This proposal is building on the proposal outlined in the piece cross-posted earlier today by Keith Kellogg, Trump’s new envoy to Ukraine.
- Russia is allowed to keep the territory it now occupies,
- Ukraine is allowed to join NATO in 20 years – along with Russia. It’s neither or both.
a. This is the only possible way that Russia would consider allowing Ukraine to join NATO – if it joins simultaneously.
b. NATO would likely crumble in the interim and an outdated swamp bureaucracy goes away.
c. Without big daddy Washington in the form of NATO, Europe would be forced to figure out its own defense and, in turn, a more rational relationship with Russia
d. Washington no longer has the financial burden of the defense of Europe
e. In the event that NATO doesn’t crumble, then either Ukraine continues to not be allowed to join NATO due to fear of letting Russia in or both Ukraine and Russia are allowed to join and the Euro-Atlantic security architecture rebalances.
I know this will never happen, but I like it.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Natylie
It’s the first proposal that I’ve heard which actually makes sense, but I agree that it won’t happen.
A clear and simple solution, but it would never be allowed because we’re dealing with neocons, who have no reverse and seemingly no reaction to failure other than doubling down on stupid.
A very thoughtful and clever solution, especially point number two. I wish you were on the US negotiating team, Natylie!
General Kellogg’s long, rambling discussion of the cause and history of the war left much to be desired.
He started by suggesting that the U.S. had no existential national security interest in Ukraine.
And he ended by proposing a program that suggests that the U.S. has an existential national security interest in Ukraine.
Which is it?
There seems to be a failure on the part of the Trump team (and the Biden team, and NATO and the EU and…….) to realize that the Russians are holding the strong cards in this game. General Kellogg’s proposed program for ending the war assumes that the U.S./NATO would be negotiating from a position of strength.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
I like Ms. Baldwin’s idea of accepting both Ukraine and Russia into NATO membership at the same time. Send that off to NATO Secretary General Rutte and see him have a stroke!
“He started by suggesting that the U.S. had no existential national security interest in Ukraine.
And he ended by proposing a program that suggests that the U.S. has an existential national security interest in Ukraine.
Which is it?”
Very well put, indeed!
Natylie,
The reason for the proxy war: Neocon Victoria Nuland & other neocons want to undermine & destroy Russia’s achievements & evade the Kagan’s & Biden’s family corruption in Ukraine ! No doubt there’s plenty of graft in the war trade; that’s why both war parties in congress refuse to authorize an audit of the Billions spent on the proxy war.
With Tucker Carlson Lavrov suggested there is no going back to a status quo ante from the POV of society and relationship with the West in general. Albeit I think such statements remain true until they aren´t (think what Nicolai Petro says about how the new generation thinks about this conflict in a very different way) – there are some truisms of geography which won´t go away ever and the dollar which won´t go away any time soon. So may be ties have indeed been hurt in such ways that Russia has definitely chosen the East. And NATO can do whatever they want to. RU doesn´t care any more.
My personal wish list would be for Europe to sever ties to Washington and approach BRICS now not in ten years when it´s too late. The Ukraine issue will only be solved if Europe not Russia will change and with that its anti-RU posture of the last 200 years and move to the East.
All is needed are NATO bases in Russia now. Right around China!
A most rational solution. Sounds good to me, Natylie!
I basically like your ideas.
Nonetheless, I think NATO should be dissolved immediately, since it’s the cancer of the human civilization, let alone it’s a sine quo non case violating the UN Charter.
I like the idea as well. Of course, many would not allow that to happen. Mainly those idiots at Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and the rest of the M.I.C.
You have hit the nail on the head by focusing on Russia’s need and demand for a permanent broad-based security arrangement with Europe, something the US will do everything in its power to prevent, given its global hegemonic ambitions. The recent events in Georgia, Syria, and Romania demonstrate that the US is willing to undermine Russia’s security in any way possible.
So the question is how far Russia will go territorially to ensure its security, aside from regime change in Kiev. Will Russia end up occupying the entire Left Bank of the Dnieper right up to Belarus? regime change in Kiev seems obvious, and Russia would likely demand autonomy within Ukraine for Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv oblasts. Also, Ukraine would be substantially demilitarized including no naval bases. The 4 oblasts added to Russia in 2022 would stay in Russia. As for time frame, I would think 2026-27. And Russian will have to deal with Ukrainian terrorism for the next couple or three decades. All because the US refuses to stand down.
“While the Dnipro is probably the most useful tactical obstacle in Ukraine, it is only tactical. It can aid an intelligent defender, but it cannot save an unintelligent one.”
Dr. Barry Posen
“A Defense Concept for Ukraine” 1994