Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nato’

Trump’s 28 Pt. Ukraine War Plan

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on November 24, 2025| 2 Comments »

by Jack Rasmus

This past week President Trump proposed a 28 Pt. plan to Russia and Ukraine as a basis for negotiations to end the current Ukraine-Russia war, now approaching its fourth year.

What’s behind the Trump proposal? Is it a further revelation of verbal understandings agreed to between Trump and Putin last August in Anchorage, Alaska? Or something more?

Is it a political cover for Trump to finally cut military intelligence and surveillance aid to Ukraine—while simultaneously imposing additional sanctions on Russia, and perhaps Ukraine as well, to pressure both parties to commence negotiations in earnest?

Is it a Trump maneuver to enable the US to share in the exploitation of the $260 billion Russian assets frozen in Belgium and EU banks?

Is it a Trump tactic to justify further US withdrawal from involvement in the war, once the Europeans reject it, and to let the Europeans have ‘their war’ with Russia in Ukraine?

Is it, as some have argued, a clever ‘hard cop’ (Europe) vs. ‘soft cop’ (US) maneuver to get Russia and Putin to agree to another ‘Minsk III’-like temporary truce to halt the conflict on the ground so that Europe & Ukraine can buy time to recruit, rearm, and retrain forces in order to continue the conflict?

Or is it a preliminary step toward eventual real negotiations down the road—i.e. after further military conflict exhausts both sides creating a basis for real compromises and negotiations in 2026?

Up to the release of the 28 point proposals this past week, the fundamental positions of three of the four parties involved in the conflict—Ukraine, Russia, and Europe—have not changed much, if at all. Is Trump’s plan therefore about trying to move the parties off their prior hardened positions that prevent any serious negotiations.

Prior Positions of the Parties

To date, Russia has held firm to its June 2024 positions: No NATO in Ukraine; formal recognition by Europe-US-Ukraine of Russian sovereignty over the four provinces (Lughansk, Donestsk, Zaporozhia, Kherson) and Crimea; reduction of Ukraine armed forces to less than 100,000 to ensure no future threat to Russia; and Ukraine neutrality and denazification of its government.

Ukraine’s position has been the same since the onset of the conflict in 2022: no Ukraine land concessions including Crimea; reparations for Russian damages; full retreat of all Russian military forces to Ukraine’s 1991 borders; and no negotiations to begin until a ceasefire and Russia’s full retreat.

Europe’s position is full support for Ukraine’s positions; an immediate ceasefire along the lines of combat as precondition to negotiations; use of Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets in its banks to fund Ukraine’s war effort in the interim and thereafter for Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction post-war; no changes to borders as a result of force; Europe troops to be allowed in Ukraine after the war ends; and no limits to NATO expansion determined by any state outside NATO member states.

The US position under Biden agreed with the European and Ukrainian positions above virtually completely. Biden proposed, moreover, to continue to escalate US financial, weaponry, and military assistance for as long as it takes to force Russia to end the war.

Under Trump, the US position shifted, to seek negotiations and to end the war on terms of whatever is eventually acceptable by Russia, Europe and Ukraine—as dictated by the relationship of forces at the time of final negotiations.

Trump and the US have therefore swung between a solution preferred by the political alliance of US neocons, Europe leaders, and Ukraine to a solution advocated by other political forces within the US who have begun recognizing the impossibility of ending the war on the basis of Europe-Ukraine positions to date. Trump’s dual representatives reflect the duality of the US position: General Kellogg representing the US neocon/EU positions and Trump’s personal advisor, Steve Witkoff, the emerging more realist US view of the conflict.

US Vice-President, J.D. Vance, summarized this latter, realist view when questioned by US media this past weekend after the release of Trump’s 28 Pt. Plan: the rigid Europe-Ukraine hardline view of the past three and a half years represents the view of “failed diplomats or politicians living in fantasy land” committed to the idea that somehow “more money, more weapons, or more sanctions” will result in eventual “victory”! 

The US wants to move on from Europe’s war with Russia in Ukraine. Its imperial interests now include larger strategic concerns in the middle east (Israel-GAZA-Iran war), Latin America (Venezuela regime change plans), and western Pacific (Taiwan-China). The emerging new view is that if Europe wants to continue war with Russia, they should do so on their own, paying for it and providing Ukraine’s the military support themselves.  The new view beginning to take hold among the Trump wing of the US foreign policy elite is that the USA has more important global strategic interests and concerns beyond continuing fighting and paying for Europe’s wars or protecting Europe from its imagined threat from Russia.

Mainstream Media Complicity

The US and Europe mainstream media throughout the conflict since 2022 reflected the US neocon view that Russia’s economy was about to collapse, Putin would be overthrown by Russian political opponents, and the Russian army was weak and would quickly stop fighting.  The most recent such view is that Russia has suffered 1.5 million losses since 2022—a number even larger than the current total Russian military of 1.4 million. 

Following the announcement of the 28 Pt. plan, the New York Times provided a brief, incomplete and slanted summary of its terms.  In its very first paragraph, it described the Trump plan as one in which “Ukraine would have to capitulate on most of Putin’s demands” and that “Ukraine would gain little other than a halt to the war”.  The Times’ authors added “Russia’s economy is at its weakest since February 2022” and that Russia is facing serious economic pressures due to US sanctions—all of which is a repeat of the propaganda mantra and remains contrary to the facts stated by various western market research sources.  Another Times theme is that the Trump requirement Ukraine hold elections is about “ushering out” Zelensky—i.e. a political goal attributed to Putin.

