Donald Trump has made so many promises on what he will quickly achieve once he takes office as President. The one about ending the Ukraine war in 24 hours probably gained him support from quite a few normally left-leaning people, who understand that the history of this conflict is far more complicated than is portrayed by the Western media.
However, Trump made that statement in July 2023. By 2025, he has somewhat moderated that particular promise. He has had several conversations with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, who praised their Paris meeting on 7 December as “productive and meaningful”, but there were no details discussed. Later, Trump opposed the sending of long-range missiles for Ukraine, but said he would not “abandon” Ukraine. He predicted “less aid” to Ukraine. By 21st December, it was reported that Trump would continue to supply military aid to Ukraine, provided that NATO members dramatically increase their defence spending.
So, peace in Ukraine is not going to happen in such a hurry, even with President Trump and his supposed great negotiating skills. Britain considers sending troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian regiments. NATO is not prepared for any compromises, especially about giving up the plan for Ukraine’s NATO membership. With any peace deal, the Western allies agree with Zelenskyy – “Security guarantees without the US are not sufficient for Ukraine.”
As well as European reluctance to a peace deal, there is the Russian point of view. Despite many set-backs, and a catastrophic loss of soldiers’ lives, Russia is now headed towards winning this war. Why make a deal now, before being in a more powerful position for demanding concessions?
Then we come to the USA. However much Donald Trump might want to end the carnage, and be seen as the peace hero, he is up against significant forces at home – making up what he calls the Deep State. This is a conspiracy theory that helped Trump to gain popularity – and I hate to agree with it, in its rather paranoid theme. BUT, war enthusiasts do exist – among the military, intelligence, government officials, and wealthy industrialists, and they do exercise influence, and pressure politicians of both parties, to manipulate America’s defense policies. The war in Ukraine continues to be profitable to America’s weapons industries, and at no cost to American lives.
In the whole saga of the war in Ukraine, history has been forgotten. Of course Ukrainian-Russian relations have been tortuous and often terrible. In modern history it goes back to the 1930s with Stalin’s starvation and genocide of Ukrainians. Then, following oppression from Russia, came in 1941, the short-lived moment of “liberation” by the German Nazis. That brought mass killings of Jews, slave labour, wholesale destruction, and the loss of up to 7 million lives. Russian control over Ukraine returned in 1944, and while the economy was restored, Stalin’s totalitarian rule was back again. In 1991 Ukraine gained independence from Russia.
Is it any wonder that Ukraine, with both Russian and Ukrainian languages still in common use, has been divided in attitudes and loyalties? Going even further back in history, Catherine the Great of Russia, in the 18th Century, made Kiev become Europe’s centre of art and culture, as well as making improvements in health, education, legal rights for Jews, improved conditions for serfs. Sure, she was an absolute monarch – miles away from being democratic. Now her name and her statues are trashed in Kiev, which is a pity.
From 2014 to 2022, the Ukrainian government waged a war against the separatists in the Eastern, Donbass region. The war was about the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements which meant that the Donbass should have its autonomous government within Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected on a platform that he would implement those agreements, but later he reneged on this promise. Russia’s President Putin in 2022 started what he called “a special military exercise” to support the separatists and uphold the Minsk agreement. That turned into the full-scale war against Ukraine.
European and USA support for Ukraine developed into a campaign at enormous cost to weaken Russia. The phrase “too big to fail” is used to describe financial crises. But it could apply to the Russia-Ukraine war. From the Western perspective the war is seen as a battle between good and evil – the evil giant Putin against the heroic little Zelenskyy. With NATO, with most European countries lined up against Russia, it is world democracy to be desperately defended. For Russia, it now has to prevent that last big nation on its border joining that threatening USA-armed line-up.
It was a mistake that Russia started a ‘special military enterprise’ – to evolve into a full-scale war. Some argue that by encouraging Zelenskyy to reneg on the Minsk agreement, the Western nations provoked the war.
Whatever started the war, the majority of Ukrainians, and especially those in the East, now just want it to end. The prevailing cry of Western leaders – “Putin must fail, Ukraine must prevail” expresses that simplistic view of good versus evil, and just ignores the complicated historic and local concerns of Eastern Ukraine. Diplomacy is jettisoned. As one writer puts it; voices calling for pragmatism and peace remain drowned out by the cacophony of war rhetoric.
