❈ ❈ ❈

Ukraine: The End Game?

Robert Dale

Western politics since the 1990s has revolved around ‘spin’ and ‘the narrative’. In Ukraine, we are seeing what happens when wishful thinking meets material reality. Spoiler: reality holds the trump cards.

We won’t know for a while where the talks in Alaska and Washington will actually lead. And there is little point in speculating. It is fairly clear, though, that this marks the point where the leaders of the Nato states (and Ukraine) start to acknowledge that they need a way out. They may not be openly admitting that their war is lost, but actions speak louder than words. Ukraine’s rulers and their Western backers are staring military defeat in the face.

The battlefield

The Russian armed forces have been slowly but methodically grinding their way through the last of Ukraine’s defensive lines in western Donetsk. Built since 2014, these consist of massive concrete bunkers and other fortifications. The fall of Pokrovsk is only a matter of time; the evacuation of civilians from Kramatorsk has been ordered. Russian drones and missiles are systematically destroying military bases, arms factories, and the supporting industries and infrastructure. This is a war of attrition, not movement.

The Ukrainian armed forces are suffering very high desertion rates and horrendous casualties. Every day, Ukrainian men are bundled off the streets by army goons, dragged into minibuses and taken to the front to die. Even our lying, warmongering press now admits that some Ukrainians cheer when Russian drones strike conscription centres.

Ukraine is under martial law, with all opposition parties banned and elections suspended. So it is hard to gauge the true temperature of society. However, there are signs to be read. Recent polling shows enthusiasm for the war declining. Readiness to concede territory is growing.

July saw the first significant anti-government demonstrations since the war began. Thousands gathered in Kiev, Lviv, Dnipro and Odessa on 22 and 23 July to protest against legislation constraining the anti-corruption agencies. Broader dissatisfaction was in the air. Chants included ‘Zelensky is the devil’ and ‘Yermak f*** off’ (Andriy Yermak being Volodymyr Zelensky’s right-hand man).

The anti-corruption agencies were created at the insistence of Zelensky’s Western backers, who were not amused by his move to rein them in. Kiev mayor Vitali Klitschko joined the demonstration there. The attempt to restrain the agencies came after investigations targeting Zelensky’s own circles, which may well have been intended to pave the way for his removal. While he has now done a U-turn on the legislation, it appears that the agencies’ wings have been clipped. The parliamentary debate on 31 July was accompanied by further demonstrations.

In early August in Vinnitsa, hundreds of protestors attempted to free about one hundred conscripted men being held in a stadium. Smaller incidents of the same kind are commonplace. Telegram channels show endless footage of groups, often women, freeing conscripts from the press gangs.

Negotiating positions

The Russian stance is fairly clear. They want an end to Nato’s eastward advance, as laid out in the draft treaty proposed by the Kremlin in autumn 2021. The very minimum appears to be recognition of Crimea and the four oblasts (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizie, Kherson) as Russian and a binding commitment never to join Nato. Ultimately, the Russian government is seeking to neutralise what it perceives as a threat from Nato. This is likely to occur, whether through a negotiated security architecture for Europe or a defeat in Ukraine that leaves the alliance in tatters.

The Ukrainian side insists on the complete restoration of the pre-2014 borders and the right to join Nato. That is not going to happen. The Russian government sees Nato’s expansion as an existential threat. It will ensure that the threat is neutralised, in Ukraine at the very least, and has the means to do so.

Ukraine proposes a ceasefire, which would allow its battered forces to regroup and reequip. Russia insists on a full peace agreement. After the West used the Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015 to win time to rearm Ukraine, as Angela Merkel and François Hollande have both admitted, the Russians are going to want guarantees, not promises.

The West has gone all in on Ukraine. There were many opportunities to cut their losses, to take the off-ramp, such as the treaty proposal of autumn 2021, which Washington essentially ignored. Then there were the Istanbul peace talks in April 2022, where a deal was reached before UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pulled the plug, as confirmed by participants including former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and David Arakhamia, who led Ukraine’s delegation in the talks.

