Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

With a Ceasefire Imminent, Thousands of Ukrainians Have Died in Vain

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | March 18, 2025

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with a small force of around 142,000 troops. Not enough to conquer Ukraine, the invading force was sufficient to persuade Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that was the original goal of the military operation: “[T]he troops were there to push the Ukrainian side to negotiations.”

And it nearly worked. Within weeks, in Istanbul, a negotiated peace was within reach. It was only after the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, and their NATO allies pushed Ukraine off the path of diplomacy and onto the continued path of war that Putin mobilized more troops and more resources.

As Alexander Hill explains in the newly published book, The Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies, in the initial phase of the war Russia struggled without the advantage of overwhelming numerical superiority and without committing their latest, most advanced equipment. With the United States and its NATO partners providing the Ukrainian armed forces not only with their most advanced weapons systems, but with the intelligence to effectively use them, Ukraine actually had “an overall technological edge during the initial phases of the war.” But the Russian armed forces proved to be very adaptable. They adopted new tactics and a much more methodical approach to the war, introduced advanced weapons systems, and demonstrated a capability to adapt to and destroy the most advanced Western weapons and equipment.

By the time the Ukrainian counteroffensive had failed to meet any of its goals, the tide had turned, and Russia was irreversibly winning the war.

At the beginning of the war in Istanbul, before the inconceivable loss of life, a negotiated end to the war could have been signed. Three years later, after the loss of more land and hundreds of thousands more lives and limbs, a similar negotiated peace will be signed, only adjusted to the current realities on the ground. Ukraine could have had a similar deal but maintained all their territory but Crimea. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died or been injured in vain in pursuit of America’s fantasy of a NATO without limits and a weakened Russia.

Russia went to the negotiating table in Istanbul in a weaker position than it goes to the table today. It has survived the war of sanctions and isolation and won the war against Ukrainian soldiers and NATO weapons on the battlefield. Russia will be willing to enter a ceasefire, but only if they can accomplish without fighting everything they can accomplish with fighting.

Tragically, three years later, the ceasefire talks will pick up where the Istanbul talks left off. Everything in between was in vain. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has said that “[t]here were very, very what I’ll call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that’s called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. We came very, very close to signing something.” He then added that “I think we’ll be using that framework as a guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia.”

And if you don’t believe that the remaining differences could have been bridged and a peace signed in Istanbul, then get ready for a very long war. Because those are the very same points that will need to be negotiated if the current ceasefire proposal is to succeed.

After all the loss of land and loss of life, Ukraine will still surrender territory and NATO membership. They will not receive a security guarantee that involves a U.S. military commitment. Kursk has collapsed in a costly strategic failure and the Ukrainian armed forces are barely hanging on across the full length of the 1,000-mile front in eastern Ukraine. Russia is not going to stop the war without receiving a signed agreement from the U.S. and NATO that there will be no Ukraine in NATO nor NATO in Ukraine. And they are not going to stop the war without Crimea and at least some of the four oblasts they have annexed and a guarantee in the Ukrainian constitution of the protection of the rights of ethnic Russians in the territory that remains in Ukraine.

Putin has made clear that the idea of a ceasefire and a negotiated peace is “the right one” and that Russia “support[s] it” but that “there are questions we need to discuss” and that any ceasefire negotiations would need to address the “original causes” of the war.

It seems clear that, before the United States pressured Ukraine into expressing a “readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire,” they had already laid the groundwork by discussing with Russia, who can go on fighting to achieve their nonnegotiable goals, what those nonnegotiable goals are.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed, for example, that the Saudi Arabia talks with Ukraine included discussions about “territorial concessions.” On Sunday, U.S. President Trump said that when he next talks to Putin, “we will be talking about land, we will be talking about power plants.” He said “they were already discussing ‘dividing up certain assets’.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already said that any thoughts of recovering Ukraine’s lost territory is “an unrealistic objective” and an “illusionary goal.”

And, most importantly, Hegseth has also stipulated that Trump “does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO as part of a realistic peace plan.” And Trump has shared that verdict with his NATO allies. On March 14, when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was asked if Trump had taken NATO membership for Ukraine off the table in negotiations, he simply replied, “Yes.”

From the time Ukraine was nudged away from the negotiating table in Istanbul to the time it will return to the negotiating table, all the loss of life and land was in vain. It is preestablished that Ukraine will not recover all of its territory, and it is preestablished that they will not become a member of NATO. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died for nothing but the pursuit of American hubris. And that should make Americans very angry.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Merkel criticizes Germany’s anti-Russian hostility

By Lucas Leiroz | March 18, 2025

Apparently, the anti-Russian hostility of German officials is causing controversy among the country’s politicians themselves. In a recent speech, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the use of pejorative terms to refer to people who advocate a diplomatic approach with Moscow, stating that such attitudes harm political dialogue in Europe.

Recently, the term “Putinversteher” (Putin’s understander) has become popular among German officials and media. The “adjective” is used to defame any German or European who believes in the possibility of diplomatic talks with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In other words, the German official media has deliberately adopted a rude and offensive term and is using it against German citizens themselves, justifying such attitude with anti-Russian arguments.

Merkel told journalists in a recent interview with Berliner Zeitung that using this word is wrong because it obstructs diplomatic initiatives. Merkel says that it is necessary to engage in talks to understand the real reasons for the conflict and possibly find a solution through a mutually beneficial agreement. For this reason, excluding people who support diplomacy from the public debate is a wrong move.

Merkel emphasized that “Putinversteher” is a “strange” word and that it should be avoided in order to ensure dialogue in Europe. More than that, she made it clear that it is necessary for the Europeans to understand Putin and “put themselves in his position”, thus showing a willingness for real diplomatic dialogue. According to Merkel, understanding the Russian side in the conflict does not mean supporting Moscow, and there is therefore no problem in doing so.

It is important to emphasize that Merkel at no time expressed any sympathy for Putin or Russia. She continues to adopt a completely pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western rhetoric, condemning what she calls Russia’s “unjustified invasion.” However, Merkel supports discussions that take into account the strategic interests of the Russian Federation – certainly because she understands that this is the only possible way to end the war.

“[This term is] Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment (…) I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate (…) No one has ever called me that – it’s a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him (…) There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia’s interests must be allowed,” she said.

In fact, Merkel governed Germany for many years and at that time her relations with Russia were marked by a certain ambiguity. While she was always committed to the Western hegemonic order on all major ideological and strategic issues, Merkel also had a reasonably pragmatic approach to Russia on some points. Having been educated in East Germany and having a good knowledge of the Russian language, she knew the Russian culture and history more deeply than her European allies and used this expertise to engage in fruitful dialogues – which was particularly possible with Putin, since the Russian president is also a deep connoisseur of German culture and language.

Despite being against Russia on several international issues, Merkel did not give up on the strategic partnership in energy and other relevant issues, which allowed for a period of reasonable stability in bilateral relations. After the end of the Merkel era, relations between Germany and Russia went into absolute decline as the political elites that came to power in Berlin were much more hostile to Moscow – as well as much more ignorant of Russian culture and interests.

So, it is understandable that there is a clash of opinions in Germany about how to deal with Russia. Merkel is herself hostile to Moscow, but she has a softer, more cultured and pragmatic approach. However, the current coalition is completely irrational and advocates for policies that, if implemented without restrictions, could easily lead Europe to an all-out war scenario in the near future.

It is possible to say that the extreme level of anti-Russian hostility in Germany is terrifying even the most experienced German politicians. Berlin has adopted actual madness as state policy and is ready to destroy the entire European security architecture just to defend interests that do not reflect the opinion of the German people.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »