Hey Dianne, one of my all-time favourite songs from one of my all-time favourite bands. Written about the angelic/demonic Marianne Faithful (I adore her) and a constant philosophical guide to realism
Looking forward to your breakdown on Romania tomorrow, or near days ahead.
On a side note I keep revisiting your Thesis, its a lot for me to completely truly understand with all the reference...Am I seeing the current world unfolding in some ways you noted in your conclusion?? We are in 2025 not 1996 and we have Trump a realist not Clinton.
As best as I can conclude the/ Your thesis is a frame work, theory, applications and actions, based on the belief system of the individuals in charge. I might be so off course? Please be kind with correcting me.
Dianne, that is entirely right. In the thesis I was laying out these schools of thought as a framework of analysis leading to a framework of action. While as I noted, and recently did with Trump, no one fits perfectly into the typology, most of us have strong tendencies toward one of the schools of thought. If we can determine who goes where, not only do we know what they will think and do we can largely know so ahead of time. I use this key insight every single day of my life!
Yes, to a point, Jens, though foreign policy is not an issue the vast majority of Americans vote on (short of war). I think the Trump administration’s realism itself means those in the administration who want to continue a help Ukraine (a minority but not insignificant) know that they can now only do this if—in realist terms—the US gets something back. So perhaps more about bureaucratic politics but your argument still works. I am against this precisely because it fosters an artificial economic link that has never been there that raises Ukraine to a secondary (rather than its present tertiary) concern for the country
Kursk is done, there is just 1 settlement (Guyevo) with Ukrainian presence but the Russian army controls the entry road, cutting off supply. It's a pot shot to hit anyone going in or out.
Russian has advanced partially into Ukraine to Sumy, so net ends up with Ukrainian territory.
Putin is winning, but a continuation might win him more territory (territory, that is).
But, continuation now marks him at odds with the White House, so gaining more territory might lose him other benefits he seeks for the RUF.
A failed ceasefire with Ukraine rearming and a poor settlement is not in his interest, but a continuation now certainly comes with a political and diplomatic cost.
At what point to down the arms and use political measures instead to advance the Russian Federation around the Black Sea and the Baltics? And how much to pay for succeeding on the Black Sea and the Baltics at the expense of Russian interests further out (BRICS, trade with ROW, trade with USA)?
Yes, Erik, that just about encapsulates Putin’s parameters for making his next move. My guess is he’s done enough on the ground and rather values the geostrategic leeway staying in with the Americans provides him. Also, if the details of the negotiations go wrong it will be likely due to Kiev’s intransigence which always works for him. The smart play is to go along, at least over this first ceasefire phase
I do not think Putin is finished with with this war. Putin has calculated this out. Additionally I believe it has been very stupid for so much details on the negotiations to be broadcast! This has has helped Putin navigate more to his advantage. Listen to what Lavrov has said over the last 24 hours.
I certainly think there are twists and turns ahead, and bumps in the road. While I stick with the firm’s call the war ends this year (very daring at the time), Dianne I also wouldn’t be surprised if there was some more fighting to come. Its one of those calls I hope i’m wrong about but there we are. Still, the pieces for a deal by the end of the year are there, though i’m not sure both sides are ready for the ultimate deal, which has been roughly clear for a while now
John, yes I agree it will come to an end this year... but Putin is going to do it on his terms, so, I believe you and I are really on the same path of thought.
I do too, Dianne. The danger for the president is that he must not give too much away with Russia to get the deal, while pressing Ukraine to make the territorial concessions necessary (based on armistice lines as in Korea) to make it happen. A real high wire act
Danger of trivialising war (this is an awful mess and must stop); If Putin’s ceasefire comes with topspin, Zelenskyy and co would be wise to let it bounce before committing (need to understand what Putin thinks are the underlying causes). But if it’s backspin, they’ll need to step forward, otherwise they risk looking like the ones unwilling to play for peace as it bounces back into the net.
Good point, for Putin this about so much more than Ukraine, and the White House of course knows this.
This was another thing I found amusing about the European reaction to the first round of talks in Saudi Arabia. The (faux?) outrage over not being invited and how dare the US not give them a seat at the table?! Well, the answer should have been obvious: the conversation at the adult table was global and over how two great powers were to get along going forward.
Yes, exactly, Jens, there are bigger fish to fry here; ultimately its about the US-Russia geopolitical relationship going forward as well as the eclipse of Europe as a great power. Thats the real stakes
Fascinating, John. Reckon Putin will vaguely agree in principle with a subjectivity list longer than a toilet roll. Whatever happens, it’s a step towards peace and great credit should be given to those who are working to stop this madness.
Thanks Kieran, yes, I entirely agree. The smart move from the Kremlin is to play along, knowing the devil is in the details. Either the peace process gives Putin enough, or he can always try to make it look like it is Zelensky who ruined the process, as after all he is losing the way and will have to make more of the concessions (based on battlefield realities) for the peace to take hold.
But yes, Trump and his transactional realist approach have cleared the first hurdle in the face of condemnation everywhere. Again he deserves credit
In the words Keith and Mick about 50 years ago I believe
You can't always get what you want,
you can always get what you want... but if you try sometime you might find you get what you need.
Hey Dianne, one of my all-time favourite songs from one of my all-time favourite bands. Written about the angelic/demonic Marianne Faithful (I adore her) and a constant philosophical guide to realism
Looking forward to your breakdown on Romania tomorrow, or near days ahead.
On a side note I keep revisiting your Thesis, its a lot for me to completely truly understand with all the reference...Am I seeing the current world unfolding in some ways you noted in your conclusion?? We are in 2025 not 1996 and we have Trump a realist not Clinton.
