Throwback Saturday "European leaders on a joint visit to Kyiv have issued an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin: sign up to an unconditional ceasefire by Monday, or face increased sanctions and weapons transfers to Ukraine."
(...) Overall, the US approach to the negotiations amounted to a textbook case of strategic and diplomatic incompetence. This is in part due to the inclusion on Trumpâs team of figures like Steve Witkoff and Marco Rubio, who lack diplomatic experience and underestimated the complexity of the conflict.
However, the failure of Trumpâs peace initiative also reflects deeper realities within American foreign policy thinking. While his rhetoric may appear to break with the bipartisan interventionist orthodoxy of the past, his âAmerica Firstâ doctrine remains grounded in a belief in US global supremacy â as evidenced by his aggressive trade tactics. This is why Washington could not engage seriously with Russiaâs broader demands. As noted, Moscow does not merely want recognition of territorial changes; it seeks an acceptance of the multipolar reality of the international landscape. For the US foreign policy establishment â even under Trump â that remains an unacceptable proposition.
Thus, even though Trump may have been genuinely committed, on a rational level, to ending the war in Ukraine, the institutional culture that helped initiate and sustain the conflict remains deeply entrenched. As a result, Trump has not only failed to end the war â he has, to some extent, deepened US entanglement. This leaves him politically exposed. He cannot claim the mantle of peacemaker, yet he clearly has no appetite to serve as Biden 2.0. Walking away entirely might have preserved some consistency. But by staying in, he has made the war his own. Paradoxically, the much-criticised mineral deal may turn out to be more advantageous for Ukraine than the US. It ensures continued American involvement and shields Kyiv from complete abandonment, even if the mineral wealth in question ultimately proves illusory.
But lukewarm US military support will not reverse Ukraineâs battlefield fortunes. A Russian breakthrough remains likely, and with it, a potential Ukrainian collapse. Whether this outcome would force the West back to the negotiating table, or else drive further escalation, is uncertain. In either case, a fundamental problem remains: all parties understand that whatever is agreed on today could be overturned tomorrow. This mutual distrust means that Russia, Ukraine â and by extension, the West â are likely to remain locked in embittered relations for years to come, even if a formal deal is eventually reached.
At the same time, Russia is likely to maintain a robust military posture in the region for the foreseeable future â especially in the context of Europeâs rearmament plans and aggressive rhetoric. This, in turn, will provoke a response from Europe, prompting yet another round of Russian countermeasures. All this will unfold within a deeply toxic political environment, where distrust runs deep and the cycle of escalation remains difficult to break.
For now, then, the most likely scenario remains prolonged conflict, rising costs and deepening divisions â not only between Russia and the West, but within the West itself. The war will not end until Washington and its allies are willing to confront the core issue: the persistence of a hegemonic doctrine that brooks no rivals. Until that happens, peace will remain elusive and the bloodletting will continue. And Donald Trump, whether he likes it or not, risks being remembered not as the man who ended the war â but as the one who inherited it and let it burn.
Britain wants Ukraineâs minerals too Itâs not just Trump. The UK views critical minerals as a government priority and wants to open up Ukraineâs vast resources to British corporations.
When UK officials signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraineâs âpreferred partnerâ in developing the countryâs âcritical minerals strategyâ.
Yet within a month, Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraineâs President Volodymr Zelensky to access the countryâs vast mineral resources as âcompensationâ for US support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.
Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in.
When foreign secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, âa sign that Starmerâs government is still keen to get access to Ukraineâs richesâ, the iPaper reported.
Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: âLook around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oilâ.
The UK foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries UK officials â as well as the Trump administration â have their eyes on. (...)
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
Violence is never justified; always rationalized. Russia invaded Ukraine - a sovereign state. Defending themselves is the rational thing to do.
In terms of ending this war, Russia can end it anytime they like.
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
It's unfortunate that victims of UDS have this habit of spinning and misrepresenting the opinions of people with whom they disagree. As posted before: only simple binaries exists. For/with us or for/with the enemy. If you don't take the maximalist position then you're appeasing. Black & white. Good vs. Evil
Red herring, because neither are justified despite your ad hom straw man claiming otherwise.
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
