Panicky Europeans try to threaten Putin into “peace”

The leaders of the “Collation of the Willing” are in Kiev talking about “peace” and threatening war. I’ve extracted some of Starmer’s comments. Then I’ll discuss them.

Volodymyr and the Ukrainian people, we stood with you in resisting Putin’s aggression but we must now stand with you in the fight for peace.

Putin has, in the last few hours, sought to put conditions on a ceasefire.

It’s really important that we make clear, an unconditional ceasefire is a ceasefire without conditions. We reject the imposition of conditions, and we need to be really clear about that.

It is for Russia to come to the table for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, and there must be clear sanctions if he fails to do so.

That is a really important moment of this conflict that we should focus on in this meeting of the coalition of the willing, and remind ourselves that only one country started this illegal conflict, and that was Russia and Putin, and only one country stands in the way of resolving it peacefully, and that is Russia and Putin.

Starmer said “all of us here, together with US, are calling Putin out”, adding that if the Russian president was “serious” about peace then “he has a chance to show it now by extending the VE Day pause into a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire”. [1]

Comment

The context is that the pro-war European leaders have teamed up with the Kiev regime to exploit a certain weakness and dithering in Washington. They are pushing the 30-day ceasefire idea. This is a Ukrainian idea. It originated from two factors; they are losing on the battlefield and, while he seems to be swinging back towards them again now, there was a moment when support from Trump looked very uncertain. The idea is for an “unconditional” ceasefire. Ukraine and the EU will use that to massively tool up. No one is hiding it. At the same time Kiev is announcing that they envisage no territorial concessions at all in negotiations. The EU war party has also affirmed no territorial concessions – back to the 1991 borders, and full support for Ukraine’s sovereignty; which means no Russian “veto” over any decisions; such as joining NATO or what size army to have. This is, then, a position of zero concessions to Russia’s position and total victory to Ukraine. Ukraine proposes then “getting the territories back by diplomatic means”. One imagines that “diplomatic means” would be pursued until the moment when they felt strong enough to try again by force of arms. After all; Kiev signed the Minsk agreements and then, 8 years later, started openly repudiating them. (And Merkel openly claimed, infamously, that she had signed them in bad faith). The background to the plan is the EU will work to develop Ukraine’s arms industry. The Coalition of the Willing *may* even send their troops in. One can see why the Russians are not going to accept this “peace”.

All the material cited above, about “only one country started the war” and so on, reinforces this. The proposed “peace” is an attempt to create a Ukrainian and EU “victory” out of an impending defeat. You do, at least, have to credit the strategists in the Kiev regime with trying.

Putin has not, as Starmer says “sought to put conditions on a ceasefire”. The whole idea of a 30 day ceasefire has nothing to do with Russia. Russia has always been clear; they have demands which have to be met before a ceasefire. These have always been Kiev must withdraw their forces from the 4 contested provinces. I don’t know if they are now willing to be flexible on this. But saying that for any ceasefire to be considered the West must cease delivering arms to Ukraine is hardly something which Putin has just popped up with as Starmer implies.

The proposal for a 30 day ceasefire is accompanied by threats that if Putin does not agree then there will be a “massive” increase in sanctions and more weapons will be sent to the Kiev regime. Does that mean the EU is going to stop buying Russian gas and LNG? I don’t think so. Even apart from the gas there is still a fair amount of EU-Russia trade. [2] Any more restrictions are going to hurt Europe. Are they going to do that? And, more weapons? I thought they were already maxed out on support. The last whip-round was not a big success. [3] More to the point. The issuance of threats shows a total lack of understanding of Russia. Russia is simply not going to cave in to threats. By issuing the “ceasefire proposal” as a threat, they make it impossible for Russia to accept. These people simply have no knowledge of their opponent. This is one factor which shows that they are not statesmen. They are not even adequate negotiators.

