sponsors. This is not imperial conquest, but national security.

Ukraine belongs first and foremost to those living there – but Russia is inseparably linked to these people and their land. After the war, we must help our neighbors rebuild Ukraine: first pacified, then peaceful, eventually a partner, and ultimately an ally.

Russia has proven its ability to turn military adversaries into allies. Look at Chechnya, now a bastion of stability in the North Caucasus. Consider Russia’s post-war partnership with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, or how East Germany became a Soviet ally after World War II.

Post-War Scenarios

Experts in Russia have outlined various visions for post-war Ukraine.

[1] Full Integration: Russia could take all of Ukraine, including Lviv, up to NATO’s borders. This would mean a second reunification – the end of Ukrainian statehood. But keeping such a vast territory, fully integrating it and paying for its reconstruction, would be a colossal burden.

[2] Pro-Western Ukraine: The worst-case scenario is a bitter, revanchist Ukraine with slightly reduced borders – a virulently anti-Russian state controlled by the West. Its sole purpose would be to provoke and attack Russia when the time is right. This possibility must be prevented at all costs.

[3] Failed State: A fragmented Ukraine, abandoned by the West and dependent on Russia, might descend into chaos – a kind of anarchist “Gulyaypole” ruled by criminal gangs and militias. Russia could try manipulating these forces, but Western meddling would persist. This unstable scenario is undesirable.

[4] Divided Ukraine: The most realistic and advantageous outcome would be a divided Ukraine. Anti-Russian forces could be pushed into the western regions under NATO protection, possibly splitting the country into a “Free Ukraine” controlled by Poland, Hungary, and Romania, and a new Ukraine. Let the West console itself with this Cold War-style buffer state.

Meanwhile, the new Ukraine – stripped of ultra-nationalist elements – could emerge, free from toxic ideologies. This Ukraine would be smaller but stable, economically integrated with Russia, and politically neutral. It makes sense to offer such a prospect to the Ukrainians and explain to them how advantageous it is for them.

A New Ukrainian Identity

The new Ukraine would be more genuinely Ukrainian than its Soviet predecessor. Joseph Stalin made a mistake by attaching the former Polish provinces of Galicia and Volyn and infecting the state with the virus of nationalism. Ukrainian culture could flourish without foreign interference, while its economy would be integrated into the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. Kiev would be cleansed of the corrupt elites that infested it after the Western-backed 2014 Maidan coup.

This Ukraine would inherit the best of its historical legacy: Kievan Rus’, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, and the cultural achievements of its Soviet past. It would be proud of its contributions to the Russian Empire, the USSR, and to shared East Slavic civilization.

I’ll confess that I’m not entirely sure who Trenin’s intended audience really is. My guess is that, contrary to what McGovern seems to believe, Trenin is mostly speaking to a Russian audience and is not proposing any scenario as a basis for US - Russian negotiations. Certainly he doesn’t mention that as a scenario. The belief in a preternatural Russian ability to gather kindred Slav nations into a sort of Ur-Slavic harmony holds a real appeal for Russians, but will leave most Westerners somewhat nonplussed. Nevertheless, McGovern sees scenario #4 as the basis for horse trading of this sort: ‘Hey, Ukraine, you want Kharkov and Odessa? Sure, why not! Or maybe joint sovereignty?’

There are at least two fundamental issues that McGovern is ignoring. First, Trenin himself, since the start of the war, has maintained that this war with NATO is absolutely existential for Russia. He’s right, of course, and this is exactly why, in his proposed draft treaties, Putin has demanded a new security architecture and a rollback of NATO borders to pre-1997 lines. There is nothing in that framework that has changed—except that Russia is soundly winning the war. Accepting anything resembling #4 would ratify the further eastward expansion of NATO boundaries—expanding Polish borders eastward and including Sweden and Finland. How could Putin possibly sell this result of a costly war to the parents of the many tens of thousands of dead and wounded Russian soldiers—a war that Putin has unmistakably sold to the Russian nation as existential for their future? Accepting an expanded NATO would look more like a defeat than the Russian victory that is being proclaimed to the Russian people.

Second, Trenin himself is presenting unrealistic plans. He glosses over the the enormous project of ridding Ukraine of nationalist tendencies, which is to say, of a Ukrainian identity distinct from Russia. That project has been ongoing for several hundred years already. But even more fundamental is that the idea of turning any Ukrainian land over to Poland would be bound to be extremely unpalatable to the Russian public. Trenin, like McGovern and others, is ignoring the historical fact that a central fact of the Russian identity is the many centuries of warfare with Poles—most of which was waged in what later became Ukraine. Please refer to this recent substack for a thumbnail sketch of that history, but the actual conflicts can be traced as far back as the 15th century and has not yet concluded. The many thousands of Polish troops in Ukraine today should make that clear enough and, if that doesn’t convince, please refer to Dmitry Medvedev’s ceaseless anti-Polish baiting tweets. And, finally, there’s the very real problem that most Poles, no matter their romantic recollections from Sienkiewicz’s Trilogy featuring Winged Hussars driving all foes before them, want absolutely nothing to do with absorbing several million more Ukrainians—in addition to those already residing in Poland.

Fortunately, there’s still time for Trump to come up with a better approach than the current ever changing scenarios. Perhaps a face to face encounter with the Russian side will help to clarify matters. However, I’m a little surprised that, so far, Trump has not taken advantage of a new development in US politics. This next isn’t a very good article, but it does express what’s gaining traction in the US:

The Dominoes Are Falling Fast Over The Biden Mental-Health Cover-Up

There truly aren’t enough words to describe just how big of a scandal the White House cover-up of Joe Biden’s mental decline really is.

