What's motivating Skidelsky to repeat his unhelpful comments? Is he forgetting how politics works, or is he trying to advance some (non-obvious) coherent alternative position? Or is he merely helping Putin?
I agree that Skidelsky's "Putin will never agree to peacekeepers" is profoundly unhelpful. James Baker's rules for mediation in negotiation are:
* Nothing is off the table.
* Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.
That is, there can be no lengthly pre-negotiation negotiation to shape the space of allowable proposals, and the negotiation is not a step-by-step series of concessions but rather an exploration by the mediator to see if there is a package that both sides prefer to the status quo, and then to pressure both sides to accept one of the preferred packages that splits surplus roughly evenly rather than burn resources via holdouts.
The one single nice thing about Trump's mendacity is that it keeps peacekeepers on the table as a potential part of the package. And, without peacekeepers, I do not think there is a bargaining set to choose a point in.
> Michael Dawson: Market Totalitarianism: 'What's motivating Skidelsky to repeat his unhelpful comments? Is he forgetting how politics works, or is he trying to advance some (non-obvious) coherent alternative position? Or is he merely helping Putin?...
My own guess is that Trump's comment on peacekeepers is probably him verbalizing his narcissistic fantasy that him blabbing somehow eradicates the actual stumbling block he's been told of by his people in SA. Almost surely, the Russians are rejecting peacekeepers, which would stop them wagging their petroklepto dog. But, anyway, I really wonder what Skidelsky's thinking. Maybe just senility?
Reminds of weakness the EU displayed during the wars in Yugoslavia. The Confederate States of Europe could not get their act together and shut the war down. The US provided the muscle to stop it. Maybe the Russo Ukrainian war will be serious enough to get the EU to the field the muscle to stop a dangerous war on their doorstep.
We can only hope that western Europe takes seriously the near certainty that the US will either drop its commitment to European security or will at least be cycling back and forth on the topic over the next two generations. If they do, they will realize that they have two choices: become vassal states to the Duchy of Muscovy or build and be willing to use a muscular military on a coordinated basis. Responsible leaders in western Europe need to start talking with their publics about this choice.
Yes, definitely give Crimea back to Russia. Russia fought three wars over Crimea and spilled a lot of blood there. The only reason Crimea was even part of Ukraine is because Khrushchev was trying to save money in the 1950s. He didn't think a small peninsula like Crimea justified the expense of having a separate government so he merged it with Ukraine. Sort of like if Eisenhower had had the authority to eliminate Rhode Island and merge it with Connecticut.
I can't see Skidelsky as a good faith actor here. The claim that everyone demanded total Ukrainian victory is nonsense. Even if this was the Ukrainian starting point, it's long been evident that they would settle for a Russian withdrawal to pre-2022 lines, with no legal recognition. Of course Putin would reject this, and of course Putinists like Skidelsky will take Putin's red lines as binding.
I think it is in fact Skidelsky who is misguided and needs to start thinking in more realistic terms.
From whence are the "peacekeepers" to come? America? Who believes this? And if, somehow, they were sent, who believes that they would be a deterrent to Russia and not merely a tool for extracting tribute from Ukraine? It would be prudent for fantasists like Skidelsky to consider that Ukraine now has more veterans with combat experience than the US and UK combined, that they do not rely on an omniscient overwatch or overwhelming air support to operate, they don't always even rely on regular logistical support, and they are experts at a new form of warfare with which NATO armies are entirely unpracticed.
On the other hand, if "peacekeepers" are to come from Europe, they hardly need the permission of either Trump or Putin.
if there is a ceasefire Ukraine can claim victory too. They can truthfully say they saved their nation and kept their independence. This would be as close to a win/win as possible in a war of miscalculation that has killed around a million people on both sides.
But how durable will a ceasefire without security guarantees be? I mean, you can make deals with people who are trustworthy, but deals with people who are not trustworthy require enforcement mechanisms, or they are no deals at all. Stay well, Brad DeLong
> JH: 'if there is a ceasefire Ukraine can claim victory too. They can truthfully say they saved their nation and kept their independence. This would be as close to a win/win as possible in a war of miscalculation that has killed around a million people on both sides...
Yes there would have to be security guarantees for Ukraine, probably from Europe and possibly the U.S. These guarantees would be the equivalent of NATO membership without actually letting Ukraine join NATO.
So Ukraine has made some "peace for minerals" deal. I hope that Zelenskyy has found a way to ensure that the US is the peace guarantor for "these riches" by cleverly tying their extraction to US support, such as under-the-table weapons sales (shades of Iran-Contra?). Russian territory also has access to the minerals in E. Ukraine. Can that access be stymied somehow?
It is in Europe's interest to prevent Russia from taking more Ukraine territory, This is very obviously a rhyme of Hitler's actions in 1938, and a militarily weak Europe encourages that. If Chamberlain really did buy an extra year for the UK to build up its armed forces, then Europe needs to pull its collective finger out and not pray for a change of heart by Trump or a more pro-Atlantic president in 4 years. Despite Trump's bluster, my guess is China will now find a way to grab Taiwan, doing some "deal" to facilitate this, now that it knows Trump doesn't want "people killed" and has crippled the leadership of the US armed forces. Hegseth's "warrior" posturing will simply return warfare to pre-Geneva Convention status. No wonder the Doomsday clock is set so very close to midnight.
I am beginning to think that China holds the key to peace. (I trust the EU to think beautiful thoughts, but never act.) Russia, to a large extent, is China's bitch. China is embarrassed by this war, but has to keep displaying support for its client. China would benefit more than most countries from reconstruction funded by Europe's $300 billion. However:
1. Would Putin settle for less than total ultimate victory? I'm not sure. He wants Kyiv and Odessa too much, although he might be willing to part with Galicia. This might be the one issue where he is willing to buck his Chinese overlords.
2. If Putin doesn't keep whatever word he gives, would China be willing to back any security guarantees it has extended?
What's motivating Skidelsky to repeat his unhelpful comments? Is he forgetting how politics works, or is he trying to advance some (non-obvious) coherent alternative position? Or is he merely helping Putin?
I agree that Skidelsky's "Putin will never agree to peacekeepers" is profoundly unhelpful. James Baker's rules for mediation in negotiation are:
* Nothing is off the table.
* Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.
That is, there can be no lengthly pre-negotiation negotiation to shape the space of allowable proposals, and the negotiation is not a step-by-step series of concessions but rather an exploration by the mediator to see if there is a package that both sides prefer to the status quo, and then to pressure both sides to accept one of the preferred packages that splits surplus roughly evenly rather than burn resources via holdouts.
The one single nice thing about Trump's mendacity is that it keeps peacekeepers on the table as a potential part of the package. And, without peacekeepers, I do not think there is a bargaining set to choose a point in.
> Michael Dawson: Market Totalitarianism: 'What's motivating Skidelsky to repeat his unhelpful comments? Is he forgetting how politics works, or is he trying to advance some (non-obvious) coherent alternative position? Or is he merely helping Putin?...
My own guess is that Trump's comment on peacekeepers is probably him verbalizing his narcissistic fantasy that him blabbing somehow eradicates the actual stumbling block he's been told of by his people in SA. Almost surely, the Russians are rejecting peacekeepers, which would stop them wagging their petroklepto dog. But, anyway, I really wonder what Skidelsky's thinking. Maybe just senility?
Reminds of weakness the EU displayed during the wars in Yugoslavia. The Confederate States of Europe could not get their act together and shut the war down. The US provided the muscle to stop it. Maybe the Russo Ukrainian war will be serious enough to get the EU to the field the muscle to stop a dangerous war on their doorstep.
That would be the only good possibility forward—or so it seems to me... - Brad
We can only hope that western Europe takes seriously the near certainty that the US will either drop its commitment to European security or will at least be cycling back and forth on the topic over the next two generations. If they do, they will realize that they have two choices: become vassal states to the Duchy of Muscovy or build and be willing to use a muscular military on a coordinated basis. Responsible leaders in western Europe need to start talking with their publics about this choice.
