Global War: US Seeking Talks With Russia? Polish Superpower? War Looming In Caucasus?

In his most recent substack Seymour Hersh maintains that Zhou is being fed “happy horsesh*t” about Ukrainian war prospects by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), but contrary intel from the CIA doesn’t get to him. Hmmm. I guess that tells us that Hersh’s “intelligence official” source is either CIA or high enough to have good sources in the CIA. This also tells us that the US proxy war on Russia is being prosecuted along pretty strictly ideological lines, that there are deep differences of opinion within the Deep State, and that Zhou gets the mushroom treatment. You can read about the Hersh reporting here:

US Intel Official: Media Misleading Americans About Ukraine's Battlefield Success

[The intel official] continued, “The goal of Russia’s first line of defense was not to stop the Ukrainian offense, but to slow it down so if there was a Ukrainian advance, Russian commanders could bring in reserves to fortify the line.” The official added, “There is no evidence that Ukrainian forces have gotten past the first line. The American press is doing anything but honest reporting on the failure thus far of the offense.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a similarly optimistic message during his trip to Kyiv on Wednesday. “In the ongoing counteroffensive, progress has accelerated in the past few weeks. This new assistance will help sustain it and build further momentum,” he said at a press conference.

The official says that message is being delivered from military intelligence to the White House, while the CIA has drawn other conclusions. “This kind of reporting from the military intelligence community is going to the White House. There are other views,” he said, referring to the CIA. The official explained those views do not reach President Joe Biden.

In a related story, Rand Paul gave an interview in which he stated that more than a few senators are concerned that war making by the US has become untethered from our constitutional order. It’s a bit like the Deep State was given a blank check years ago—by the same institutions who now think there’s a problem. Yeah. Strategic disaster will lead to second guessing. Among other points, Paul contends that GOP senators are way out of step with their voters. He also states that Trump did make it easier for Americans to be “non interventionist”. That has to be considered a positive for Trump’s MAGA agenda, changing the terms of public discourse, opening the Overton Window more:

Rand Paul Out to ‘Repeal and Replace’ US Interventionist Regime

“While it may not be a cure all, the debate over repealing the 2001 AUMF is an important one,” Paul suggested. “Look at our history. Throughout our history, we have not had sort of open ended, ongoing AUMFs so we didn’t have to vote. I mean, that’s 22 years ago now. …”

“We have got a long way to go to winning the argument,” Paul admited, but “it’s not all pessimism.” On the Republican side, “probably 10 percent of elected Republicans are for less or for no additional money to Ukraine,” for example, but “I think over 50 percent of the Republican primary voters are now opposed to sending more money to Ukraine,” and “the Trump administration made it easier to be a non interventionist or less interventionist Republican now than it was years ago.”

Now, with the preceding in mind, over the past week or two there has been a bit of more or less under the radar speculation that the US is inching toward talks with Russia. Alexander Mercouris mentioned this speculation yesterday, perhaps based on this article by M. K. Bhadrakumar:

Ice cracking sounds on frozen lake of US-Russia relations

Here is my digest of MKB’s list of signs that the US and Russia may be feeling each other out with the possibility of negotiations in mind:

Signs of the ice cracking

Earlier this week Blinken went on an unprecedented two day trip to Kiev, claiming to be on a mission from Zhou himself. Notably, Blinken toned down his rhetoric, skipped verbal swipes at Russia and Putin, made no references to conquering Crimea or taking the fight to Russia. Instead, he spoke mostly about rebuilding Ukraine after the war. The fact that Blinken, for the first time, stayed overnight in Kiev indicates that this was not a business as usual trip. He must have had some serious discussions.

The appointment of Rustem Umerov as Ukraine's new Defence Minister. Umerov was a key negotiator at the peace talks with Russia in Istanbul last year in March, which actually resulted in an agreed document (from which Zelensky subsequently retracted under Anglo-American pressure.) Again, he was instrumental in negotiating the "grain deal" between Ukraine and Russia. Was Umerov put in place because he may be an acceptable negotiating partner for all sides?

At the same time that Blinken was in Kiev, Turkey [a NATO country] was affirming its readiness to "play an assisting role" in achieving peace in the region. In addition, the acting governor of the

Zaporozhye Region (a Kremlin appointee) told TASS out of the blue that Russia and Ukraine need a neutral platform where the two countries can negotiate pragmatic solutions to mutual issues. While the initial issues focused on matters such as prisoner swaps, the governor went on to hold out some hope of that platform expanding its purpose, "It could launch the beginning of more extensive talks. And something could grow from this as a result. And, perhaps, we would be able to resolve the task set forth by the president peacefully.”

MKB then points out:

By the way, Putin had met Balitsky at the Kremlin two weeks ago. Balitsky’s remarks were carefully timed, and Blinken and his Ukrainian hosts wouldn’t have missed the message he transmitted — that Moscow is open to negotiations.

What are we to make of this? Frankly, I remain skeptical. On the US side, I wonder whether this is simply another ploy to gain a ceasefire for purposes of Election 2024—to remove the disastrous war as an election issue, while leaving the door to creating yet another Ukrainian army. It’s simply difficult to see the Neocons giving up their ideologically driven war aims, for reasons that Michael Vlahos cites:

“The goal in this war is not about Ukraine, about Ukrainian needs and interests. It's about America’s [i.e., the Neocons’] apocalyptic view of the world. It is our task to transform the whole world into democracy and create a new world order. According to this sacred narrative, America cannot lose because we are driven by a divine providence, we have God or Righteousness on our side, and even when things go wrong time and time again, we keep going. This is because our strategy is dominated by the notion of who we are. We do not act rationally, we are driven by a religious impulse. This war is going to end with the opposite of what America wanted”.