As I’ve said before, the liberal media doesn’t feel that it has to protect Joe Biden anymore, and there have been a torrent of stories exposing how Biden’s mental decline was handled for four years. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and even the New York Times have all hit the story.

The question that everybody’s asking—on all sides of the political spectrum—is: Who’s been running things for four years? Dem insiders are admitting now that Zhou was never fit for duty—not from day one.

Doesn’t this open the door for Trump to proclaim that the country was hijacked by fanatical Neocons and driven into a disastrous war on Russia? Wouldn’t that narrative afford him much needed wiggle room to make the needed concessions to extricate America from this war and refocus on domestic issues? Just asking.

Now, also on Judge Nap’s show this morning, was Alastair Crooke. I’ll be transcribing the last seven minutes or so, most of which deal with the Middle East—the “easy part” of foreign policy, if you believe Trump. However, you’ll see that Crooke does raise the Russia issue, suggesting that one reason that Russia was willing to pull the plug on Syria was to clear the deck for what Putin hopes will be far ranging negotiations with Trump—much more far ranging than Trenin is suggesting. I would add this bit of conjecture. Readers will recall that I’ve been describing the newly very aggressive US activity in the Middle East as part of a new Southern Front in the war on Russia. I still hold to that. But …

What if Putin had come to an understanding with Erdogan to step aside in Syria, knowing what Erdogan had in mind and knowing that Turkish ambitions could lead to a huge problem for the Anglo-Zionists at the exact moment when Trump was trying to do a deal with Putin? The Russians are chess players, right?

Anyway, here’s the transcript, and pay attention to the bit about Russia, too:

Alastair Crooke : Balance of Power in the Middle East.

The Middle East now is heading to a great clash between these two. Now we have two big powers in the Middle East: Turkey, which has irredentist ambitions right down to Jerusalem, and you have Greater Israel saying, 'Actually, Damascus is part of Greater Israel.' These two are going to headbutt. I don't know how badly, in what way, but it's inevitable because Turkey is determined. Iran is no longer in the direct southern picture, but Iran is still powerful and you may have a surprise from Iran even before Trump takes office--a demonstration of deterrence from Iran. They are seriously thinking about it. I can't tell you that it's absolutely sure, but I think you will find that they have decided that there needs to be a demonstration of deterrence before Trump takes office on the 20th of January.

Judge: The Financial Times this morning is reporting that the Trump transition team has told Kiev and has told NATO leaders--this is almost inconceivable, but I have to give credibility to it because of the origin of the reports--that president Trump will continue American arms and financial aid to Ukraine. Do you believe that?

I still think that for all the bluster and the language--and I'm never very trusting in what Trump's assistants and aides and team are saying except for one or two, I do I do listen very much to what the vice president says, and even Musk--but I do think that Trump does not want wars and he said very clearly: 'We're heading towards World War Three.’ I think that if he goes to Moscow and talks to Putin, Putin precisely will say: 'You don't want World War Three, nor do we. We have to try and come to a bigger agreement about where are your spheres of interest, what are ours, and how to stop this endless sort of competition of putting intermediate range missiles right on each other's doorsteps. This is a recipe to go to war, to a Third World War, and I don't think you want that, so we need to sit down.' In a way this was all connected with Syria. Putin didn't want either Iran or Russia to be engaged in a direct head-on clash with Washington at this time, in order to keep the ground clear for the bigger talks, which I think he will hope to have sometime after late January or the next month.

Again, a reminder—whether or not Russia was involved in any machinations with Turkey, the situation in Syria is developing into a likely major headache for the US that can only benefit Russia. Trump gets this.

[Video of Trump talking about Turkey's powerful military and Erdogan's ambitions.]

Judge: If Trump is right, then Netanyahu's celebrations of last week were shortlived.

I think that's so. I know there's euphoria in Israel at the moment and they're in a sort of orgy of destruction in the West Bank and Gaza. In Syria they've just destroyed the infrastructure absolutely, completely. Now they're destroying it in Yemen. The ports are being destroyed, the power plants are being destroyed. I mean, where is this taking Israel? At the end of the day they have to live, or find a means of living, with 7 million Palestinians. This war without limits, of trying to suppress a people's identity, suppress their political moral being and to leave them with no will, completely suppressed in this way by fear and by massive military force. I mean this is Leviathan, Hobbes' Leviathan imposed on the Middle East. But Leviathan just doesn't work in the end--it becomes self-destructive--and I think you can hear even Israelis saying, 'Where is this taking us?' I mean, this is going to actually destroy Israel, as well. Maybe we can't plot out exactly how this is going to take place and unfold, but I think it's clear to many in the region that this course that's being pursued--which doesn't have rationality, it's not reason, it is about the Leviathan simply crushing any will to resist, any individualism, any Palestinian identity, Syrian identity, Yemen identity so that it can control completely. I don't think this will succeed. There will be resistance. It will change. The war will go on. Syria is out of it, President Trump was exactly right, taken over by Turkey. It's now in the Turkish field and what is Turkey going to do with the Israelis? Because the Israelis are taking more and more land, and they're taking the water resources which are vital to Jordan and other places. So Turkey is going to have to deal with that. Turkey says it wants an intact, complete Syria, no [internal] borders. That means no Kurds, on the one hand--well, no Kurds belonging to the SDA, the American sponsored group--and no Israelis.

Peace when?