And now, the end is near…. Začetek konca vojne v Ukrajini

.

Ena boljših analiz po srečanju Trumpa in Putina. Mearsheimer efektivno pokaže, da zato, ker Rusija ne želi sprejeti premirja, Ukrajina pa mirovnega sporazuma, se bo vojna morala nadaljevati, dokler Rusija na bojišču ne bo dokončno “prepričala” Ukrajine in njenih evropskih prišepetovalcev, da je mirovni sporazum edina možna in edina dolgročna rešitev za odnose med Ukrajino in Rusijo.

Mearsheimer seveda tudi lucidno pove, kako je Putin velemojstrsko nadigral Trumpa, ki se je moral izviti iz (lastne) zanke o (neizvedljivih) sekundarnih sankcijah in moral pristati na Putinovo logiko nirovnega sporazuma namesto premirja. In seveda, da je Trump s tem, ko je odločitev o sprejemu mirovnega sporazuma prenesel na Zelenskega in evropske voditelje, dobil priložnost, da se elegantno umakne iz te vojne. Če bi Trump pri tem vztrajal, bi se vojna seveda efektivno hitreje končala, ker Ukrajinci nimajo več vojakov, Evropejci pa orožja za nadaljevanje vojne. Imajo pa oboji veliko odločnih besed…

Ta skupna izjava nekaterih evropskih politikov je absolutno obvezno branje v umetnosti iluzije osebkov, ki nimajo nobene pogajalske moči. Ki nimajo za burek. Ki niso bilo povabljeni k mizi, vendar bi radi določali pogoje tistim, ki so za mizo. 

Absurdnost teh izjav kulminira na koncu:

Sankcije in drugi gospodarski ukrepi bodo razširjeni na rusko vojaško gospodarstvo, dokler ne bo dosežen “pravičen in trajen mir”

Jao!

Prvič, z 18 paketi sankcij države EU niso niti za ped zaustavile ruske vojske, kaj šele ruskega gospodarstva. Rusko gospodarstvo raste po rekordno visokih stopnjah rasti. So pa sankcije evropsko gospodarstvo povsem zaustavile. In to že tretje leto. Torej, kaj bo naredil 19. paket sankcij? Poslal evropsko gospodarstvo v vzvratno prestavo (recesijo), Rusija pa se bo zaradi tega valjala od smeha in se nehala vojskovati?

Drugič, kaj je “pravičen in trajen mir”? To, da Rusija izgubi to vojno, se umakne nazaj na meje izpred 2014 in da Ukrajini plača 1000 milijard evrov vojnih reparacij? No, good luck pri tem. In povejte, s čim boste to dosegli, če Ukrajina nima več vojakov, evropske države pa ne orožja. Kako lahko v vojni zmagaš brez vojakov in brez orožja?

(samo resne odgovore, prosim)

EU and NATO leaders issued a joint statement after a phone call with Trump:

They stressed that Ukraine must receive firm security guarantees to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. No restrictions should be placed on its armed forces or cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot hold a veto over Ukraine’s path toward the EU or NATO.

All decisions on its territory will be made by Ukraine itself. Borders cannot be changed by force.

Support for Ukraine will continue, with a pledge to do more to strengthen it in order to end the war and achieve a “just and lasting peace.”

As long as “bloodshed continues in Ukraine, they will maintain pressure on Russia.” Sanctions and other economic measures will be expanded to target Russia’s military economy until a “just and lasting peace” is reached.

Velika večina ljudi, sploh pa komentatorjev, pozablja, zakaj sta se glede Ukrajine morali najprej dogovoriti ZDA in Rusija. Zato, ker bistvo spora med njima ni Ukrajina, pač pa novo geostrateško razmerje oziroma demarkacijska črta med ameriškim vojaškim vplivom v Evropi in ruskim varnostnim položajem. ZDA so to črto od Billa Clintona naprej potiskale proti ruskim mejam, na koncu (od leta 2008) proti meji Ukrajine (in Gruzije) z Rusijo. Dokler Putin ni rekel “Njet” in poslal vojske najprej v Gruzijo (2008) ter Krim (2014) in v ukrajinske pokrajine, ki mejijo na Rusijo.

Zdaj, ko sta se ZDA in Rusija dogovorili, da ameriški vojaški vpliv ne bo segel do ukrajinsko – ruske meje (da Ukrajina nikoli ne bo v Natu), je šele mogoč dogovor med Ukrajino in Rusijo. O tem, koliko ozemlja bo Ukrajina morala žrtvovati, koliko vojske bo smela imeti in kakšen bo status ruske manjšine v Ukrajini.