These themes were reiterated by the European media in turn and then some. The UK Guardian clarified several important elements of the plan conveniently ignored by the New York Times. For example, it questioned who originally authored the plan? It suggested the Plan was perhaps Russia’s originally, and was passed off by US Secretary State, Rubio, as Trump’s plan. The attempt here clearly was to undermine the plan and the US role, suggesting the US was just a dupe for Russia. Rubio immediately denied the suggestion, called the Times’ suggestion “blatantly wrong” and confirmed it was a US plan, not Russia’s, reached after US discussions with both Ukraine and Russia.

That did not stop US neocon Senators from repeating the Times’ theme publicly as well, implying the plan was Russia’s not Trump’s.

Key Elements of the 28 Pt. Plan

The plan is now public and readers can review it in detail for themselves. However, the key elements are the following:

  1. Ukraine must withdraw from the two provinces, Lughansk and Donetsk. It has already been driven out of Lughansk and occupies only 25% left of Donetsk. Moreover, the area from which it withdraws in those two provinces is to remain a demilitarized zone. So per the plan Ukraine is not required to actually recognized either as Russian sovereignty.
  2. Russia must withdraw all its forces from the northern provinces of Sumy and Kharkov. Its forces in Zaporozhie and Kherson are to be frozen in place, the rest of those two provinces remaining occupied by Ukraine.
  3. The plan calls for no NATO troops deployed in Ukraine and no further NATO expansion (the latter point left unclear as to where exactly no expansion was to occur). Ukraine can join the European Union.
  4. Sanctions on Russia would be removed in steps. Russia was allowed to join the G7 as its new G8 member.
  5. The size of Ukraine’s current 900,000 military forces would be capped at 600,000.
  6. $100 billion of Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets in Europe banks would be transferred to a joint US-Russia administered fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. To which Europe will add another $100 billion but not administer.
  7. Elections in Ukraine would be held within 100 days after the final agreement to end the war.
  8. There were also numerous vague terms calling for restoration of Russian speaking Ukrainians cultural and political rights prior to the new elections.

Europe leaders initially expressed extreme displeasure with not being part of the determining of the plan, cut out of negotiations with Russia, and especially with having to provide $100 billion of Russia’s frozen assets to the joint US-Russian fund and then another $100 billion further to the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Thus, the European and US have begun early in-fighting over the spoils available after the end of the war. Whose corporations will receive the lion’s share of the proceeds from reconstruction has begun emerging as a source of contention within the NATO forces, US and European.

Responses to the 28 Pt. Plan

Russia has said the 28 Pt. proposal is a basis upon which to start negotiations. Europe has initially rejected it and it hurriedly gathered its leaders in Geneva on November 23, 2025 to craft its official rejection and alternative proposal. Zelensky and Ukraine once again took cover behind the European opposition to the latest Trump initiative, declaring its opposition to the plan as well.

Europe and Ukraine have consistently insisted that negotiations should only take place when Russia agrees to an unconditional ceasefire along all lines of combat. Ceasefire first and freezing all lines of military contact is the precondition to start negotiations. That remains the fundamental Europe-Ukraine demand, which it has been since 2022. By demanding ceasefire first, then negotiations, Europe-Ukraine in effect propose a repeat of Minsk II negotiations held in 2015 to halt Russian military activity. They want a ‘Minsk III’.

As former British diplomat, Alaistair Crooke, has explained, “they (Europe) want a ceasefire, not a solution, so they can go back in, retrain, and rearm Ukraine to continue the war”. He adds: “Europe is coaching Zelensky to say No” and it wants to continue a “controlled war”.

German Chancellor, Merz, warned if Ukraine loses it will have a profound impact on Europe politics as a whole. That’s true. Europe’s current political elite have tied their futures to the war in Ukraine and cannot retreat. To do so risks the possible fracturing of NATO and even perhaps the European Union.  So why are Europe leaders like Merz, Macron in France, and Starmer in the UK so committed to continuing the war? There are several possible explanations.

First, the war is the way to keep the USA financially, and even militarily, committed to remain in NATO in Europe. The USA military umbrella since 1945 has been profitable for Europe and politically useful for Europe’s domestic politics: not having to expend huge sums on defense (US total cost in NATO is now estimated at $32B per year) has enabled Europe to provide social benefits to its populace much greater than the US has provided to its populace.

Should the USA pull out of Europe—which Trump likely wants to do eventually to cut $32B from future US defense spending—then Europe will have to cut social benefits, raise taxes further, and/or incur more sovereign debt, in order to develop its own defense/war military industrial complex. Merz has already declared Germany will spend $1 trillion over the next five years to do so. Other European countries will have to do the same. Europe’s economy cannot sustain that expenditure without massive cuts to social benefits that will certainly result in widespread political upheaval. Europe’s economy has been limping along since 2008, growing tepidly, experiencing bouts of stagnation and mild recessions for the last decade and a half, and has been declining in terms of productivity for some time. Real wages have not risen since at least 1999 when the European Union was created.  

Europe has been steadily falling behind the US and China technologically and financially. European leaders may think a surge in military spending will energize its GDP and growth but that route holds great economic and political risks. European leaders are likely aware of the consequences. But they see continuing the war as the way to keep US involved supporting the war, to keep US in NATO providing its subsidies, and the way to buy time to transition to their own military-industrial economy. The Ukraine war is key to buy time for this economic transition. Continued war in Ukraine is the only way for Europe’s elites to justify the social benefit cuts on the agenda.

As UK diplomat Alastair Crooke has correctly observed, Europe needs the war to continue. Ukraine and Zelensky will ride the European horse into the sunset as long as they can.

Failure to end the Ukraine war is not a problem of individuals—i.e. Zelensky, or Putin, or Trump or even the ultra-nationalist/neo-nazi elements in the Ukraine government. The problem is Europe—and Europe’s US neocon allies who share its pro-war objectives as well. European leadership is committed to a long war in Ukraine, so long as Ukraine has the troops to throw into the maelstrom. However, that may be coming to an end sooner than later.

