Hi Ian, what do you think of Simplicus' analyses? Trump may be swayed by golf, Scotland and royalty but he's not a master diplomat himself. Team Trump are apparently not even listening to Putin at all and are strutting about as though they have any of the cards or are pretending that they have some secrets that will change everything. Which they don't. Perhaps all the peace brokering will come to nothing after all. It'll be like marching all the troops down the hill, only to march them up again.
He also makes a really good point that the war is not a proxy war. Russian lives are not proxies, the men are dying in a war against the US and NATO, who are not dying- their Ukrainian proxies are.
To be honest, their reporting contains some interesting pieces of insight, but I find it's more akin to news reporting then strategic analysis (which may be what they are going for).
Trump has a huge task ahead and I continue to assess that Zelensky is the main obstacle. Difficult to overstate the significance in the tone of US-Russia engagement since Trump-Putin call and after Saudi talks. All the pressure seems to be on Zelensky to settle and he's fighting a rear guard action right now..
A peace deal would help end the needless loss of Ukrainian lives and land. Ukraine cannot win the war. I'm sorry for the devastation to your country. But the war needs to stop.
Excellent article. In my opinion it is far more beneficial to support US with its attempts to settle Ukraine's , and also Gaza's. mess than to trying to sabotage the deal and team up with EU in their quest to "pacify Russia". Let's hope that it will last.
Doesn’t the same King, who issued such a rare second invitation to Trump, devalue the said invitation by agreeing to see Zelensky for the second time and barely 5 minutes after the circus at the Oval Office?
The Daily Mail clearly feels differently although only God knows where they get their ideas from as I very much doubt that Trump himself shared his feelings on this topic and don't think they are that close to his inner circle to get the gossip so to speak!
I can see the part of extra effort in diplomacy. But I don't see the ditching of Zelensky. Maybe the split between Starmer and Macron is a better sign for the latter?
Essentially, Starmer can’t carry on a Zelensky’s strongest supported, criticising or cutting across Trump’s efforts at peace, while at the same time warming up to the US President for long-overdue movement on free trade talks, while avoiding US tariffs. He has to choose, and is choosing Trump. Starmer clearly won’t publicly distance himself from Zelensky, but if you study his statements on the US engagement on Ukraine and the need for a peace deal since 27 February, you’ll find that it has been consistently supportive. This sits in stark contrast to the Starmer’s unqualified support for Zelensky before the Oval Office meeting.
Could you please articulate and explain what Trump's plans for a 'Peace Deal' actually are? Everyone seems to have a peace deal at the moment but no-one is prepared to explain what that means in explicit and workable terms. Diplomacy or analysis should not involve taking and interpreting what everyone says at face value - especially when it comes to the Neocons, Donald Trump or Keir Starmer.
It’s a good question. Firstly, no one knows, as Ukraine has yet to commit fully to talks; next week’s meetings in Saudi with the US team will help to clarify what Ukraine’s demands are.
Essentially, America is seeking to intermediate between both Russia and Ukraine at this stage. Any peace deal will, ultimately, have to be signed by Ukraine and Russia.
The US is framing the art of the possible by effectively saying that NATO membership is off the table, at least while Trump is in office. And that European nations should lean in to provide security guarantees.
Trump is nudging Ukraine closer to the table by cutting off weapon supplies and intelligence sharing. This on the basis that Zelensky has, thus far, been the biggest obstacle to cutting a deal (and hence the bust up in the Oval Office).
US neocons will hate it, but any initial peace deal may resemble something like the Istanbul agreement of end March 2022. Trump’s interventions have taken away both Ukrainian and European leverage to hold out for a better settlement, on the basis that America will strong arm Russia - that clearly isn’t going to happen.
So, a version of Istanbul looks most likely.
Of course, sequencing will be important. When does the ceasefire start and the peace deal get signed?
All the talk right now of a ceasefire in the air appears slightly nonsensical with the fighting still raging on the ground - Ukraine is running a major counteroffensive to retake Toretsk, while Russia is looking to cut off Ukrainian formations in Kursk.
The big question for me is can Trump force a ceasefire first to allow breathing space for the final sections of text on a peace deal to be inked.
Some elements will be very complex, such as the status of Ukrainian child refugees in Russian and the status of minority languages in Ukraine. Where we end up on both will have domestic political ramifications for Ukraine itself, which could get ugly.