On the Russian side, the intent may be to detach Ukraine from the US with the offer of negotiations—especially since Ukraine (and, if so, surely the Russians as well) appears to be sensing a US ‘cut and run’ in the offing—even if only for purposes of Election 2024. For domestic reasons, I simply don’t see Putin being in a position to negotiate from any position except a position of strength—there is simply too much water over the dam for anything but a decisive peace to be acceptable. This is especially the case because Russia’s military is continuing to strengthen and Putin himself has proclaimed the Ukrainian spring-summer-fall offensive to be a failure. Perhaps this is a last chance offer, before Russia goes on the offensive: Ukraine, free yourself from your Neocon masters, regain your sovereignty through direct negotiations with Russia—for the sake of the Ukrainian nation.

That Russia will take a hard line is strongly suggested by remarks this week by Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s foreign intelligence. Naryshkin basically mocked the West’s belief that they could defeat and dismember Russia as based on “fantastic” miscalculations about the strength of the Russian economy. He is also reported (by Mercouris) to have repeated Putin’s demand that the security framework of Europe be “recalibrated”.

Eager to see Russia’s defeat West misjudged its potential — intelligence chief

Britain remains major geopolitical adversary of Russia — intelligence chief

Russian, US intelligence keep in regular yet infrequent contact — SVR chief

---

Just Wednesday I wrote a post on Polish Imperial Ambitions. That post presented at some length the view of a Polish professor of international relations who, in essence, is urging his fellow countrymen to come to terms with the fact that Poland will never be a superpower, and that Poland’s “Eastern [i.e., Russian] policy” and active participation in the war on Russia puts the Polish nation at grave risk. Today brings a graphic example that the professors concerns fall on deaf ears, certainly as far the ruling Law and Justice party is concerned. Law and Justice appears to be doubling down on the crazy notion that they can make Poland into a European superpower.

Basically, the scheme is to increase defense spending from the current 2% of GDP to 3% or even 5%. Poland has gone on buying spree, purchasing military hardware from the US and South Korea (mainly). The armed forces will increase from the current 128,000 active personnel and 36,000 territorial defence troops to 300,000 soldiers by 2035—eleven years in the future, so plenty of time to further antagonize all its neighbors, and especially Russia. The aim is to make Poland far more of a military power than the UK, France, and Germany—countries with economies two to three times the size of Poland’s. You can read the details of this crazy plan here:

Poland said its army will soon be the strongest in Europe. But is that possible?

There are voices warning that this ambition is simply not possible:

The issue of the gargantuan cost of this expansion of the Polish army has been raised by Polish military expert Robert Czulda, a Resident Fellow at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation, who in a recent article said that the country will have to face a “gun or butter” dilemma as it tries to secure long-term financing.

“It seems highly likely that such a large scale of planned orders is largely driven by a political populism, aimed at gaining popularity here and now, rather than to be a real, comprehensive, and well-thought-out plan for harmoniously strengthening the armed forces,” he wrote.

“Poland should ensure that these procurement programmes are sustainable and affordable in the long term. The country should avoid a risk of overspending, which now seems very high.”

Sławomir Sierakowski, founder of the Krytyka Polityczna movement and a senior fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the impressive arm deals made by the Polish government “were made without government tenders, from a weak bargaining position, and without offset obligations from contractors.” 

It seems an excellent example of how Russia-hatred leads the sufferer into psychosis.

---

Also earlier this week I wrote about the increase in tensions in the strategically important Caucasus region—a crossroads for historically competing powers (Russia, Turkey, Iran) and now a vital link in the North South Transport Corridor: Geopolitics Heading Into The Fall. Tensions continue to rise, with Armenia alienating Russia—the country that has traditionally protected Armenia from Turkish aggression. In the context of what look like clear Azerbaijani preparations to renew its war with Armenia (which Armenia lost disastrously in the most recent round), Armenia’s PM has made a variety of provocative statements aimed at Russia. That led Russia to respond:

DD Geopolitics

@DD_Geopolitics

The Armenian Ambassador was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, he was given a harsh reprimand against the backdrop of Yerevan’s unfriendly actions, the diplomatic department reports.

-- GEROMAN -- time will tell --

@GeromanAT

Not sure if Russia is going to help Armenia in case of an Turkish Azerbaijani attack...

Pro NATO vassal Pashinian needs a lesson. If he thinks he can play both sides - he should take a look at the map.

There is no strategic depth and position to play this game.

And NATO won't help him either.

Interestingly, these Armenian shenanigans scramble previous alignments in the Caucasus. In the past, Russia and Iran—currently fairly close strategic cooperators in the region and in BRICS—have aligned with Armenia, while Turkey and Azerbaijan have been allies (with Israeli assistance) against Armenia. Now, there is a strong suspicion that Russia could allow Armenia to be administered another hard lesson. But Iran is pushing back, due to its trade routes running through Armenia:

CaucasusWarReport

@Caucasuswar

Iran has warned Azerbaijan through diplomatic calls/meetings for restraint in events of an attack on Syunik region of Armenia.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has taken steps with Israel and Turkey to establish a plan “B” if Tehran conducts a military intervention against Baku.

Never a dull moment! But a war of this sort in the Caucasus has the prospect of expanding regionally. The key, as it seems to me, is whether Iran’s concerns can be addressed. If so, Armenia will find itself with no support of any sort.