V ameriški strokovni javnosti je v zadnjem tednu videti konsenz glede tega, da bo vojna v Ukrajini trajala še zelo dolgo in da v doglednem času mirovnih pogajanj ni na vidiku. Barry Posen, profesor na MIT, v Foreign Affairs (sicer reviji, za katero velja, da je nekakšen medijski komunikator uradne ameriške zunanje politike), priznava, da ima Rusija trenutno zmagovalni momentum v Ukrajini, da pa se konflikt »sprevrača v vojno izčrpavanja, v vojno, v kateri obe strani lahko pridobita le za visoko ceno«. Prav tako v zadnji številki Foreign Affairs sta Ivo Daalder in James Goldgeier (sicer ugledna člana ameriškega zunanjepolitičnega establišmenta z jastrebskimi pogledi) v članku z naslovom “The Long War in Ukraine” zapisala, da ker se bo »vojna v bližnji prihodnosti nadaljevala«, saj Ukrajina brez neposredne vključitve Nata (“česar pa nihče noče“) nima realnih možnosti, da prežene ruske sile, se morajo zahodne države na to temeljito pripraviti. Pri čemer pa prav tako kot Posen ne pričakujeta, da se bodo resna mirovna pogajanja kmalu začela. Tako Rusija kot Ukrajina naj bi preveč “politično vložili v vojno”, da bi nadaljevali z diplomacijo.
Na drugi strani pa Robert Wright, moj priljubljeni non-fiction pisatelj, ki je dvignil precej prahu z analizo, v kateri je pokazal, da so za Ukrajino najboljša opcija mirovna pogajanja, nakazuje, da naj bi se na obeh straneh (v Rusiji in ZDA) pripravljal teren za mirovna pogajanja prek objav javnih anket. Slednje kažejo spremenjeno javno mnenje v zadnjih mesecih, ki se je (tako v Rusiji kot ZDA) prevesilo iz večinske podpore vojni k večinski podpori mirovni diplomaciji.
Seveda pa je žogica na ukrajinski strani, kjer Zelenski in njegova vlada še naprej širita maksimalistično narativo. Vprašanje je, kdaj bodo ZDA Zelenskemu, kot njegov puppet master in prevladujoč sponzor, dale signal, da je čas za pogajanja. Sedanje dogajanje na terenu ne gre v prid maksimalističnim zahtevam.
This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, Russian sociologist Lev Gudkov—who as head of the Levada Center runs the most respected surveys of Russian opinion—says that, though a majority of Russians profess support for the war, a majority also favor peace talks. Posed with the question, “Do you think it is necessary to continue military actions or proceed to negotiations,” 53 percent went with negotiations and 41 percent favored continued military action.
While this doesn’t mean Putin is under great political pressure to bring Russian troops home, it does suggest that he has political room for maneuvering should he decide that it makes sense to wind the war down. And various factors (including all the recent talk among US foreign policy elites about massively upgrading arms shipments to Ukraine) could push him in that direction.
Meanwhile, a poll released last month by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (of which Daalder is president) found that 47 percent of Americans say the US should “urge Ukraine to settle for peace as soon as possible.” That’s up from 38 percent in July, and in that same period the percentage of Americans who say the US should support Ukraine “as long as it takes” dropped from 58 percent to 48 percent. Given that America has the leverage to push Ukraine toward peace talks (and then to give it various things that make a peace deal more appealing), this trend bears watching.
Of course, Ukrainians favor keeping up the fight until Russians are expelled from the country, including even Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014 and which has a heavily pro-Russia population. But this view has taken shape in a media environment that makes such an expulsion seem more doable, and less costly, than it would likely be. When the war started, all but one of Ukraine’s TV channels was shut down—and the one remaining channel conveys the government’s narrative, which (like the Russian government’s narrative, and pretty much every other government’s wartime narrative through world history) errs on the side of the upbeat. In other ways, too, the media environment, as shaped by the Ukrainian government, discourages talk of compromise.
The flip side of this coin is that the Ukrainian government has the power to recalibrate public expectations and aspirations and so build support for peace talks. But that will take time. How long it takes—and whether it happens at all—will depend in part on whether the US does something Posen recommends: use its influence to “reduce maximalist thinking” in Ukraine.
Vir: Robert Wright, Nonzero
DAMIJAN blog 
Če bereš Daalder-ja ali Posen lahko vidiš enega od osnovnih vzrokov za to vojno. In sicer “delusion” ameriških političnih akterjev, ki so sprovocirali to vojno s popolnoma napačnih prepostavk:
– o trdnosti javne podpore Putin-u
– o pomembnosti mednarodnega položaja Rusije za rusko javnost
– o solidarnosti ruske javnosti z rojaki v Ukrajini
– o odpornosti in stopnje samozadostnosti ruskega gospodarstva
– o pripravljenosti ruske vlade in ekonomije na morebitne sankcije
– o nivoju podpore Kitajske, Indije in neuvrščenega sveta
– o pripravljenosti ruske vojske
-o realnih vojaških zmožnostih Ukrajine in Nato-a
Gre za kolosalno katastrofo katere “final outcome” je popolnoma nesprejemljiv za zahodno elito. Tako nesprejemljiv, da tega sploh ni sposoben dojeti. Problem je, da v resnici Zahod sploh nima več orodij s katerimi bi lahko preobrnil tok dogajanja, ne vojaško in ne ekonomsko. Govor o nekaj deset, ali pa če bi šlo za nekaj sto Bradley-jev ali Abramsov in še manj za zgodovinsko dokazano neučinkovit Patriot, je popolnoma brezpredmeten. Samo več Ukrajincev bo umrlo ob nepomembnih ruskih izgubah. Pa saj gre menda za superiorno vojaško tehniko, tako rekoč Wunderwaffe? Res? Naši modernizirani T55S, ki smo jih poslali v Ukrajino, so imeli boljši bolj natančen sistem (EFCS-3) za kontrolo ognja, kot jo imajo Abrams-i prve generacije. Jim je to kaj pomagalo? Rusi so jih promptno sesuli na hersonski fronti fronti v septembru 2022. Rezultat: Vojaški-nula, politični – temeljito uničeni dobri odnosi z Rusko federacijo, ki smo jih razvijali desetletja.