That then brings in another question that Zelensky in particular will be in no hurry to resolve - when will Ukrainian presidential elections take place. Clearly, ceasefire first will up the pressure to hold elections before a final peace deal and longer-term peace process can be agreed, possibly steered by a new Ukrainian President.
Lots of spinning plates. But going back to the 28 February Oval Office meeting, Zelensky has no cards to play. America has all the cards. So it seems just a matter of when and how soon the fighting can be forced to a stop.
Left to Ukraine with its European backing, it would likely continue ad infinitum. Hope that helps.
Your unique professional insight into the subtleties of this action have transformed it for me. This was actually a very clever move to support British interests. King Chuck is back in my good books.
Thanks very much. I've organised enough VVIP visits to know how much thought goes into them. Chuck isn't inviting Donald and Melania to discuss Ukraine.
What a telling photo. Trump's right arm outstretched plunging into the gut of Starmer who bends forward and uses his left hand to drive the dagger in deeper.
US says jump. UK asks how high and in which direction.
More recent developments seem to contradict your premise. The UK, France and others are seriously talking about boots on the ground in “Ukraine” as well as stealing Russian assets. I don’t see that signaling anything but escalation.
I appreciate your writing but I am sceptical about our country's politics. Our prime ministers motivation seems insincere at least and those whom we are attempting to influence see this; just saying.
I hope you're right.
On every other front Starmer is the master of disaster.
But not the king of sting….
Hi Ian, what do you think of Simplicus' analyses? Trump may be swayed by golf, Scotland and royalty but he's not a master diplomat himself. Team Trump are apparently not even listening to Putin at all and are strutting about as though they have any of the cards or are pretending that they have some secrets that will change everything. Which they don't. Perhaps all the peace brokering will come to nothing after all. It'll be like marching all the troops down the hill, only to march them up again.
He also makes a really good point that the war is not a proxy war. Russian lives are not proxies, the men are dying in a war against the US and NATO, who are not dying- their Ukrainian proxies are.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-3725-eus-mega-billion-bid
To be honest, their reporting contains some interesting pieces of insight, but I find it's more akin to news reporting then strategic analysis (which may be what they are going for).
Trump has a huge task ahead and I continue to assess that Zelensky is the main obstacle. Difficult to overstate the significance in the tone of US-Russia engagement since Trump-Putin call and after Saudi talks. All the pressure seems to be on Zelensky to settle and he's fighting a rear guard action right now..
Thanks Ian. It’s like having a hot-line.
Zelensky must go, and surely will.
A peace deal would help end the needless loss of Ukrainian lives and land. Ukraine cannot win the war. I'm sorry for the devastation to your country. But the war needs to stop.
Yes, the war needs to stop. I hope so.
Excellent article. In my opinion it is far more beneficial to support US with its attempts to settle Ukraine's , and also Gaza's. mess than to trying to sabotage the deal and team up with EU in their quest to "pacify Russia". Let's hope that it will last.
Doesn’t the same King, who issued such a rare second invitation to Trump, devalue the said invitation by agreeing to see Zelensky for the second time and barely 5 minutes after the circus at the Oval Office?
I don't think so. It was a choreographed courtesy call, but HM didn't weigh in on the politics. Trump's staff will see that.
The Daily Mail clearly feels differently although only God knows where they get their ideas from as I very much doubt that Trump himself shared his feelings on this topic and don't think they are that close to his inner circle to get the gossip so to speak!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14477429/Trump-King-Charles-Zelensky-Sandringham.html
Thanks, Ian, so much for this analysis. It's big news, I think. And, makes sense that diplomacy is going this way, given recent events.
I can see the part of extra effort in diplomacy. But I don't see the ditching of Zelensky. Maybe the split between Starmer and Macron is a better sign for the latter?
Essentially, Starmer can’t carry on a Zelensky’s strongest supported, criticising or cutting across Trump’s efforts at peace, while at the same time warming up to the US President for long-overdue movement on free trade talks, while avoiding US tariffs. He has to choose, and is choosing Trump. Starmer clearly won’t publicly distance himself from Zelensky, but if you study his statements on the US engagement on Ukraine and the need for a peace deal since 27 February, you’ll find that it has been consistently supportive. This sits in stark contrast to the Starmer’s unqualified support for Zelensky before the Oval Office meeting.
Could you please articulate and explain what Trump's plans for a 'Peace Deal' actually are? Everyone seems to have a peace deal at the moment but no-one is prepared to explain what that means in explicit and workable terms. Diplomacy or analysis should not involve taking and interpreting what everyone says at face value - especially when it comes to the Neocons, Donald Trump or Keir Starmer.