The European leadership met this past Sunday, November 23, to hammer out a response to Trump’s 28 Pts. They will inject their own demands into a new document. In essence, some new formulation of ‘ceasefire first’ and other new demands.

According to the Guardian newspaper, they will propose to amend the 28 Pt plan to include a reduction in Ukraine military forces by only 100,000 to 800,000 instead of the 600,000 indicated in Trump’s plan—neither of which Russia will agree to. They will demand the Zaporozhie nuclear power plan now occupied by Russia to be returned to Ukraine. They’ll oppose immediate reductions of sanctions on Russia or permit it in the G8. They’ll especially reject the US-Russia joint administered fund to reconstruct Ukraine. They won’t agree to no NATO in Ukraine and will reiterate European forces must be allowed in Ukraine after the war. Reports are circulating they may even call for the US to commit troops to ‘supervise’ the truce on the ground after the war, i.e. to lure the US to provide cover for future European military encroachments. Their amendments will thus constitute a ‘ceasefire’ plan, albeit couched in more clever proposals. All of which Russia will reject.

Trump’s response to Europe’s counterproposals will likely include his acceptance of whatever the Europeans propose at Geneva. He’s as much as said so. The 28 Pt plan, even with the European amendments, is just an interim document and another false start event—i.e. an ‘Anchorage 2.0’—on the road to a later more serious negotiation.

When asked by the media he admitted the plan is not the ‘final agreement’. And when queried in turn what he’ll do if Zelensky rejects it, Trump replied: “he’ll have to like it, or just keep fighting, I guess.” 

Strategically the best the US and Trump can get from the Plan is to move Ukraine and Europe off their nearly four years-long hardline positions. To create some ‘hooks’ upon which to hang future negotiations.

True negotiations will not begin until Russia takes back all the four provinces it has declared as part of sovereign Russia. Serious discussions begin only when Russia takes back all of the four provinces, stands at the Dnipr river and decides whether or not to push further west into Ukraine or to take Odessa in the south.  At that point the ‘Special Military Operation’, SMO, becomes something else. Something much larger. Alternatively, realistic negotiations might begin if and when the Ukraine army begins to collapse before Russia reaches the Dnipr, which could happen within the next 90 days given the current rate of Russian advances on the ground in the east. 

The Institute for War (IFW), a western think tank clearly allied with NATO and Ukraine, has reported up to 300,000 Ukrainian troops have deserted since the war began. At least another 500,000 have been killed or permanently disabled. Per the IFW Ukraine is recruiting 17,000 troops per month but is losing 30,000.  Russian volunteers (not draftees as in Ukraine) are joining its military at the rate of roughly 30,000/ month and its losses are much less than its recruitment. The ultimate limit to war is not finding enough money to pay for it. Nor even enough weapons. It is the manpower losses.

The war in Ukraine will end when the military conflict ends. Not vice versa—i.e. not as result of a ceasefire ending the conflict before negotiating the terms of its ending.

The Trump 28 Pt. plan will not begin the process of ending the war. On the contrary, the inevitable collapse of the plan may well lead to more escalation, not less.

Jack Rasmus

November 22, 2025

Read Full Post »

Why Trump’s Ukraine War ‘Kellogg Plan’ Collapsed

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on April 25, 2025| 2 Comments »

When President Trump ran for office in 2024 he promised to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine within 100 days of taking office.  The unofficial centerpiece of his plan was the proposals raised publicly by US General Kellogg earlier in 2024. While Trump in 2024 did not officially adopt the Kellogg proposals as his plan to end the war, it is clear in retrospect he unofficially embraced the Kellogg plan. One of his first unofficially appointments before even taking office in January was to task Kellogg to explore responses to his—Kellogg’s— proposals among the interested parties.

It is important to note that the Trump plan to negotiate an end to the war during his first 100 days in office has been the Kellogg Plan, revised somewhat to represent a US political compromise within the Trump administration between the Trump neocons—Rubio, Walz, etc.—and those in the administration who advocate a faster US extrication from the costly and unwinnable war—i.e. Vance, Witkoff, et. al. Thus a ‘Kellogg Plus’ US plan.

At this past week’s EU/UK meeting in London, however, ‘Kellogg Plus’ died and was buried. Put on the table for discussion by the USA as a possible unified west/NATO solution to end the Ukraine war by a  compromise with Russian positions, the Kellogg plan was never even discussed by the Europeans or the Ukrainian delegation sent to London. It was rejected and ‘killed off’ by a unified Europe & Ukraine opposition.  

As others have reported, the Europeans and Ukraine had developed their own set of proposals over the past few weeks in the flurry of their meetings in Europe, the most recent occurring in Paris. London was the meeting in which the Europeans expected the US delegation to discuss the Euro-Ukraine plan which differed substantially from the US ‘Kellogg Plus’ proposals. The US reportedly caught the Europeans by surprise, presented their plan for discussion in lieu of the Europeans’.  The latter then refused to discuss the Kellogg plan and, in return, the US delegation left the meeting.. 

Having had a copy of the US plan just before the London meeting, Zelensky publicly, and in somewhat insulting language, rejected the US plan outright. He followed up after the meeting with another public statement to the media declaring “There is nothing to talk about”.  His European supporters, notably Macron of France and Starmer of UK, quickly joined him and publicly declared the same. It is now clear the US proposals are rejected in their entirety, both by Ukraine and the Europeans

The US had announced its plan was its ‘best and final offer’ to all the parties as the basis for starting negotiations, including Russia, and threatened to exit the negotiations process altogether if not accepted by all.  Whether it does has yet to be determined.