Ultimately, every war ends in some sort of a diplomatic outcome. It is doubtful that Trump can make this one end quickly. It might be just one of the promises that he has to give up.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Agree partly, the world has changed since Trump’s last Presidency, while both Ukraine and Russia are struggling (latter was helped by a timely event on Oct 7 and Netanyahu’s blowback, while he and Putin have been chummy and esp via Orban).
Both Trump’s and Biden’s transition teams have been speaking for weeks, his envoy Commander ‘Corn Flakes’ Kellogg has previously mooted arming Ukraine to the teeth vs the slow walk of arms by Biden & O’Sullivan allegedly under influence of Charap (Rand & Putin’s Valdai Club…..).
However parsing through sources shows issues of Anglosphere geopolitical generalists trying to do or present analysis, but avoiding wealth of analysis from relevant experts in western Europe, next door to Ukraine* (what would they know)? (*like US media ignoring local media and analysis on the southern border in favour of European analysis?)
Strange reliance on or obsession to keeping locked in to far away Anglosphere sources and talking points that are often neither substantiated nor true, related to the fossil fueled networks of both US/Koch, Russia/Putin and media unfit for purpose.
As bad in Oz, has been the nasty empathy bypass of faux anti-imperialists of the left (some have been highlighted in Europe for spreading Kremlin disinfo), who blame US, NATO & Ukraine, while sharing talking points with US RW libertarians, FoxNews and Putin?
Case in point is conclusion ‘Whatever started the war, the majority of Ukrainians, and especially those in the East, now just want it to end.’
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrainians-ready-to-end-war/
The latter is the US Quincy Institute, set up 2019 by fossil fuel Koch Network, roping in Soros then (seems very hands off), while board members have resigned over Qunicy Inst’s opposition to NATO, Ukraine and inability to criticise Putin.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/quincy-institute-cirincione-eaton-resignations-nato-ukraine/
Then the same ‘peace’ (‘all over you’, copyright ‘Whoops Apocalypse’) by Russia and allies, including those in Tony Abbott’s Hungarian workplace ecosystem.
While he managed to salvage reputation amid questions on loyalties, by Kremlin deeming him persona non grata, but….. Murdoch Fox Board’s Abbott works at the Danube Inst supported by a foundation under Hungarian PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban, partnered with the fossil fueled Atlas-Koch Network Heritage Foundation which developed Project2025 with anti-immigrant Tanton Network whose dec. founder was friends with Abbott’s boss O’Sullivan who is also Quadrant’s Euro correspondent; they avoid talking about Ukraine, instead it’s glib ‘peace’ as they seem to share values with Putin’s Potemkin Russia?
Long term objective? Like Brexit, it’s the EU and western Europe, for what it does and what it stands for e.g. faster transition away from fossil fuels, more renewables & environmental regulation, minimum standards for consumers & workers, financial transparency and anti-laundering regulation etc.
More threatening or as existential for the powers that be are EU and western liberal enlightenment values of open secular society, social democracy, empowered & educated citizens, equality etc.; red rags to a bull for corrupt and authoritarian white Christian nationalist RWNJs.
It is also important to note that Russia broke the Minsk Agreement by supplying weapons to the separatists.
And the separatists used them in breach of the Minsk Agreement
Nothing – absolutely NOTHING – Trump says is realistic, truthful or kind! Trump is not only a ruthless recidivist misogynistic predator, he has proven himself to be a pathological liar and an uncompromising megalomaniacal narcissist who truly believes that everything he says must be taken as gospel. His “up close and personal” relationship with a totally corrupt, inhumane, murderous, autocratic political sociopath like Putin, says EVERYTHING about Trump and NONE of it good! Trump has proven himself to be a hateful, Islamophobic racist who has verbally vilified, condemned and attacked ANYONE who isn’t male, white and/or anglo saxon. His unprovoked vicious attacks against Mexicans and anyone following the Muslim faith have been slanderous and diabolical! In addition, Trump has a long, infamous reputation as a corrupt multi-billionaire who has ZERO sympathy for ANYONE who isn’t a powerful, obscenely rich member of the Top 1%. Trump has neither the maturity nor self-awarenss to tolerate any justifiable criticism, doubt or understandable condemnation against him, especially in relation to his crazy statements, eg that Harris and her supporters are eating dogs! My God, quite frankly, Trump’s irrationality now (justifiably) give people a REAL concern about Trump’s skewed view of the world, his escalating lunacy and evident borderline personality disorder! Trump is a dangerously undemocratic, callously inhumane and misogynistic political psychopath who, if allowed to rise to rule over America again, will only achieve ONE thing and that is: TO MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN!
