No Russian
After Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, people offered many different perspectives on how the current regime would respond. I predicted that the lame-duck Baidan administration would spend the remainder of its time sandbagging the incoming Trump administration as much as possible, rather than outright resisting him. Subsequent events have aligned with this expectation.
First, the New York Times published an opinion piece that read:
Dozens of people, and often hundreds, are dying every day in this grinding war. Mr. Trump should seize the chance to save lives. Nobody is coming to save Ukraine. A settlement will eventually be needed.1
My take on what seems to be a vexing about-face is that, rather than directly opposing Mr. Trump’s peace policy, the media is outflanking him by being even more pro-peace than Trump is, while the government does everything in its power to prevent that peace from happening. This way, the newspapers can take the moral high ground of being pro-peace while at the same time labeling Trump as a failure. Baidan authorized the use of American-made long-range missiles to be fired at the internationally recognized territory of the Russian Federation (followed quickly by British authorization for their missiles). The Russian President responded to this provocation by test-firing a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, at targets in Dnipro.
A few days ago, protests began in Georgia after the Georgian Dream party delayed EU membership for four years. The party won re-election on October 26th, and then
the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the 26 October parliamentary elections in Georgia […] for being neither free nor fair, representing yet another manifestation of the continued democratic backsliding of the country “for which the ruling Georgian Dream party is fully responsible.”2
On Thursday of last week, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that Georgia would not seek accession talks with the European Union until 2028. The protests assert that the suspension of EU talks is illegal because the goal of joining the EU is written in Georgia’s constitution. These protests are an attempt to repeat the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine.
This is happening because the Georgian Dream party is slandered as an “authoritarian” and “pro-Russian” party. Basically, this is about determining whether Georgia joins the EU and/or NATO, or remains within the Russian sphere of influence.
Virtually at the same time that these protests started, the Syrian Civil War reactivated, inflicting Russian casualties. The Syrian Civil War is very complex, but ultimately it is another proxy war between American and Russia, with Turkey in the mix as well. The city of Aleppo has already been captured by the “rebels” against Assad, and the Turk-backed Syrian National Army is officially committed to the renewed conflict.
All three of these are orchestrated to sandbag the Trump administration with confounding wars all tied to conflict between the United States and Russia. The provocations in Ukraine and Georgia make any peace talks with the West more intractable, and the war in Syria threatens to overextend the Russian military and cripple a key Russian ally on its southern periphery, if the war gets out of control.
The only thing left to activate is Transnistria — which could easily be done, with or without direct Ukrainian intervention. Romania is undergoing the ordeal of elections at the moment, with a runoff scheduled for December 8th that will determine how Western-aligned the NATO member remains. Calin Georgescu is being slandered in the media as a “far-right populist,” a “supporter” of Donald Trump who has “praised” Vladimir Putin. “Russian election interference” is the narrative being deployed there. The orientation of Romania towards Moldova and Transnistria will determine the ultimate fate of the sliver of territory that is Transnistria.
The stage is being set to light every tinder pile all at once underneath the Trump administration, and lock the Russians into conflict with America simply because too many conflicts have been activated that directly undermine Trump’s proposals. With the reignition of Syria, it is resoundingly demonstrated that frozen conflicts never stay frozen. Any “freezing of the frontlines” in Ukraine as a basis for conducting negotiations could not be rationally accepted by the Russian Federation, nor can a temporary withholding of NATO membership for Ukraine, as this is the entire raison d'etre for the war in the first place.
The proposed appointee to the new position of “special envoy” for the war in Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg, apparently views these proposals as the basis for negotiations. The leverage to be deployed against Russia would be increased U.S. support for Ukraine; it’s quite possible that the U.S. becomes even more entangled in the war if this is the path the Trump administration follows. If the administration continues to insist, as the previous one did, that the borders of Ukraine are permanent, then there is no reason to hope for any early end to the war.
Megan K. Stack, “Trump Can Speed Up the Inevitable in Ukraine,” New York Times, November 17, 2024.
European Parliament Press Room, “Parliament calls for new elections in Georgia,” November 28, 2024.
If you are outside the mainstream slop cycle the perposterous contrivance of American-Russian enmity immediately becomes clear. No Russia ever pitted blacks against white to break northern white communities. The Russians didn't get us entangled in two wars in Iraq and conflict with the rest of the region.
It is an outrage. It mad that the Ukrainians go along with this but their leader is clearly fully onboard with globalist zionist hegomony. He is fully willing to let Ukraine be destroyed for the cause.
This does have the potential to backfire spectacularly though for the warmongers in the Regime.
In one sense, having more areas of conflict does mean more potential for a general conflict to spark. However, I'm also reminded of the 1904 Entente Cordiale, where a peace settlement between the French and English was only possible because the countries had such overlapping spheres of influences. This meant that the British and French more ability to bargain with each other and make concessions in one area while gaining benefits in an other. This compared to potential Anglo-Germans alliance, which never got of the ground because the Germans and British had so few common interests.
Thus, the reignitions of conflicts could be pretext to war, but also give Trump and Putin more shared interests to bargain over geopolitically. The broader scope of the negotiations could allow for a more clear delineation of spheres of influence. Of course, this likely means many regional actors would get screwed over, but this is the nature of geopolitical unfortunately.