Yes, definitely give Crimea back to Russia. Russia fought three wars over Crimea and spilled a lot of blood there. The only reason Crimea was even part of Ukraine is because Khrushchev was trying to save money in the 1950s. He didn't think a small peninsula like Crimea justified the expense of having a separate government so he merged it with Ukraine. Sort of like if Eisenhower had had the authority to eliminate Rhode Island and merge it with Connecticut.
I can't see Skidelsky as a good faith actor here. The claim that everyone demanded total Ukrainian victory is nonsense. Even if this was the Ukrainian starting point, it's long been evident that they would settle for a Russian withdrawal to pre-2022 lines, with no legal recognition. Of course Putin would reject this, and of course Putinists like Skidelsky will take Putin's red lines as binding.
I think it is in fact Skidelsky who is misguided and needs to start thinking in more realistic terms.
From whence are the "peacekeepers" to come? America? Who believes this? And if, somehow, they were sent, who believes that they would be a deterrent to Russia and not merely a tool for extracting tribute from Ukraine? It would be prudent for fantasists like Skidelsky to consider that Ukraine now has more veterans with combat experience than the US and UK combined, that they do not rely on an omniscient overwatch or overwhelming air support to operate, they don't always even rely on regular logistical support, and they are experts at a new form of warfare with which NATO armies are entirely unpracticed.
On the other hand, if "peacekeepers" are to come from Europe, they hardly need the permission of either Trump or Putin.
if there is a ceasefire Ukraine can claim victory too. They can truthfully say they saved their nation and kept their independence. This would be as close to a win/win as possible in a war of miscalculation that has killed around a million people on both sides.
But how durable will a ceasefire without security guarantees be? I mean, you can make deals with people who are trustworthy, but deals with people who are not trustworthy require enforcement mechanisms, or they are no deals at all. Stay well, Brad DeLong
> JH: 'if there is a ceasefire Ukraine can claim victory too. They can truthfully say they saved their nation and kept their independence. This would be as close to a win/win as possible in a war of miscalculation that has killed around a million people on both sides...
Yes there would have to be security guarantees for Ukraine, probably from Europe and possibly the U.S. These guarantees would be the equivalent of NATO membership without actually letting Ukraine join NATO.
So Ukraine has made some "peace for minerals" deal. I hope that Zelenskyy has found a way to ensure that the US is the peace guarantor for "these riches" by cleverly tying their extraction to US support, such as under-the-table weapons sales (shades of Iran-Contra?). Russian territory also has access to the minerals in E. Ukraine. Can that access be stymied somehow?
It is in Europe's interest to prevent Russia from taking more Ukraine territory, This is very obviously a rhyme of Hitler's actions in 1938, and a militarily weak Europe encourages that. If Chamberlain really did buy an extra year for the UK to build up its armed forces, then Europe needs to pull its collective finger out and not pray for a change of heart by Trump or a more pro-Atlantic president in 4 years. Despite Trump's bluster, my guess is China will now find a way to grab Taiwan, doing some "deal" to facilitate this, now that it knows Trump doesn't want "people killed" and has crippled the leadership of the US armed forces. Hegseth's "warrior" posturing will simply return warfare to pre-Geneva Convention status. No wonder the Doomsday clock is set so very close to midnight.
I am beginning to think that China holds the key to peace. (I trust the EU to think beautiful thoughts, but never act.) Russia, to a large extent, is China's bitch. China is embarrassed by this war, but has to keep displaying support for its client. China would benefit more than most countries from reconstruction funded by Europe's $300 billion. However:
1. Would Putin settle for less than total ultimate victory? I'm not sure. He wants Kyiv and Odessa too much, although he might be willing to part with Galicia. This might be the one issue where he is willing to buck his Chinese overlords.
2. If Putin doesn't keep whatever word he gives, would China be willing to back any security guarantees it has extended?