Noel Wauchope has given a balanced account of the Ukraine situation.
His account is supported by this from Jacques Baud, no fan of Putin, written around the time the situation went out of control.
“The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin. In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language.
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. Despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.
That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of the Ukraine. On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace the Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.”
So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement by launching a terrorist attack against its own citizens with whom they had agreed to negotiate.
Noel Wauchope’s graphic above, showing Ukraine as an endless hole into which money is poured, is a beauty.
And of course, that’s just half of the picture. The Daily Mail reports today that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz “urged Germany’s 84 million residents to unite amidst global crises, economic struggles, and the recent Christmas market attack that shocked the nation.”
The money being fed into the Ukrainian black hole has to come from somewhere, and Germany has been a major contributor. But to compound this problem, Germany has been vocal in support of the economic sanctions against Russia that have seen Germany lose access to the cheap Russian gas that powered German industry.
This has led to a political crisis, the breaking of the ruling coalition. As the BBC reported in early November, “Germany is engulfed by political crisis as the Scholz coalition falls apart. While the world has been watching Washington, Germany is quietly going into political meltdown. This is a very German crisis involving coalition infighting and complicated constitutional questions. But behind the complex political wrangling, Europe’s most powerful economy has been left rudderless, at a time when economic growth has stalled…”
This is the sort of trouble you get into when you blindly follow the US as it manipulates global affairs in order to retain control. You become another victim of the US.
There’s a lesson for Australia in this.
Thank you, Steve Davis, for this reminder of the work of Jacques Baud, who has given the clearest explanation of the background to the conflict, and of the legal argument for the special military intervention under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Jacques Baud is the former chief of doctrine of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations – https://nuclear-news.net/2023/06/14/jacques-baud-on-the-legitimacy-and-legality-of-russias-special-military-operation-in-ukraine/
Another good source of information is Daniel Kovalik, who teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Kovalik backs up the account of Kiev’s oppression of the Russian-speaking communities of the Donbass, and betrayal of the Minsk agreements https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2023/08/22/daniel-kovalik-why-russias-intervention-in-ukraine-is-legal-under-international-law/
Unfortunately, experts like Baud and Kovalik are not heard at all, in the ‘cacophony of war rhetoric’
The US destroyed the Russian Nordstream gas pipeline that fed Europe cheap Russian gas for energy. High EU wages were countered by cheap energy that kept them competitive. Now with high wages and high energy costs, thanks to the US, Europe is uncompetitive and their economies are reflecting this resulting in job losses. Europe now has not only a economic problem but a political problem. Far right nationalist parties are gaining support with populist policies. Ukraine and NATO expansion is now not on the agenda as they all fight for their political lives.
As Henry Kissinger one said to be an enemy of the US is dangerous but to be an ally is fatal.
“let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022.”
Can you guarantee this claim?
By the way, the 2 Minsk Agreements aren’t complicated to read or inaccessible, they are nebulously worded which is a reason that both sides can claim compliance.
However, there is plenty of evidence that the separatists did not relinquish their heavy artillery, Russia continued to supply weapons and humanitarian access was denii.
All of which are in breach of the agreement
“Can you guarantee this claim?”
Not my claim.
AC should take it up with Jacques Baud.
Or the Washington Post which published a U.S. intelligence map on December 3, 2021 that did not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
“there is plenty of evidence that the separatists did not relinquish their heavy artillery,…”
Except they were not separatists, as AC knows. They were citizens fighting for autonomy. The struggle for autonomy within Ukraine was recognised as legitimate by Ukraine by way of the Minsk agreements.