Govor o pogajanjih v trenutku, ko se “Ukrajina lahko pogaja s pozicije moči” (Milley) je kretenizem brez primere. Ukrajina in Zahod nimata nobene pogajalske pozicije več! Mar to pomeni, da se Rusi ne bodo več pogajli? Ne! Pomeni, da bodo Rusi vzdrževali videz, da so za miroljubno rešitev, vendar bo ta pogajalska pozicija bolj podobna ultimatu kot pa resnim “give and take” pogajanjim.
Putin nima nikakršne možnosti dati kakršnekoli koncesije glede ozemlja, ker mu to preprečuje ruska ustava. Tudi se ni Rusija niti za milimeter odpovedala ključnim ciljem te vojne : demilitarizaciji in denacifikaciji. Ta dva cilja zahtevata uničenje ukrajinskega vojaškega potenciala, popolno ukinitev vpliva NATO-a v Ukrajini in zrušitev obstoječe oblasti. To je cilj te vojne. Ustaviti to vojno v tem trenutku bi pomenilo odpovedati se njenim ciljem, utrditi pozicijo NATO-a v Ukrajini in izgubiti volitve (Putin) leta 2024.
Verjamem, da bi Zahod to preferiral, vendar tega filma pri Rusih ne boste več videli. Čas za resna pogajanja je potekel marca 2022. Zdaj se bo šlo do konca. Do popolnega kolapsa ukrajinske vojske, Zelensky-jevega režima in ukrajinske države. Vse ostalo je popolna iluzija Zahoda. Konsenz zahodnih političnih akterjev gor ali dol – je popolnoma irelevantno kaj si mislijo.
Nevarnost pri vsem tem je, kot pravilno ugotavlja Douglas Mc Gregor v linku na koncu tega komentarja, da bo zahodni establishement, ko bo dojel vso globino svojega poraza, posegel po direktni intervenciji oz. jedrskem orožju (eno gre nujno z drugim ker NATO nima nikakršne možnosti v konvencionalnem spopadu s polno mobilizirano rusko vojaško močjo). Glej:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/13/russian-sledgehammer-is-beginning-to-fall-in-ukraine/
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je
Odlična analiza, francoskega zgodovinarja in antropolog-a Emanuel-a Todd-a na to temo v Figaro.
Glej povzetek v angleščini v Tassu-: https://tass.com/world/1561887
“In his commentary, he recalls a piece of analysis offered by Professor John Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, who argued that whereas for Russia this conflict was “existential,” for the United States it was just another game among other countries, and that victory or defeat in it would be of little importance to the US. “But this analysis is insufficient. [U.S. President Joe] Biden now has to hurry. AMERICA IS FRAGILE AND THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY’S RESISTANCE IS PUSHING THE US IMPERIAL SYSTEM TOWARDS THE ABYSS. NOBODY HAD EXPECTED THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY WOULD BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE ‘ECONOMIC POWER’ OF NATO,” Todd said.
He is certain that the UNITED STATES IS IN A PHASE OF LONG-TERM DECLINE AND, AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF ITS WANING INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD, IT HAS DECIDED TO PRESS FOR GREATER INFLUENCE IN ITS “ORIGINAL PROTECTORATES,” ACQUIRED AFTER WORLD WAR II, IN OTHER WORDS, EUROPE AND JAPAN. AGAINST this background the European economy’s collapse, the expert notes, is fraught with great risks for the United States itself.
“If the Russian economy offers long-term resistance to sanctions and manages to bleed the European economy white and manages to survive with Chinese support, US monetary control of the world will collapse, and with it, the US’ ability to finance its mammoth trade deficit for next to nothing. This war has become existential for the United States. It cannot get out of the conflict before Russia. They cannot let go. This explains why we are now in an open-ended war, in a confrontation that is bound to result in the collapse of one side or the other,” Todd says.”
“during the Soviet era, the Communist ideology was used as soft power, which won acclaim in China, and partly in India and Europe. However, for the Muslim world, that ideology was not attractive due to its official atheism, the expert believes. “Today, Russia, which is again positioning itself as a great power, not only anti-colonial, but also patrilineal and conservative in relation to traditional mores, can attract far greater support,”
in na koncu:
Russia, he says, while participating in an economic war [with the West], is partially restoring the military economy, but at the same time it is doing its utmost to take care of the people.”
“This is the purpose of the pullback of troops from Kherson that followed the pullback from the Kharkov and Kiev regions. WE ARE COUNTING THE SQUARE KILOMETERS CAPTURED BY THE UKRAINIANS, WHILE THE RUSSIANS ARE WAITING FOR THE FALL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIES. We are their main frontline,”
Todd stated.
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je