On April 25, 2025, Trump special envoy met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the same Kellogg proposals. It is highly likely Putin will not accept the offer in its entirety either, but may accept some elements and declare it a basis to continue discussions—unlike Zelensky or the Europeans who have rejected it outright and completely. 

Given that total rejection—and regardless of the outcome of the Witkoff-Putin meeting in Moscow, it is clear the first phase of the Trump administration’s attempt to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict has come to an abrupt end. 

So what was the Kellogg Plan proposed by the USA that was so abruptly shot down by Zelensky and the Europeans? And what was their alternative proposal that they thought the US would accept as the starting point of negotiations with the Russians—a move by the Europeans to put them back in the negotiations game alongside the Americans as equals, a role so far denied them to their great consternation?

Here are the main elements of the Kellogg Plus American plan:

  • No NATO membership offered to Ukraine nor Ukraine to seek membership, although Ukraine could join the European Union
  • Recognition de jure of Crimea as part of Russia and Lughansk province now fully occupied by Russia
  • Ceasefire implementation details to be worked out by Russia & Ukraine, without Europe or US participation
  • Recognition de facto the other three east Ukraine regions (Donetsk, Zaporozhie, Kherson) now occupied by Russian forces along the current combat line
  • Lifting of US sanctions since 2014 on Russia, leaving Europe sanctions to Europe to decide
  • Europe could offer Ukraine security guarantees if it wanted but the USA would not
  • US and Russia would continue to explore joint deals on energy and industry
  • The US would operate the Zaporozhie nuclear power plant and distribute its resources to both Ukraine and Russia
  • Russia also gives up its control of the dam on the Dnipr, its territory in Kherson where the nuclear power plant is located, its occupation of far western ‘spit’ of Kherson on the river, and the area in the Kharkov province Russia also now occupies
  • US & Ukraine conclude a minerals deal, with participation by Europe as well
  • The Plan said nothing about the size of Ukraine’s army after the war’s end

In negotiations of agreements, sometimes what’s left out intentionally is as important as what’s included. Here’s some key omissions in the US plan:

  • No reference to the size of the Ukrainian military as part of a peace deal, or whether Ukraine could build up its forces while ceasefire and negotiations continued
  • No reference to whether NATO troops were to participate in any peacekeeping operations in Ukraine after the war
  • No mention of whether or how Ukraine might be compensated and rebuilt, by whom, or whether Russia’s $260 billion assets in European banks would be used

The Europeans were shocked, reportedly, by the provisions of the Kellogg Plus plan. They had expected the US to attend London to discuss the plan they had alternatively hammered out in the preceding weeks with the assumed approval of Ukraine.  That alternative plan was fundamentally different from the USA’s. In fact, it is better described not as a plan to reach some kind of a compromise settlement to the conflict, but a plan that amounted to a capitulation of Russia in the conflict.

The Europeans proposed something historically similar to the France-Britain 1918 armistice agreement on Germany that ended world war I.  That armistice was a ceasefire after which the victors—France and Britain—imposed impossible terms on Germany, which were eventually forced on Germany and which, in the end historically, led to the continuation of the world war in 1939. The 1918 negotiations was an agreement forced by victors on the defeated. The problem in Ukraine today, is that the Russians are clearing winning militarily and it is the Ukrainians and Europeans who are likely the defeated before this year’s end on the battlefield.

Here’s the elements of the Europeans-Ukraine 2025 ‘Armistice Plan’, which they had hoped, were the USA to accept as basis for negotiations, would put them—the Europeans—back on an equal footing in negotiations with the USA that the latter has thus far denied them since discussions between the US and Russia were opened in Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in March.

The Main Elements of the European Armistice Plan:

  • Russia & Ukraine accept an unconditional ceasefire. Details of the implementation of the ceasefire subsequently negotiate by all four parties together: Russia, Ukraine, Europe and USA
  • Russia required to return all prisoners, troops and children allegedly kidnapped but no mention of Ukraine similar release of prisoners, etc.
  • Security Guarantees to Ukraine provided by US and Europe, along lines of NATO article 5 language; Ukraine may join NATO at a later date
  • No limits or restrictions on Ukraine’s size of military. Ukraine allowed to rebuild army and weapons during ceasefire negotiations
  • Europe and other States may send troops to Ukraine as part of peacekeeping force
  • No reference made to Russia right to Crimea or other occupied territories
  • Ukraine to control the Zaporozhie nuclear power plant, with US only assisting. Also Ukraine control Dnipr river and its Khakovka dam
  • Russian assets in European banks remain frozen until Ukraine compensation for damages is determined by negotiations
  • Sanctions on Russia remain in place. Any relief of sanctions reinstated if Russia breaches agreement in any way

It should be noted this European proposal is not the plan Ukraine has been proposing the last two and a half years. Ukraine/Zelensky’s position to end the war hasn’t changed since late 2022.

Ukraine’s Terms for Ending the War:

Almost three years to the day this April, following Russia’s initial invasion in February 2022 and territorial gains across Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine representatives met in Istanbul, Turkey and worked out details of terms tentatively to end the conflict. The terms of Istanbul I, as it is called, included Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, Crimea remaining in Russia but the other four provinces of east Ukraine remaining in Ukraine providing assurances were given its almost total Russian population be allowed to practice its Russian Orthodox religion, speak Russian, and continue other cultural practices—all of which were being denied by the Kiev regime at the time in the hands of ultra-nationalist, proto fascist forces intent on denying the same to its eastern Russian population. The shelling of cities in the east by Ukraine forces also had to stop.