And why would they relinquish their heavy artillery? They were under attack from their own government.
“Russia continued to supply weapons…”
Not according to the OSCE.
But this raises a crucial point about the falsifying of news by the West. In 2018 Deputy Chief Monitor of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, Alexander Hug, in an interview with Foreign Policy, stated that the OSCE had not seen direct evidence of Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine. Foreign Policy later deleted that statement from the interview text.
How good is that?
Many of the Anglosphere anti-Ukraine faux anti-imperialist tankies and RWNJs obsess over suboptimal Minsk Agreements, but avoid the Budapest Memorandum, why?
Ukraine transferred nukes to Russia in return for national sovereignty; that worked out to be Putin’s Russia invading Ukraine twice?
Anglosphere following the US has gone far right, Christian, authoritarian, nativist, anti-science, anti-EU and narcissistic; mass bypass of morals, ethics and empathy precluding agency of smaller nations like Ukraine, their citizens, liberal democracy and civil society.
Why? Because of too many ageing, low info and arrogant Americans, Australians, British etc. who are spineless wonders masquerading as experts on issues in far away places, in thrall to the corrupt Christian nationalist authority of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Orban and too many dodgy Mid East regimes to mention…
“Except they were not separatists, as AC knows. They were citizens fighting for autonomy. “
Why do you insist on playing semantics?
Can you advise exactly what is wrong with this definition?
Separatist –someone who is a member of a particular race, religion, or other group within a country and who believes that this group should be independent and have their own government or in some way live apart from other people.
According to Andrew Smith the Minsk agreements of 2015 are not relevant to the Ukraine conflict but the Budapest Memo of 1994 is relevant.
As though circumstances did not change for 21 years. The very existence of the Minsk Agreements is evidence of change.
Please note the lack of context provided by Andrew, because this is a topic brimming with context, as AC discovered when he tried the same ploy way back in August.
My reply to AC was — *”The memorandum was a progression from the Lisbon Protocol, whereby Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine agreed to adhere to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states. There followed a history of dissension for years within Ukraine over this commitment.
The “Budapest Memorandum” is actually three documents signed individually on 5 December 1994 by the three leaders of the ex-Soviet nations, together with the guarantor nations: United States, United Kingdom and Russia.
Under the agreement Ukraine surrendered its Soviet era nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
The first to undermine the agreement was the US.
Article 3 of the memo provides for all parties “ to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.”
The US ignored that when it began sanctions against the pro-Russia Yanukovych government and threatened further sanctions. The EU was also threatening sanctions as this was going on. Did the UK protest that as a signatory to the memo it could not agree to this? The question is rhetorical.
Then the US orchestrated an anti-Russia coup in violation of Article 3. Western media accounts of the coup present it as a purely popular uprising, yet telephone records confirming US involvement in the coup have never been disputed by the US.
The claim by the West that after the coup Russia broke the agreement by annexing Crimea ignores the fact that Crimea had voted for independence prior to the fall of the USSR and therefore prior to Ukraine’s independence, and prior to the Budapest Memorandum.
So Crimea’s independence from Ukraine was protected by international law.
From the UNHCR — Jan 20 1991, A referendum is held in the Crimea on restoring autonomy to the region. Over 80% of the electorate participates, of which 93.26% supported the “restoration of the Crimean ASSR as a subject of the USSR and as a party to the Union Treaty.”
And as stated by Jacques Baud, “Of course, Western historians ignore superbly that Crimea was separated from Ukraine by referendum in January 1991, six months before Ukrainian independence and under Soviet rule. In fact, it’s Ukraine that illegally annexed Crimea in 1995. Yet, western countries sanctioned Russia for that…”
Messy, isn’t it.
It gets worse.
As the intent of the agreement was security for Ukraine, the US also undermined that security by creating tension between Ukraine and Russia. From the Wash. Post 23/10/23. — “Since 2015 the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said.”
Why did Ukraine go along with this risky program? Why poke the bear?
Because they wanted to join the EU and NATO. To join NATO, they had to create the conditions for Russia to attack Ukraine and be definitively defeated.