Simon,
It’s a good question. Firstly, no one knows, as Ukraine has yet to commit fully to talks; next week’s meetings in Saudi with the US team will help to clarify what Ukraine’s demands are.
Essentially, America is seeking to intermediate between both Russia and Ukraine at this stage. Any peace deal will, ultimately, have to be signed by Ukraine and Russia.
The US is framing the art of the possible by effectively saying that NATO membership is off the table, at least while Trump is in office. And that European nations should lean in to provide security guarantees.
Trump is nudging Ukraine closer to the table by cutting off weapon supplies and intelligence sharing. This on the basis that Zelensky has, thus far, been the biggest obstacle to cutting a deal (and hence the bust up in the Oval Office).
US neocons will hate it, but any initial peace deal may resemble something like the Istanbul agreement of end March 2022. Trump’s interventions have taken away both Ukrainian and European leverage to hold out for a better settlement, on the basis that America will strong arm Russia - that clearly isn’t going to happen.
So, a version of Istanbul looks most likely.
Of course, sequencing will be important. When does the ceasefire start and the peace deal get signed?
All the talk right now of a ceasefire in the air appears slightly nonsensical with the fighting still raging on the ground - Ukraine is running a major counteroffensive to retake Toretsk, while Russia is looking to cut off Ukrainian formations in Kursk.
The big question for me is can Trump force a ceasefire first to allow breathing space for the final sections of text on a peace deal to be inked.
Some elements will be very complex, such as the status of Ukrainian child refugees in Russian and the status of minority languages in Ukraine. Where we end up on both will have domestic political ramifications for Ukraine itself, which could get ugly.
That then brings in another question that Zelensky in particular will be in no hurry to resolve - when will Ukrainian presidential elections take place. Clearly, ceasefire first will up the pressure to hold elections before a final peace deal and longer-term peace process can be agreed, possibly steered by a new Ukrainian President.
Lots of spinning plates. But going back to the 28 February Oval Office meeting, Zelensky has no cards to play. America has all the cards. So it seems just a matter of when and how soon the fighting can be forced to a stop.
Left to Ukraine with its European backing, it would likely continue ad infinitum. Hope that helps.
It's just so galling that the US started it and yet Trump gets the credit (perhaps) for stopping it.
It is. But that's our fault not Trump’s. Foreign policy by the Grand Old Duke of York…
I'm sorry but I don't fully agree with you.
this is a lie. The children were evacuated from the war zone to ensure their safety, and since then, they were returned to their parents.
I suggest you keep your propaganda to your part of the world
Please don't make accusations against people you don't know. It just makes you sound like the bot. Be respectful and debate the issues.
Thanks for the easy block decision.
Your unique professional insight into the subtleties of this action have transformed it for me. This was actually a very clever move to support British interests. King Chuck is back in my good books.
Thanks very much. I've organised enough VVIP visits to know how much thought goes into them. Chuck isn't inviting Donald and Melania to discuss Ukraine.
Thank you for your brilliant analyse!
Thank you!
Hi Ian, thank you this insight :) I believe though that His Majesty is the third Charles..
Hi Yulia, thanks so much for pointing out my typo! :-)
Ian
Russia prevailed
Ukraine didn’t
America went away
The dog barked the caravan moved on 🐾
What a telling photo. Trump's right arm outstretched plunging into the gut of Starmer who bends forward and uses his left hand to drive the dagger in deeper.
US says jump. UK asks how high and in which direction.
More recent developments seem to contradict your premise. The UK, France and others are seriously talking about boots on the ground in “Ukraine” as well as stealing Russian assets. I don’t see that signaling anything but escalation.
They've been talking about that for three years now.
Just saying.
Given the chance, they'd talk about it for another three years...
I appreciate your writing but I am sceptical about our country's politics. Our prime ministers motivation seems insincere at least and those whom we are attempting to influence see this; just saying.
Never trust Perfidious Albion. As Lord Palmerston once said, "The Empire has no permanent friends, only permanent interests".
That interest has always been informed by Sir Halford MacKinders' geopolitics summed up as "Divide and Conquer" the Eurasian Landmass nations.
That is how the Empire started World War I and II. Starmer believes the third World War will be a charm.
https://youtu.be/k23FjK8q-jw?si=C3vOkLXHU96GIc-K