Ukraine tentatively agreed to Istanbul I, took the terms back to Zelensky in Kiev, who reportedly was considering signing them—until then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, flew into Kiev and convinced Zelensky that unlimited NATO funds and weaponry would be forthcoming, that Russia would collapse politically and economically if Ukraine resisted militarily and the war with Russia should therefore continue.  Zelensky ultimately agreed. Istanbul was abandoned and, after the initial Ukrainian tactical victories in the summer of 2022, Zelensky and Ukraine adopted the following hard line positions for negotiations that Ukraine formally retains to this day:

  • Russia should immediately exit all Ukraine territories, including Crimea
  • After exit, Ukraine will commence negotiations with Russia
  • Negotiation topics to focus on reparations paid to Ukraine by Russia
  • War crime tribunals of Russia leaders in Europe to follow
  • Ukraine never to cede control of the Zaporozhie nuclear plant to anyone
  • It will never agree to any limits or reductions of its military forces
  • Europe must agree to let Ukraine into NATO or else provide it Article 5 NATO equivalent security guarantees

Russia’s Terms for Ending the War

As Ukraine’s position evolved in the course of the first year of the war, so too did Russia’s.  After its initial offer in Istanbul in April 2022, and its retreat from areas around Kiev and in the south in Kherson Russian demands stiffened as well. That fall 2022, as Ukraine demands total capitulation by Russian forces, Putin established a new Russian position:

At the center of that was that now after referenda were conducted in the four regions of East Ukraine showing over-whelming voting to join Russia, the four provinces were now legally part of Russia and were non-negotiable.

Other Russian demands were Ukraine must not join NATO, must become neutral between Europe and Russia, and its government must be purged of fascist elements to ensure the same.

In early 2024 Putin gave an interview with US journalist, Tucker Carlson. In it he made an interesting remark which has largely been ignored by western media and which may yet be raised as part of any ultimate negotiations.  In it he described the far west Ukraine as not really part of the Slavic homeland of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.  He noted that territory was formerly Poland and Romania and was given by Stalin to Ukraine at the end of World War II. It was an historic hotbed of fascism and the region had strongly supported the Nazis in the world war, often doing their dirty work on the local resistance and the jews.  Putin then suggested if the west wanted this region, he didn’t have any great opposition to it, if they were that foolish to accept its inherent pro fascist elements.

Later in June 2024 Putin established Russia’s most recent position for a negotiated end of the conflict which has remained to this day. These terms include:

  • No NATO membership for Ukraine
  • Political neutrality by Ukraine
  • Ukraine government remove neo-nazi politicians from its government
  • Recognize that Crimea and the four provinces are now legally part of Russia
  • To ensure Ukraine is no threat to Russia, it must reduce its military force to around 80,000

Why European Obstinacy Toward Continuing the War?

Many observers in America and elsewhere in the world have been perplexed about why the European leadership—especially those of the larger countries Britain, France and now Germany—have been so consistently in favor of continuing the war?  They ask questions like: don’t they (European leaders) see that the war cannot be won? That Ukraine is losing? That it may mean an irrevocable split between the USA and Europe and break up of NATO itself? Can Europe actually go it alone, providing the massive funding to Ukraine and weapons it clearly does not have the economic base to produce by itself?

Here’s some possible explanations for the European obstinate support for Zelensky, Ukraine and for continuing the war:

  1. European leaders are politically committed in terms of their personal careers to the war, both at national and Euro-wide institutional (EU Commission, EU Council, etc.) levels. Should the war end on Russian terms, it will be perceived as a personal defeat for them with repercussions for their personal careers
  2. War is often a convenient diversion by politicians from problems at home in their own constituencies. It’s not the first time in history politicians start and continue wars to stay in office
  3. Some European/NATO have a visceral bias against and hate for anything Russian. This is especially true of the Baltics states’ leaders and also to some extent for Poland, Finland, and even for Britain
  4. The War continuance serves to keep NATO from falling apart (while it also has the opposite effect). So long as the war continues, perhaps US and Trump can not leave NATO so quickly or completely
  5. The War is clearly pushing Europe toward building its own defense industry and independent military force. For decades it’s been overly dependent on the US for weapons provision and massive funding of NATO operations in Europe which has meant significant US dollars inflow to Europe.  Europe leaders now talk of spending trillions of Euros on defense, important for boosting an otherwise slowing stagnating real economy for almost two decades now. Without the war—and media manufactured threat of an eventual Russia invasion of Europe should it win in Ukraine—it is impossible for Europe to spend trillions Euros planned for a new defense industry.
  6. One must assume some European leaders—especially those less competent in the umbrella EU Commission, EU Council, etc—actually believe Russia will invade Europe after Ukraine with a Russian army barely a million when it took 15 million Russians to take east Europe and Germany during world war II at the cost of 20 million killed.
  7. Some European generals and no doubt politicians have stated and believe that Russia will lose the war if NATO just stays committed and fights for another year. This is the original argument that dominated NATO thinking back in 2022: that Russia’s economy can sustain a war for long and opposition to Putin will quickly result in his overthrow.  How that view succeeds today after three years of evidence to the contrary is difficult to understand.

Ukraine’s and Zelensky’s obstinacy and existential commitment to continue the war is more understandable and rational, notwithstanding its inevitable failure.

Zelensky must continue to war in order to continue martial law and, in turn, remain in office given that his authority as president expired in May 2024 and he’s no longer actually the president.  Should the war end elections in Ukraine will be held and he will almost certainly be forced out of his current role.

Without the protection of his office he then becomes personally vulnerable from several directions. He’ll be blamed by the radical nationalists for losing Ukraine territory and the death of hundreds of thousands Ukrainians will have been in vain. They’ll come after him. The Russian secret services may do the same indirectly. Or perhaps some everyday Russian, or Ukrainian, citizen who’ll blame him for their family losses. He won’t have the level of personal protection he enjoyed from the Americans, and now the British, will in office.