And the West has lost, hands down (barring some absolutely unforeseen turn of events). On 2 July, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the EU’s chief diplomat Kaja Kallas that China cannot afford to see Russia lose its war with Ukraine (viz. Nato). That puts the kybosh on any delusions that Nato could ‘prevail’ without starting World War Three (Don’t forget, our mis-leaders are itching for war on China too).

Behind the scenes, our rulers know that the chips are down and the game is up. However, they dress it up; they are negotiating a capitulation. The alternative is a crushing military defeat. However, admitting this would cause an enormous political crisis. This is especially true for the European leaders who have nailed their colours to this shipwreck. So they drag their heels.

None of this, incidentally, is unconnected to Gaza. It is the same imperial machine driving the dreadful events there. Ultimately, the United States and the European powers own both the Gaza genocide and the Ukraine debacle. As realisation of the utter barbarity in Gaza seeps into the broader public sphere, it will only intensify the political crisis of the Ukraine misadventure.

Whatever you thought about the rights and wrongs of the Ukraine war at the beginning, the only purpose in continuing it now is senseless death and destruction. It is well past time to stop the flow of cash, stop the flow of arms and end the bloodshed.

[Robert Dale lives in the Berlin region, where he has been active in socialist politics since the 1980s. Courtesy: Counterfire, a British socialist organisation that also runs a website.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Why Putin Made Zelensky an Offer, Knowing it Would be Rejected

Boston Roundface

The following conversation took place on August 21st between China’s political commentator, ‘Boston Roundface’, and Russia’s foreign policy expert, Sergei Poletaev, following the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska.

● ● ●

Boston Roundface: Mr. Poletaev, hello. First, I’d like to ask you about the meeting between President Putin and President Trump in Anchorage. I saw on RT that you published a very important article in which you suggested that this meeting actually advanced many achievements for Russia and the U.S., while Ukraine and Europe suffered significant setbacks. Yet many commentators argue that the meeting produced no concrete results. Could you explain in more detail what we should focus on in the Anchorage talks?

Sergei Poletaev: Hello, and thank you for the invitation. It’s a great honor for me. To answer directly: the pomp and ceremony we saw may be a first in history—correct me if I’m wrong. A leader welcoming another leader in such a dramatic fashion, broadcast live to hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of viewers, requires immense preparation. I think this moment should be recorded in history textbooks as one of the symbols of the end of the Western unipolar world. The old order, where the West and Washington decided right and wrong, who is legitimate and who is a criminal, is collapsing. Six months ago, the West called Putin a criminal, and now this meeting has taken place. Europe and the U.S. are realizing they are no longer the masters of the world. In my view, they have become a global minority, merely one pole in a multipolar world, internally full of contradictions. That is the historical significance of this meeting.

Boston Roundface: Just three days after the Anchorage meeting, Zelensky, surrounded by European leaders, went to the White House to meet with U.S. President Trump. I imagine Russia was closely following this. We also understand that during the meeting, Trump called Putin. Furthermore, the AP reported that an open microphone picked up a whisper between Trump and French President Macron, thought to be related to a potential deal with Putin. Do you have any particular analysis of this whisper between Trump and Macron?

Sergei Poletaev: Europe has become a secondary power, as we discussed earlier. In Russia, we often call them “globalists.” They are unwilling to solve conflicts substantively and only dream of defeating Russia and forcing it to yield. Trump, from my observation and the interpretation of our leadership, is seeking compromise—not because he is pro-Russia, but because he realizes the old model no longer works. They cannot defeat Russia; although they still harbor illusions, they know the reality and merely refuse to accept it while continuing to fight. What else can they do?

Boston Roundface: There is a major divergence regarding Germany’s position. German leaders have said Ukraine should have a ceasefire first, while Trump suggested achieving peace directly, citing that in previous conflicts, peace was reached straight from war, not via ceasefire. How do you view Germany’s proposal of a ceasefire first? And why, in your opinion, does the U.S. reject this? What is Russia’s basic stance?