Varnostne garancije Ukrajini, o katerih govorijo evropski politiki, Ukrajini ne daje članstvo v Natu, pač pa ta krovni bazni dogovor med ZDA in Rusijo ter ameriško – ukrajinski “mineralni dogovor”.

Ja ja, seveda razumem, da bo reakcija nekaj glavnih članic EU sila negativna glede dogovora med Trumpom in Putinom o mirovnem sporazumu namesto o začasnem premirju, o upoštevanju realnosti na bojišču in o tem, da Ukrajina ne bo nikoli postala članica Nata, medtem ko bo Zelenski na jutrišnjem sestanku v Beli hiši kalkuliral in navigiral med vojnim navijanjem evropskih prišepetovalcev na eni in lastno usodo na drugi strani. Toda dejstvo je, da je z baznim dogovorom med Trumpom in Putinom mir v Ukrajini zdaj res dobil priložnost. Obe državi sta se odločili, da sta pripravljeni prenehati se bojevati na ukrajinskem ozemlju in da je osnovni razlog, zaradi katerega sta se začela bojevati (potiskanje Ukrajine v Nato s strani ZDA), odpravljen.

Zdaj je vse odvisno od ukrajinskega vodstva in evropskih politikov, ali so pripravljeni sprejeti, da bo vsled te 3-in-pol letne nesmiselne vojne Ukrajina manjša za eno petino in da bo morala ostati vojaško nevtralna, lahko pa se vključi v EU. Če ti robni pogoji za ukrajinske in evropske politike niso sprejemljivi, bodo pač morali povedati, kakšen je njihov načrt za zmago v tej vojni. Brez ZDA.

Dajmo počakati nekaj dni. Jaz sicer nisem optimist, da se je razum spet povrnil v Evropo.

__________

The summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was shorter than had been planned. But it was mostly successful.

Trump had urgently needed the meeting. He had pushed for a ceasefire in Ukraine. He had threatened to impose secondary sanctions against buyers of Russia’s oil to press Russia towards that.

But Russia did not budge. Its interest is to eliminate the root cause of the war in Ukraine – the expansion of NATO towards Russia’s borders. A ceasefire would only have paused the war but would not have solved the underlying issue.

For Trump the threat of secondary sanctions had become a trap. Some rather mild addition of tariffs against India had led to a strong backlash. India did not stop buying Russian oil but turned away from the U.S. to endorse Brics, Russia and China. Imposing secondary sanctions against China would have escalated into a trade war with China which the U.S. has no way to win.

The summit created a win for each side.

Trump acknowledged that a ceasefire was not possible and that the war needs to end with an all-encompassing peace agreement:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – Aug 16, 2025, 8:46 UTCA great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up. President Zelenskyy will be coming to D.C., the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people’s lives will be saved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

After he had given Putin that part of the cake Trump took his own piece. 

In an interview (vid) with Foxnews after the summit Trump was asked about imposing sanctions. He responded: “Well, because the meeting went so well, we don’t have to think about that now.”

There will be no ceasefire to freeze the conflict and there will be no sanctions. Both sides can count that as wins.

The task of ending the conflict was tossed off to Zelensky and Europe:

Without hesitating, Trump said that his advice to Zelenskyy after Friday’s meeting with Putin would be “make a deal.”On Monday Zelenski will be told to give up and to make peace with Russia. European protests against that will be ignored.

Vir: Moon of Alabama

Če sem mislil, da je ekonomska znanost problematična (zaradi problematičnih predpostavk), da je psihologija nagnjena k poneverjanju rezultatov in da več kot dve tretjini rezultatov študij na področju kemije ni mogoče replicirati, kaj naj si potem mislim o bombastičnih napovedih klimatskih znanstvenikov? Da se sistematično motijo, je očitno. Toda zakaj so nagnjeni k tem sistematičnim napakam in bombastičnim napovedim? Komu to koristi?

• 1969: “Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue vapor by 1989.”
• 1970: “Urban citizens will need gas masks by 1985.”
• 1970: “Decaying pollution will kill all fish.”
• 1970: “An ice age is coming by 2000.”
• 1972: “Oil will run out in 20 years.”
• 1974: “Space satellites show a new ice age is coming fast.”
• 1976: “Scientific consensus: global cooling, famine imminent.”
• 1980: “Acid rain is killing life in lakes.” »
• 1989: “New York’s West Side Highway will be underwater by 2019.”
• 1989: “Rising sea levels will wipe out nations by 2000 if no action is taken.”
• 2000: “Children will no longer know what snow is.”
• 2005: “Manhattan will be underwater by 2015.”
• 2009: “Al Gore predicts an ice-free Arctic by 2014.”