The War keeps the radical nationalists on his side so long as the fighting continues and he remains obstinate about any negotiations with the prospect of even the slightest compromise.

There’s also the question of a wide spectrum of Ukraine society and political-social forces that have grown dependent on the flow of money from the west. Many politicians and political interests have been sharing in that western funds injection. Per Zelensky himself, Ukraine must spend $8 billion a month just as government workers wages and pensions. Ukraine’s broken economy cannot generate that. Then there are the hordes of shadowy arms traders making money off the flow of funds and weapons. And Ukraine companies and their western investors as well.

Trump’s Next Moves?

There’s been much conjecture in the US media, and talk by Trump administration team assigned to the war, that should the parties not accept the Trump Kellogg Plus plan then the US will simply walk away from the negotiations.  That’s not likely. There’s many ways to continue negotiations. In the case of Russia and US that’s simple as part of the future meetings planned to discuss restoring diplomatic relations and defining economic deals and cooperation.

Some clarity where Trump’s going next may emerge from the WItkoff-Putin meeting now underway.  Trump needs Putin to agree to something to keep the ball rolling and keep at bay US critics who’ll say it’s futile to negotiate with Putin and Russia. On the other hand, Putin cannot embrace too much a plan that clearly is designed to get Russia to de facto freeze the war in place or even slow Russian offensives. 

The war cannot be concluded by negotiations designed to end the fighting; it can only be concluded on the battlefield that leads to negotiations that then conclude the conflict.

The most likely outcome of the war is a military one.  Russia will have to take more territory in order to convince Ukraine and Europe allies that if it doesn’t agree to Russia’s fundamental demands Ukraine may lose even more territory. Russia will need to succeed in major new offensives in the north and south to create that realization and scenario.

The question is whether Russia’s Special Military Operation, SMO, is sufficiently large enough to do so. 800,000 men and voluntary recruits may not prove sufficient. It should not be forgotten that Ukraine was ‘conquered’ in 1944-45 by a force of more than three million in arms. Modern technology perhaps does not require that many but nonetheless requires more than 800,000 given the scope of the front lines and the fact Russia, while it has an advantage of 2 to 1 in combat manpower, that ratio is probably not enough for a complete military victory.

However, one more proviso is relevant. It’s not impossible that Ukraine’s army collapses later this summer, especially if the USA and Trump pull out of weapons deliveries and discontinue surveillance and targeting support for Ukraine forces. But that depends on Trump’s next after next move.

Returning with a token concession from the Witkoff-Putin meeting is not sufficient. To end the war, as Trump says he wants to do, will require a hard break of US involvement militarily, logistically and financially—and soon.  He will have to ‘bite the bullet’ no later than June and cut Ukraine loose. And perhaps ‘stick a stake’ in the political heart of those Europeans who have been playing the USA to provide them their military toys and games for almost eighty years now.

Dr. Jack Rasmus,

April 25, 2025

Read Full Post »

Europe at the ‘Hot Gates’

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , on July 16, 2024| Leave a Comment »

by Dr. Jack Rasmus
copyright 2024

“2500 years ago, the myth goes, 300 Spartans faced a much larger military force from the East at Thermopylae, a small mountain pass in ancient central Greece. Thermopylae is the Latin word for ‘Hot Gates’, as the area featured hot springs. In European history the ‘hot gates’ battle ended with the 300 Spartans annihilated.

The Persians had opened a second front to the rear of the Spartan line which then collapsed, wiping them out to the man. The ‘hot gates’ was thus a defeat, although in later mythology it was spun as a strategic victory that bought time for the Greeks to mobilize to fight another day.

Having bought time at Thermopylae is debatable, however, given that the battle of the ‘hot gates lasted only three days! That’s not much of a delay. The Greeks then took another year to mobilize. Three days didn’t matter that much. So the loss of 300 Spartans at Thermopylae was really a waste of a valuable elite battalion of troops—and Thermopylae was by no means a ‘strategic victory’ that it is spun in western mythology to have been.

Two and a half millennia later Europe is again at the ‘hot gates’! And 300 is once more the magic number!

300 today refers to the $300 billion of Russian financial assets that were seized by NATO countries in 2022 as part of US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia in February that year. According to European Central Bank director, Christine LaGarde, no less than $260 of the $300 billion is held in Europe, most of which is in Belgium near Brussels which is NATO’s home base. Another $5 billion was frozen in the USA. The rest distributed among banks of other G7 countries and friends.

Recently NATO countries began the process of transferring the seized and previously frozen $300 billion Russian assets to Ukraine.

The $300 billion, it is argued, will ‘buy time’ for Ukraine to continue the war in 2025—much like the lives of the 300 Spartans in mythology supposedly bought time to mobilize a larger force.

Ukraine’s $200 Billion Per Year Price Tag

In the roughly two years since the Ukraine War began in February 2022 it’s estimated the USA has provided Ukraine with $200 to $220 billion in military and economic aid. European NATO countries provided at least another $100 billion or more depending on how one estimates the market value of former Soviet Union weapons that were given to Ukraine. Then there’s the IMF’s at least $18 billion to prop up Ukraine’s currency, along with the billions more in private loans and investments from private sources.

This past spring 2024 the US Congress passed a package of another $61 billion for Ukraine and Europe scrapped up another $5 billion. That combined amount is estimated to fund Ukraine’s war through the end of 2024.

Add all the foregoing items up and that’s roughly $200 billion a year cost to NATO countries to have funded the war in Ukraine. About half is in the form of weapons and another half to keep the Ukraine economy afloat since Zelensky himself as estimated Ukraine’s economy and institutions need about $8B/mo. to keep going.