The problem is, as this site has mentioned before, they think that Putin is operating on a cost-benefit basis. They reason that if they can increase the costs then that will change Putin’s calculus and he will “swing in” behind their “peace” proposal. This is just bad IR theory. (This point about how leaders do not, in fact, use cost-benefit utility calculations to decide foreign policy is well argued by John Mearsheimer in his book How States Think – the Rationality of Foreign Policy. ). Russia started their operation, which has since become a full-scale war, because of concerns for their strategic security and because of what was going on in Eastern Ukraine where there is a substantial Russian ethnic and also Russian leaning, population. They have explained their position clearly. It accords with both historical-political reality, (at least in principle; one can argue about a question of degree), and with conventional realist IR theory about security interests and the behaviour of Great Powers. It really isn’t hard to grasp. It is just so weird that the leaders of Europe seem so incapable of grasping it.

Not only did Starmer make an idiot of himself by trying to threaten Putin into accepting his terms, (when he, Starmer, is on the losing side), but he managed to throw in a profound insult to the Russian people at the same time. Talking about Putin’s 3 day pause for the Russian Victory day, on 9 May, Starmer says: “he [Putin] has a chance to show it now by extending the VE Day pause into a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire”. But VE day is on the 8th of May and commemorates the European victory over Nazi Germany. He publicly reminds Russia, and the world, that he makes the usual Western mistake of believing that the West, not Russia, defeated Nazi Germany. He is a statesman. Is he not aware of this question? Or, at least, is no one in the Cabinet Office aware of the sensitivities here? 24 million Russian and other Soviet Citizens died defeating Hitler. The Red Army did the vast majority of the work. It is completely free not to offend and insult your opponent. Why not try? Just a little?

I think I detect an element of panic amongst the EU pro-war party. It isn’t clear what US policy is going to be, going forwards. Are they going to make Kiev pay for weapons with shares against future mineral wealth extraction? Russia is pushing forwards. Kiev’s manpower problems, talked about in dissident media for months have finally made it into the mainstream media. If they don’t get some “ceasefire” now, and there is no sign they will, at least not if they go about it this way, then what is going to happen? Do they really think that they are going to defeat Russia by the same formula which has not brought them “victory” for three years; sanctions and arms deliveries?

Update: stupider and stupider

Starmer, carried away no doubt, by the sense of importance and gravitas his statements gave him yesterday has added more:

We understand the lessons of history, the lesson that any veteran of Normandy or north Africa or of any other campaign will tell you, but that Putin has not yet grasped. There is no glory in aggression and conquest, glory comes from fighting for your country, defending the people, and winning the peace [4]

This is painful. I don’t know what to say. Does Starmer know anything about WWII, about the role of the USSR (the predecessor state of modern Russia), in that? Did 24-27 million Russians die in WWII fighting a war of “aggression and conquest”? What has Russia been commemorating these last few days? A glorious conquest or an incredibly costly defence of their country against external aggression? In the above Starmer appears totally blind to Russia’s history in WWII. The historical fact is that it was Russia who suffered by far the most casualties in the war against Nazi Germany and who killed the vast majority of German soldiers. And, by any definition, this was a war of defence. All around Russia these last few days have been ceremonies commemorating how “glory” or, rather, pride, comes from defending your country against an aggressor. I think Russia has learned these lessons. And, having learned more than once about the risks of external aggression coming from Europe through Ukraine Russia is, in Ukraine today, also acting defensively.

Even as he delivers a lecture on “history” the cultural ignoramus Kier Starmer displays his crudity and brutality to the whole world.

The stupidity and uncouthness and ignorance just flows and flows. This is a statement from the pro-war group of Euro leaders from their photo-op in Kiev yesterday:

An unconditional ceasefire by definition cannot be subject to any conditions. If Russia calls for such conditions, this can only be considered as an effort to prolong the war and undermine diplomacy [5]

They have just unilaterally announced a ceasefire plan, the main purpose of which is to “buy time” for Ukraine to consolidate, stem the retreat and re-arm, and threatened that if Russia did not accept it they would “massively ramp up” sanctions and arms deliveries. And this is “diplomacy”? My gosh. The lack of qualifications for the job of international leader are displayed time and time again, for all to see.

Notes

Panicky Europeans try to threaten Putin into “peace”

Related Posts

Propaganda Watch – the stream of fictions in the Guardian (on NATO enlargement)Propaganda Watch – the stream of fictions in the Guardian (on NATO enlargement)

The new epistemology of the liberal-progressive cultThe new epistemology of the liberal-progressive cult

The US is becoming like North KoreaThe US is becoming like North Korea