The peace process breached the surface and punditry got their panties in a collective twist. I did not go down that path. Maybe this diplomacy works and maybe it doesn't. But let things play out a bit before you act on the first reports about contact with the enemy--whether you are speaking about the wartime foe or a politician you despise.
The war--amidst a burst of diplomacy--continues. Russia still hasn't cut off or pinched out the Pokrovsk salient. Nor has Ukraine pulled out of its exposed positions during their local counter-attacks. Elsewhere, Russia advances where they can without any apparent operational objective other than keeping Ukraine on the strategic defensive. It's a deadly pageant:
Putin’s theory of victory is predicated on the assumption that Russia’s military and economy can outlast the West’s will to support Ukraine to continue grinding advances on the frontline. Putin and senior Russian defense officials have made several high-level public engagements in recent weeks to make exaggerated battlefield claims, creating the false impression that Russian forces are making greater gains than they actually are.
In some ways it reminds me of Germany's 1918 offensives on the Western Front that took ground without any apparent operational goal for what they were trying to achieve on the battlefield.
On the diplomacy report, people are shockingly noting that an initial draft that relied on the aggressor's perspective is not, in fact, the final take-it-or-leave-it deal. From the "Well, Duh" files:
US and Ukrainian officials indicated that the initially reported US-proposed 28-point peace plan is not final and is currently undergoing changes. US President Donald Trump stated on November 22 that the 28-point peace plan is not his final offer to Ukraine. US Special Envoy to Ukraine General Keith Kellogg stated to Fox on November 23 that the peace plan is a “work in progress” and that there are issues that the parties must codify and explain further. [emphasis in original]
There were elements of the so-called plan and the purported efforts surrounding the diplomacy that disturbed me. But by nature I don't jump to conclusions; I have a decade of experience with media people immediately assuming the worst and going to DEFCON 1 over the man who is president; and I don't try to jump on trending topics for clicks because I recognize first reports are usually wrong. Also, I like to post ahead so that I can have a semblance of a life rather than be chained to my computer 365/year to jump on any news.
As I wrote a week ago, observing an earlier comment:
UPDATE (Monday): All the panic about America siding with Russia was premature:
A joint statement [by Ukraine and America] said talks on a US-backed plan in Geneva, which are now understood to have concluded, were "highly productive".
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there had been a "tremendous amount of progress" on honing the plan, but there was "still some work to be done" before a final agreement could be put to Russia.
As I observed in the recent Weekend Data Dump:
I remain unclear on what the proposed peace deal in the Winter War of 2022 means. There is a lot of panic. And I do have concerns. I support Ukraine. But there has long been reflexive panic not validated by reality. And even concern based on Trump's Taliban deal must consider changes under Biden.Breathe, people.
I'm not perfect, but I do try to separate my political biases from what I see. By nature and professionally I've had a lot of practice. It helps that I am not a slave to clicks. I like them. Before Twitter I actually experienced more of them. And with Substack, volume is up. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice. But online writing is useful for me regardless of reach.
But I digress.
Europeans seem especially angry. But as I commented on last week's war post, I imagine the Europeans will react to an actual ceasefire--which would require a massive change in Russia's stated objective and view of Ukraine's independence--with both relief and anger that America "held them back" from inflicting an obvious defeat of Russia.
As an aside, I must comment on a Ukrainian YouTuber who I have long followed. He does offer useful information. But like many Europeans I fear he is overly influenced by anti-Trump people in the West. Which is fine. I can understand opposing Trump--I long did--even if I generally don't now, especially given the alternatives.
My point is that his repeated, pointless, and counter-productive slurs against Trump fail to absorb Ukraine's need for American help--which does in fact continue. I want Ukraine to defeat Russia. How is alienating the American president helpful to Ukraine? Not to get into tinfoil hat territory, but if that YouTuber isn't a more subtle Russian influence operation, how would he speak differently?
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing.