Sergei Poletaev: The key for Russia is to eliminate the root cause of the conflict. This cause can be discussed now or later. The root is the West’s effort to turn Ukraine into a force hostile to Russia, a tool against Russia. Eliminating this problem is the goal of the special military operation. The conflict didn’t start in 2022—it started in 2013, or fundamentally, since the post-Soviet era from the 1990s. Peaceful means have failed for 32 years, so now it can only be stopped militarily. Second, Ukraine is retreating on the battlefield. A ceasefire now would interrupt this process, delaying a real solution indefinitely, and the West would rearm Ukraine—leading to an even bloodier war. Our leadership and we have no intention of allowing that. They are not negotiating for peace; if they were, it would have been done long ago. The West uses a ceasefire to catch their breath. Imagine two people fighting: one is on top, almost winning. The one on the ground shouts stop. Once separated, he would recover and attack again. His will hasn’t gone, and our task is to make it disappear permanently. Only then can true peace exist.

Boston Roundface: I’d like to go deeper on this point. Before our conversation, I read your RT interview and statements from Russian officials, including Russia’s Ambassador to the UN Nebenzya and Foreign Minister Lavrov, emphasizing that de-Nazification in Ukraine is crucial. You previously mentioned: first, Ukraine should not join NATO; second, no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. These are clear conditions. But how, in practical terms, does Russia define de-Nazification, and how do you assess whether anti-Russian forces remain, possibly justifying a second or third military operation?

Sergei Poletaev: In Ukraine, Russian is now banned, even though it is the native language for most Ukrainians. This is like banning Chinese in China. First, this must be resolved. Official statistics are misleading—I have friends and relatives there. Nearly everyone speaks Russian in daily life, especially in major cities. Second, the Russian Orthodox Church is almost entirely banned, violating UN conventions on religious freedom. Russia demands this ban be lifted. Third, all political party activities must be restored; currently, only pro-Western anti-Russian activities are allowed. These three points are core demands. Eliminating Nazi armed groups in Donbas is secondary. These three points are clear and globally recognizable. Understanding Ukraine and Russia, historically united for three centuries, is essential. Every Russian family has relatives in Ukraine and vice versa.

Boston Roundface: Typically, wars end at a stalemate or negotiated ceasefire. But in Donbas, Russia hasn’t yet occupied key positions, and Ukraine has heavily fortified them. Zelensky faces constraints: Ukrainian law requires a referendum for territorial concessions, he is unwilling to reach such an agreement, and Ukrainian troops may not follow any deal. So, do these fortified zones represent necessary conditions for a peace agreement?

Sergei Poletaev: Personally, this is my view—not official policy. Russia is not fighting for territory but to ensure Ukraine no longer opposes Russia. Zelensky is caught in a dilemma: retain power and keep Ukraine as a Western anti-Russian bridge, or comply with de-Nazification and demilitarization, losing authority. If he could trade Donbas, Slovyansk, and Kramatorsk for Putin abandoning demilitarization and allowing NATO troops, he would do it—and interpret it as a huge “victory” for Ukraine. But Putin, in turn, set a trap for him. As you said, at this moment, Zelensky can neither hand over these territories willingly nor retreat without a fight, because the front lines are still holding to some extent; any withdrawal would be a domestic political disaster for him. Putin’s conditions anticipate Zelensky’s refusal. Frankly, a ceasefire is disadvantageous to Russia, as we are winning. Today’s gains lead to greater tomorrow. Opinions claiming Russian forces can’t take Slovyansk and Kramatorsk in months are mistaken. Western experts and others see the Ukrainian army near collapse—a sudden total collapse is possible in days. Once this happens, Moscow can impose conditions on Ukraine and the West. Hence, these cities are secondary; the priority is to exhaust the Ukrainian army, making it powerless to resist our demands. Regarding referendums, I agree with Trump: Zelensky has repeatedly violated the constitution, and future presidents would sign easily.

