I've seen at least two colleagues I respect generate 15+ post threads about the dangers/dynamics of these negotiations which don't quite grapple with how anything this unserious ends up being a futile exercise with no lasting outcome
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Exactly. And really bluntly folks are getting really ahead of themselves on how close the war is to an end, in no small part because the US withdrawal likely changes the equilibrium in R's favor over the medium term and R is anxious to exploit that, and happy to roll the US side for extras if it can
I don't necessarily agree when it comes to advantages for Russia. I think US withdrawal makes Ukraine regaining land beyond maybe getting the full Dnipro river area back extremely unlikely. So it allows Russia to lock down many of the initial territorial gains. But that's not enough for Putin.
The trajectory I think still leans towards Ukraine behind current frontlines and maybe bits around the while Dnipro River still integrating with the EU, but not regaining most of the initial Russian territorial gains. Sometimes in war no one wins decisively.
The European plan prepares the ground for future discussion towards that, and the US is congratulating itself on proposing something not remotely close to what either side will accept, but who then must pretend to take seriously to try and shape who the US assigns blame to when it inevitably fails
Anything short of a massive infusion of American money into the Russian economy will not help the Kremlin. Even that may not be sufficient if OPEC proceeds with production increases in May and UA starts striking Ru refineries again. The Ru economy has entered a death spiral, that may be terminal.
As one of the authors of those threads, I (obviously) disagree. Can this create a lasting outcome? Of course not. Can it create increased insecurity en route to ultimate failure? Absolutely. There’s a difference between “this won’t lead where Trump wants” and “this will need nowhere.”
The instability already kicked on 20 January. This is part of a wider drift towards a post-American order, not just in Europe. These farcical negotiations are symptom, not cause, of dynamics that would still be playing out in a world where there were no talks and Witkoff just played golf in Holbrook
Are you sure what we are witnessing is an American departure from Europe, rather than the US active participation in a new Holy Alliance between Trump and Putin to police the continent?
it took a while though for it to unravel and the Russian empire still preserved an impressive ability to interfere in the affairs of small states. the archives show how afraid the Swiss were of Russia's power still in the 1860s and that the Russian, Prussian and Austrian police still cooperated.
I agree with all of that. I just don't see why that means we should entirely ignore what the US is doing--and thus why threads like mine are a waste of effort. US power doesn't cease to exist just because the administration can't figure out how to wield it effectively.
If an American move is a product of farcical incompetence then it's outcomes are not likely to play out in a straightforward way. If this is a symptom of an implosion of US power then the likelihood increases that American ability to influence events decreases
What if the US decides to use its military against Europe, eg. triggered by DK resisting an annexation of Greenland or Europe (ex UK) helping CA resist a US invasion?
I am really concerned that rational terms do not apply to to psychopaths like Trump (witness his buddy Putin).
Comments
a) the general uncertainty & unpredictablity of Trump and decreasing US-power
b) what conclusions EU/UK should draw for best strategy to adapt.
It‘s not one or the other. It’s both.
I am really concerned that rational terms do not apply to to psychopaths like Trump (witness his buddy Putin).