As best as I can conclude the/ Your thesis is a frame work, theory, applications and actions, based on the belief system of the individuals in charge. I might be so off course? Please be kind with correcting me.
Dianne, that is entirely right. In the thesis I was laying out these schools of thought as a framework of analysis leading to a framework of action. While as I noted, and recently did with Trump, no one fits perfectly into the typology, most of us have strong tendencies toward one of the schools of thought. If we can determine who goes where, not only do we know what they will think and do we can largely know so ahead of time. I use this key insight every single day of my life!
Might the mineral deal not be designed for the domestic audience to show voters that they will be getting something tangible out of US involvement?
Yes, to a point, Jens, though foreign policy is not an issue the vast majority of Americans vote on (short of war). I think the Trump administration’s realism itself means those in the administration who want to continue a help Ukraine (a minority but not insignificant) know that they can now only do this if—in realist terms—the US gets something back. So perhaps more about bureaucratic politics but your argument still works. I am against this precisely because it fosters an artificial economic link that has never been there that raises Ukraine to a secondary (rather than its present tertiary) concern for the country
Kursk is done, there is just 1 settlement (Guyevo) with Ukrainian presence but the Russian army controls the entry road, cutting off supply. It's a pot shot to hit anyone going in or out.
Russian has advanced partially into Ukraine to Sumy, so net ends up with Ukrainian territory.
Exactly
Do I read the man's mind? A statement requesting Gerasimov "to create a buffer zone in Sumy oblast protecting Kursk oblast".
There is a proposal from Putin. It's maybe not palatable to Ukraine, but at least there is a proposal.
Particularly the request to have Xherson and Zaporhozhzhia territory West of the Dniepr is probably not acceptable to Ukraine.
Putin is winning, but a continuation might win him more territory (territory, that is).
But, continuation now marks him at odds with the White House, so gaining more territory might lose him other benefits he seeks for the RUF.
A failed ceasefire with Ukraine rearming and a poor settlement is not in his interest, but a continuation now certainly comes with a political and diplomatic cost.
At what point to down the arms and use political measures instead to advance the Russian Federation around the Black Sea and the Baltics? And how much to pay for succeeding on the Black Sea and the Baltics at the expense of Russian interests further out (BRICS, trade with ROW, trade with USA)?
Yes, Erik, that just about encapsulates Putin’s parameters for making his next move. My guess is he’s done enough on the ground and rather values the geostrategic leeway staying in with the Americans provides him. Also, if the details of the negotiations go wrong it will be likely due to Kiev’s intransigence which always works for him. The smart play is to go along, at least over this first ceasefire phase
I do not think Putin is finished with with this war. Putin has calculated this out. Additionally I believe it has been very stupid for so much details on the negotiations to be broadcast! This has has helped Putin navigate more to his advantage. Listen to what Lavrov has said over the last 24 hours.
I certainly think there are twists and turns ahead, and bumps in the road. While I stick with the firm’s call the war ends this year (very daring at the time), Dianne I also wouldn’t be surprised if there was some more fighting to come. Its one of those calls I hope i’m wrong about but there we are. Still, the pieces for a deal by the end of the year are there, though i’m not sure both sides are ready for the ultimate deal, which has been roughly clear for a while now
John, yes I agree it will come to an end this year... but Putin is going to do it on his terms, so, I believe you and I are really on the same path of thought.
I do too, Dianne. The danger for the president is that he must not give too much away with Russia to get the deal, while pressing Ukraine to make the territorial concessions necessary (based on armistice lines as in Korea) to make it happen. A real high wire act
Yes, truly a High Wire act.. But keep this all on the Back Channel! Trump and team need to learn a few things,
One this is not a TV show,
Two loose lips sink ships!
He has played the ball back into court and there is lots of spin on it!
Exactly Kieran! (To keep the tennis analogy going…)
Yes!
Danger of trivialising war (this is an awful mess and must stop); If Putin’s ceasefire comes with topspin, Zelenskyy and co would be wise to let it bounce before committing (need to understand what Putin thinks are the underlying causes). But if it’s backspin, they’ll need to step forward, otherwise they risk looking like the ones unwilling to play for peace as it bounces back into the net.
You’re right again, John. ‘Underlying causes’ is so vague and open to interpretation it could mean anything, or nothing at all!
Good point, for Putin this about so much more than Ukraine, and the White House of course knows this.
This was another thing I found amusing about the European reaction to the first round of talks in Saudi Arabia. The (faux?) outrage over not being invited and how dare the US not give them a seat at the table?! Well, the answer should have been obvious: the conversation at the adult table was global and over how two great powers were to get along going forward.
Yes, exactly, Jens, there are bigger fish to fry here; ultimately its about the US-Russia geopolitical relationship going forward as well as the eclipse of Europe as a great power. Thats the real stakes
Having worked with Saudi Prince Bin Salman in his first term now gives Trump benefits the EU cannot access.
I did not understand it back then why Trump was joking over a Saudi sword dance. I do now.
I think Trump actually participated in one
I don’t.
Fascinating, John. Reckon Putin will vaguely agree in principle with a subjectivity list longer than a toilet roll. Whatever happens, it’s a step towards peace and great credit should be given to those who are working to stop this madness.
Thanks Kieran, yes, I entirely agree. The smart move from the Kremlin is to play along, knowing the devil is in the details. Either the peace process gives Putin enough, or he can always try to make it look like it is Zelensky who ruined the process, as after all he is losing the way and will have to make more of the concessions (based on battlefield realities) for the peace to take hold.
But yes, Trump and his transactional realist approach have cleared the first hurdle in the face of condemnation everywhere. Again he deserves credit