Boston Roundface: Before our talk, I saw Lavrov’s remarks suggesting Russia is willing to “upgrade” peace talks with Ukraine. Previously, TASS suggested uncertainty, but Lavrov indicated willingness. Meanwhile, Putin described Zelensky as a pure Nazi, lacking equal standing. How does Russia view Lavrov’s statement about upgrading peace talks? Who might attend these talks?

Sergei Poletaev: Putin said he can talk to anyone, but Ukraine’s legal authorities must ultimately sign. Putin, trained in law, is precise with words and never refuses negotiation. He has met Zelensky before. Honestly, I’m unsure if talks will happen soon. Even if they do, they won’t yield a diplomatic breakthrough: Ukraine is unprepared to accept Russian conditions, and Russia will not concede. In Anchorage, Putin secured Trump’s neutrality; Trump does not oppose Russia’s advance. Therefore, Zelensky lacks motivation to meet Putin—he would gain nothing. If Trump insists, it’s a formality, giving him face.

Boston Roundface: Returning to your RT article, you defined the Anchorage meeting as more significant than just Europe’s leaders meeting in the U.S. You said it ended the Western war narrative, making the West a global minority, one of many power centers, internally fractured. The Ukraine crisis accelerated the formation of a new world order. During the Biden administration, Secretary Blinken noted there was no authoritative voice on a rules-based international order. In your view, what kind of world order is being accelerated?

Sergei Poletaev: The situation is changing rapidly. A few months ago, Putin meeting Trump was unimaginable. The old order meant the U.S. dictated terms globally—the “American world empire.” That empire is collapsing. Now, even the U.S. and China engage as equals, which was unthinkable years ago. China is quietly building strength. This marks the arrival of a new world order, where the U.S.-China relationship will shape the order. The Ukraine crisis shows this shift. From the Western viewpoint, Russia acted illegally in Ukraine and should be punished. Sanctions and the largest trade war ensued, aiming to force Russia to surrender. Western companies paused operations, expecting to return after defeating Russia—but it didn’t happen. By 2022, the U.S. realized it had overestimated its influence. This process of accepting reality is slow in the West but is embraced enthusiastically by the rest of the world. Even Trump recognizes the failure of the old rules. The West can no longer dictate terms unilaterally. This process will continue, turbulent and difficult, and future wars are likely. Human history is a chain of wars; we must face that reality.

Boston Roundface: Lavrov suggested that responsible powers, particularly the P5, should ensure Ukraine’s security. If Turkey or others wish, they could also station troops. How, in your view, can a new order best be established, and what efforts should participating nations make?

Sergei Poletaev: Lavrov’s idea of the five countries, especially China, was in the 2022 Istanbul Treaty draft. Essentially, the five permanent UN Security Council members guarantee Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and security. China, as a major power, is expected to participate. Coordination between China and Russia’s leadership exists to some degree. But for pro-Western Ukraine, this proposal is currently unacceptable—it implies the end of Ukraine’s current stance. Regarding Turkish troops, it’s premature to speculate. Likely, neutral countries’ UN observers or peacekeepers may be deployed, common in third-world interventions. Not NATO troops, but neutral countries. However, if Chinese troops were deployed in Europe, it would likely not be approved; and if European troops were deployed, Russia would probably not agree. Therefore, the most likely scenario… if we talk about this at all, would involve some completely neutral countries—I’m not certain—which could be, for example, Uruguay from a distant region; or proportionally, perhaps 300 New Zealanders, or say 50 Uruguayans. I’m just hypothesizing here to illustrate the principle. There could also be Turkish personnel, since Turkey has maintained a fairly neutral stance in this conflict. For this reason, part of the negotiations is taking place in Istanbul.

Boston Roundface: Thank you, Mr. Poletaev, for this informative discussion.

[Courtesy: The China Academy, an intellectual content network dedicated to helping global audiences understand the key dynamics that are driving how China sees the world, from expert voices in China.]