But that still leaves the question how NATO and the West can fund Ukraine’s war costs and keep its economy afloat into 2025 and beyond, since it is clear the US and NATO countries have no intention of agreeing to end the conflict anytime soon. On the contrary, the events of the past year in particular indicate a NATO strategy of continuing incremental escalation by providing Ukraine ever more lethal NATO weaponry, more NATO technical assistance on the ground, and NATO approval of increasingly provocative tactics by Ukraine—like missile strikes deep into Russia, attacks on Russian ballistic missile defense radars, use of cluster bombs on Russian civilian populations, and soon to be announced ‘no fly’ zones along Ukraine’s western border.

As a further indicator of US and NATO plans to continue the war longer term, the major NATO governments also recently signed long term minimum 10 year bilateral defense agreements with Ukraine. That’s designed to lock in whatever governments replace the current pro-war elites currently running the USA, UK, France and Germany.

According to the Wall St. Journal, the US-Ukraine bilateral security agreement would “establish a long term U.S. commitment to military aid” for Ukraine requiring “future U.S. administration to work with Congress to provide funding and military support for Kyiv.” Or as chief neocon in the Biden administration, Jake Sullivan, put it: the US-Ukraine bilateral security agreement was “not just for this month, this year, but for many years”.

In yet another indication of a likely continuing war beyond 2024, both NATO and Russia are now lining up allies in preparation for what looks like a protracted, and possibly wider, conflict. Russia’s answer to NATO signing bilateral defense agreements with Ukraine has been to conclude agreements with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran and various countries in Central Asia, including even Afghanistan, to provide contract troops in exchange for Russian military aid.

In this regard, recent events are eerily similar in that regard to what took place in the summer of 1914 in Europe as both sides lined up allies in anticipation of the coming conflict called World War I.

Short of a Russian complete military victory brought on by the collapse of the Ukrainian forces and a NATO decision not to directly enter the conflict despite it—the latter a very unlikely proposition in the event of an imminent Russian military victory—the Ukraine war will drag on well into 2025.

All of which again raises the question how to pay for it after current funding from NATO runs out after December 2024.

Recently the process how to fund and continue the war was begun—a process that involves the transfer, in whole or part, of Russia’s $300 billion assets in the West that were frozen in 2022.

The $300 Billion for Ukraine

In April the US Congress passed a law that allows President Biden to seize the $5 billion of Russian assets in US banks, or in real property form, convert it to dollars and put it in a Ukraine Defense Fund also created by the law. Biden then pressed the European NATO countries to do the same with their $260 billion share.

The Biden proposal was for the US to raise $50 billion immediately (from various US investors) for Ukraine. Private bonds would be issued per the Biden plan, bought by (US?)investors, and the $50 billion put in the Ukraine defense fund created by Congress and distributed to Ukraine. The World Bank would act as distributor of the funds. Ukraine would pay the interest on the bonds every year. The catch per the Biden plan was if Ukraine defaulted in the payments, then the Europeans would be liable to reimburse the investors. What a deal! American investors would make the money and Europeans potentially get stuck with the bill. Even they choked on it. So the Europeans came up with their own plan.

While details reportedly are still to be worked out in coming weeks, the Europeans’ plan would raise $54 billion in funds “from existing EU programs for Ukraine”. It’s not clear if that’s from private investors if the EU would issue new bonds specifically for Ukraine aid and EU governments and banks then buy them. If so, the EU issuing its own bond represents a further trend toward creating a fiscal union alongside the Euro currency/European Central Bank monetary union. The EU plan also reportedly required the US to assume a share of the risk and pay lenders if Ukraine defaulted and didn’t make payments. Lenders in the meantime would be paid interest on the $260 billion annually. That was estimated around $4 billion a year. The Europeans also wanted language that assured European military contractors got their share of Ukraine spending of the funding, not just the US.

Both the Biden and EU plans remain highly opaque in terms of details. Europeans admitted the details will take weeks to resolve. But there remain interesting gaps in the deal, presumably to be worked out before year end. Questions like:

• Is the $54 billion raised from private investors as well as governments?• Will Ukraine get all the $54 billion up front or in tranches; if latter, how many tranches for how many years?
• Will Governments (EU and/or US) assume liability to lenders if payments aren’t made
• Are there subsequent $54 billion disbursements to follow? Some US media have suggested the deal includes further $54 billion distributions to Ukraine’s economy over three years. Is the $54 billion to prop up Ukraine’s economy, paying government salaries, purchases and pensions through 2027? Or does it include for weapons as well? If latter are separate, how much will that cost?
• What’s the lenders’ guaranteed annual interest rate of return on the bond and loan if private funding—not just government—is part of the European deal?
• If the interest profits on the $260 billion seized assets is only $4B/yr, who pays lenders the difference? Current interest on the $260B in EU banks was virtually risk free. But repayment of the interest on the loan by Ukraine carries a major element of risk. Won’t the lenders demand a much higher interest rate than before? Private lenders involved certainly won’t buy the Bond at normal market interest rates.
• When the bond matures in ten years, how will Ukraine return the principal if it only covers interest payments each year. Where will Ukraine get the cash to pay off principal, whether annually or at maturity? Especially if it loses the war.

Bottom line, it appears somehow Ukraine will get at least $54 billion. To spend on what is unclear. Unclear also is whether the government will issue the bond that private investors will buy or will it be a private bond back by government if not paid. However, the $54 billion is structured, Ukraine will still have to pay back the principal ($300B presumably). Where’s it to get the money? It’s economy is a basket case and in a debt death spiral. Which means in the end the $260 billion in Europe will likely also have to be seized to pay the bondholders-investors at maturity of the bond.

