These statements are so strange to me.
They keep on saying how Ukraine cannot be allowed to lose, how they will not accept Russia disarming Ukraine (a basic precondition for peace with Russia at this point), etc.
Then they say they’re going to put troops in AFTER and as part of a ceasefire. And this is after Russia has repeatedly rejected any ceasefires because they’d just be used for more Minsk Accord dishonesty and regrouping and re-arming. And specifically Russia has stated of peace that they will not permit standing NATO armies to occupy Ukraine as part of any peace, kind of part of the whole point of the conflict. Not only that, Russia emphasizes how peacekeepers are only legal with a mandate from the UN security council on which they have a veto.
So who are these statements for? What’s the point?
I’m a little concerned they’re not taking this opportunity to back down rhetorically to prepare their populations. Is it all kind of a thing to hang the blame on the US and claim that they were willing to send troops but that Trump lost Ukraine while they’re innocent? Is it just theater of some sort, some sort of cope which has no real deeper meaning? Is it some sort of salami-slicing, they plan to keep saying this then rush troops in after Ukraine unilaterally declares a ceasefire without Russian recognition and claim they were saying something else all those other times as Russia rains Oreshniks down on them?
Why do they keep pushing this very specific and carefully crafted line?
The amount of doubling down from Europeans is truly something. The 100 year security deal with the UK, the insistence that Ukraine not be disarmed. Is it just they want to bleed Russia more and force the Ukrainians to perform a full third reich fall of Berlin level of fanatical resistance that fights all the way back to the west and Lyiv?
I could see this war going on easily for another several years which overlaps with the US timeline for attacking China while RAND says they still have a chance of victory.
It’s hard to parse things like this.
For one Trump is spectacularly famous for not being honest. He makes big bluffs and then backs down for minor concessions and it’s part of his bluster and bluff “negotiator businessman” persona.
But assuming this is on the table I think that it’s possible the plan lately has been to force Russia into a ceasefire. They’d give them most of the territories they’ve taken minus large chunks still held by Ukrainian forces. But importantly in a ceasefire the US would in backrooms push France, UK, etc to make good on their promises to send “peacekeeping forces” into Ukraine to support Ukraine the moment they had a ceasefire just as they’ve been promising repeatedly and confusing to do. If Russia refuses to play ball with this then the west may fear a collapse of its appearance of strength and be more willing to be antagonistic towards Russia.
I hope that Trump is foolish. I hope he shows Putin all his kindness and gestures were just attempts to get Russia back to the sucker’s position of accepting western control of most of Ukraine and an unstable peace that will obviously be used to re-arm Ukraine.
I guess the one hitch is I think there is a decent chance Trump as someone from the cold war era has a genuine dread and fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear war and if he thinks it may come to that I think he’ll blink, stick a knife in Europe’s back and hastily hop back over the Atlantic rather than letting it go off.
It’s interesting to note that Musk’s DOGE may have recently run into a snag. Reportedly Marco Rubio who is the neocon interest robot operating in the admin and in theory controls USAID under the State Department was feuding with Musk over the demands for cuts and Trump sided with Rubio, aka the old guard, aka the keep the imperialism machine functioning semi-competent neo-con manager side.