Sounds highly implausible. Sounds like something from a Mr Bean movie.
But in a TV interview on March 18, 2019, Zelensky’s advisor Oleksei Arestovitch explained the plan. He stated that it would take an attack by Russia to provoke an international mobilization that would enable Ukraine to defeat Russia once and for all, with the help of Western countries and NATO.
With astonishing precision, he described the course of the Russian attack as it would unfold three years later, between February and March 2022. Not only did he explain that this conflict was unavoidable if Ukraine was to join NATO, but he also outlined the main areas of Western aid: “In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West. Weapons. Equipment. Assistance. New sanctions against Russia. Most likely, the introduction of a NATO contingent. A no-fly zone, and so on. In other words, we won’t lose it.”
Sound familiar? It’s almost a carbon copy of the RAND plan to bring Russia to its knees. Who wooda thort. Say it ain’t so.
Such a what-could-possibly-go-wrong plan could not have been the brainchild of Ukraine alone, but ultimately, the details are of no consequence. The plan went ahead.
So, no threat to Russia? An unprovoked invasion? Plucky Ukraine defending democracy on behalf of the global community?
The second to undermine the agreement was the then President of Ukraine, Zelensky, who at Munich in 2022, prior to the Russian invasion, stated;
“Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time.”
So he walked away from the agreement.
It’s worth noting how Western sources manipulated this, as they did with the coup. The Wiki entry on Zelensky walking away from the agreement is faithful to the text, until it omits the final sentence. The most significant sentence. “But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time.”
This was a deliberate omission, as the sentence was shown, but represented by dots.
The Wiki entry did however, report what followed without revealing its significance. “If they (summit negotiations) do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.” The points in doubt included a Ukrainian commitment to non-nuclear status.
Ukraine got no support from the US and UK.
The summit did not take place.
The points in doubt were now up for grabs. It takes little imagination to work out how that was interpreted in Moscow.
The upshot is that when Russia acted a few days after the speech by Zelensky, there was no Memorandum. It no longer existed. There was no agreement to breach.”*
Context is everything.
Definitions of “separatist” vary, but within the definition provided by AC his use of the word was appropriate.
Will someone assist AC please?
He appears to suffering from shock. 🙂
There are a couple of articles in Pearls and Irritations related to this subject.Scott Burchill and Eugene Doyle give much food for thought.
This from Noel Wauchope above is notable — “Russia is now headed towards winning this war.”
That outcome was more or less inevitable given this from Jacques Baud that I just stumbled across. This quote also explains why so many in the West were taken in by false accounts as to the origin and progress of the conflict.
Jacques Baud – “As with the war on terror, Westerners see the enemy as they would like him to be, not as he is. As Sun Tzu said 2,500 years ago, this is the best recipe for losing a war. One example is the so-called “hybrid war” that Russia is allegedly waging against the West.
In June 2014, as the West tried to explain Russia’s (imaginary) intervention in the Donbass conflict, Russia expert Mark Galeotti “revealed” the existence of a doctrine that would illustrate the Russian concept of hybrid warfare. Known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine,” it has never really been defined by the West as to what it consists of and how it could ensure military success. But it is used to explain how Russia wages war in Donbass without sending troops there and why Ukraine consistently loses its battles against the rebels. In 2018, realizing that he was wrong, Galeotti apologized—courageously and intelligently—in an article titled, “I’m Sorry for Creating the Gerasimov Doctrine” published in Foreign Policy magazine.
Despite this, and without knowing what it meant, our media and politicians continued to pretend that Russia was waging a hybrid war against Ukraine and the West. In other words, we imagined a type of war that does not exist and we prepared Ukraine for it. This is also what explains the challenge for Ukraine to have a coherent strategy to counter Russian operations.”
In war all sides employ propaganda, but the power of western propaganda is so great the even the West falls victim to it.
So many Ukrainians dead for what?
A country devastated for what?
For a pack of lies that even when exposed, still live on, still leading more to their deaths.
Wow! Excellent eye-popping article – thanks NW.
And followed by excellent discourse – thanks SD.
I’ll be folding this into my reference pile.