Biden and the Americans wanted to just seize the full amount and give it to Ukraine (as Biden did with the US share of $5 billion Russian assets in US banks). Europeans balked at that and propose a financial sleight of hand solution: create the fiction the interest on the $260 billion will cover annual interest payments to the lenders and somehow Ukraine can pay back the $260 billion principal in the end.

So why are the Europeans so reluctant to jump in with both feet and do what the Biden administration has done and wants them to do as well—i.e. grab the $260 billion outright instead of using the $260 billion as collateral with which to raise a Euro bond to provide Ukraine with funding? The explanation is the Europeans are worried about the legality of just distributing the seized funds. (As if skimming the interest and profits were somehow not illegal but seizing and distributing the principal $260 billion was!)

Blowback from diverting the $300 Billion

What the Europeans are really worried about is if they steal the assets too quickly Russia will no doubt respond in kind. There are still a lot of EU bank assets—cash, securities and real property—in Russia. What’s to stop Russia from seizing that in turn? America has little at risk in Russia in that sense. Europe has a great deal.

Russia reportedly is already freezing and seizing assets of Deutschebank and Commerzbank for sanctions related reasons. There are many Europeans companies still operating in Russia. What’s to stop Russia from taking over their assets—financial and real property?

Then there’s the potential impact on the European currency, the Euro, and deposits in EU banks by many countries of the global South. Outright seizing of assets raises the question whose assets in EU banks are next to be seized? Other countries will take their currency and other liquid assets out of EU banks. That outflow will depress the value of the Euro. The European Central Bank will then have to raise interest rates in Europe to keep the Euro from falling in value. That will slow and already sluggish and stagnant European economy. The consequences of just grabbing and distributing sovereign assets of a country thus carries significant risk of economic contagion, in other words. The Europeans know this. Hence their current plan to work around the outright seizure and distribution of the $260 billion principal, skim the profits from it, and use it all as collateral to fund a loan—i.e. their $54 billion government bond plan.

US neocons are too dumb to foresee (or perhaps even care) of such an impact on the US dollar from their outright seizure of Russian assets. As the arrogant global economic hegemon, the US and Biden administration think they are largely immune to such potential economic blowback from seizing assets of another country. They of course are wrong. The Europeans are perhaps more aware of the consequences. American neoliberal elites just don’t seem to care. By the time they do it will be too late. The coming BRICS expansion and alternative global financial structure will have done mortal harm to the USA global dollar and hegemony. There is even talk now of the now expanding BRICS creating an alternative political structure, a kind of BRICS global parliament. Institutional ‘dual power’ is always a sign of revolution and it’s becoming increasingly clear almost the entire global South is now in a state of revolt from the American/G7 empire!

Thermopylae 2.0: Will the $300 Billion ‘Buy Time’

Public opinion within the US and the European members of the G7 is shifting. The recent elections for the European Parliament, followed by the stunning defeat of Macron’s party in France in that country’s National Assembly elections, and the subsequent Conservative party’s debacle in Britain soon after, are all harbingers of shifting political winds in Europe. Germany’s weak SPD-Greens coalition government is also apparently in trouble as the right wing AfD party continues to gain seats in the legislature and support in public opinion.

Then there’s the dramatic events in the USA in the wake of Biden’s disastrous presidential debate as well as the surge in public voter support for Trump following the recent failed assassination attempt. In USA national elections popular voter support is irrelevant. One person one vote democracy in America simply does not exist. What matters is the electoral college vote cast by state electors. At least 40 of the 50 states’ electors are already virtually predetermined, locked in for either Biden or Trump. The strategic exception is the seven (maybe ten now) swing states up for grabs by either party. And Trump leads in all; in some cases by double digit numbers.

The recent outcome of elections in Europe and pending in the USA are by no means a guarantee that the NATO funding schemes for seizing the Russia’s $300 billion assets will collapse. the momentum politically is clearly shifting. Zelensky clearly thinks the NATO financing of the war is secured for at least another year as result of both the US and EU latest arrangements to tap the $300 billion. He’s recently bragged publicly that he now has $90 billion ‘in the bag’ which includes the EU’s $54 billion.

But the political momentum on the war is clearly shifting. Public support in the West for NATO elites’ war financing policies is beginning to look like liquefaction of the soil that occurs in earthquakes. What was once solid ground may quickly turn to liquid mud. No building however tall or solid can resist when the earth itself moves! The recent election developments in Europe and USA may be the initial seismic shock in the collapse in public and political support in the West for a continuation of the war.
Wars on the scale of Ukraine today are determined by which side can out produce the other in weapons and material; which population is larger; which has the greater number and better trained troops; whose economy is strongest; and whose populace are united behind the effort and most committed to the outcome. And Ukraine is in a disadvantage in all the above categories.

Like the 300 Spartans before them at Thermopylae, the West’s distribution to Ukraine of Russia’s $300 billion of assets will not be able to prevent eventual defeat. The Ukraine war will almost certainly be resolved within the next twelve months—on the ground not with bank accounts.

Like the Spartans at Thermopylae in 480 BCE, Time may run out for Ukraine before Europe can even buy some of it with its share of the $300B.

Moreover, the price paid by Europe for its $54 billion war loan to Ukraine may result in a net loss to Europe from the investment. Europe may open itself to all the negative consequences of such a bad investment. As Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), leader of Saudi Arabia, has recently publicly warned: should Europe go ahead and distribute its share of the $300B to Ukraine, Saudi Arabia will withdraw its assets and Euros from European banks. MBS especially warned withdrawal from French banks.

With ‘Project Ukraine’, Europe stands at the ‘Hot Gates’ again. By committing another ‘300’ again, it may realize very little gain militarily at the cost of an historic loss economically.

Dr. Jack Rasmus
July 15, 2024

Read Full Post »