GRIM WARNING TO THE WEST - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE FOR TRUMP!!!

Occupying Ukraine is a liability Putin cannot afford.

The West does not appear to take Zelensky's “Plan for Victory” seriously. Some have (outright) dismissed it due to unequivocal demands for robust Security Guarantees to Ukraine after the war. The legacy media has all but blanked it. If the West wants to end this war, it must sit its ‘Athenian Technocratic’ bot down and give the plan the attention it deserves.

?Despite the facade over Ukraine & its Western partners assuming a unanimous posture on strategy, both are opposed and their positions irreconcilable. To achieve peace, 2 main issues concerning compromises on Ukraine's part must be addressed;

?1. Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity - it may have to cede its territories under Russia’s control.

2. Post-War Security Guarantees sufficient to deter Russia from future incursions.

?Sadly, for the West, not only must Ukraine forfeit its territories to Russia but its security guarantees are confined to providing weapons for its defence, void of a prospective NATO membership to automate Art. 5 following any future Russian attack. This is neither sufficient nor acceptable to Ukraine.

?Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity;

We often misconstrue Kyiv’s position on the total recovery of its occupied real estate as a precursor to ending the war. One can argue that this was the case in early ‘22’ but that position has since shifted because it is prepared to wait even for future generations to decide the fate of occupied lands but it will never concede to occupied territories indefinitely becoming Russian. We need to be clear about that as this further demonstrates just how far the needle has moved on this subject. Ukrainian opinion polls on ending the war have always shown a readiness to cede Russia’s territorial gains as a compromise for peace. That said, it is always premised on significant Security Guarantees - a point Ukraine is far more rigid on than its 'Western' allies realize.

?Security Guarantees;

When the West references Security Guarantees for Ukraine, it instantly resorts to the pre-war status quo of military training, Weapons & armor supplies. ?If this assistance failed to deter Putin in February of ‘22’ it is nonsensical to expect they will suddenly have the desired effect now. Since Ukraine has no appetite for a future war with Russia, this raises the issue of Robust Strategic Deterrence for its future stability.

?The 2 Types of Deterrence.

?Deterrence By Denial;

This means a credible & robust defense for Ukraine that will inform it decision not to invade based on a Cost/Benefit analysis. Pre-February ‘22’ Ukraine had a formidable army. Its entire defense policy was based on ‘Deterrence by Denial’ but Russia’s Special Military Operations (SMO) changed that. Since Russia was not deterred, it would be hopeless to rely on this strategy unless it is used simultaneously with ‘Deterrence by Punishment’.

?Deterrence By Punishment;

This focuses not so much on frustrating attacks from a potential adversary but on responding to attacks in such a grossly disproportionate fashion that makes any initial offensive pale in comparison. For deterrence to work effectively, both types are necessary & given its current experience with Russia, Kyiv is more aware of this fact than most. Since the latter strand of deterrence relies on Russia's nuking capability, the West must come to terms with the fact that Ukraine will insist on one of 2 options;

?-Accommodation within the NATO Nuclear Umbrella,

-Become a Nuke-Capable Power.

?Within a matter of months, Ukraine can assemble the prototype of a low-yield nuclear weapon because it has production facilities, the know-how, technology etc. However, this could trigger a nuclear proliferation with countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan with a similar security dilemma craving nuke-capable status. In the case of Ukraine, despite Putin’s often threatening incendiary rhetoric, the chances of Russia launching nuclear strikes is highly unlikely.

?To end the War;

a. The debate over NATO membership must be settled before a peace deal. Otherwise, Putin will trigger a range of levers including Hungary's Victor Orban to disrupt the Peace talks. It does not have to be admitted right away but talks over future its membership must be settled.

b. Russia’s SMO was launched to prevent Ukraine’s NATO membership. So, even if Putin were to keep occupied Ukrainian territories, he will find NATO membership unacceptable. Therefore, the logical solution is significant military pressure on Russia to coerce it into a position it has no choice but to come to the table. This will involve, fortifying Ukraine's defenses, moving the frontline into Russia, intensifying long-range strike campaigns on Russian turf etc.

c. Since Ukraine has not yet been admitted into NATO, the need to protect it in the immediate aftermath ought not be contested as Russia is not quite deterred from launching fresh attacks. For this purpose, a strategic non-nuclear deterrent format on its territory is critical. The only effective deterrent will be NATO ground troops acting as a tripwire force. This should include US personnel to signal to Putin the repercussions Russia in response to any attack on Ukraine.

d. Securing Ukraine’s Economy will be important because if Russia fails militarily, disrupting & hurting its economy will be a viable option for Putin to ensure it remains a long-term failed State. So, for Ukraine to be a prosperous economy, any meddling from Russia must be checked.

e. Ukraine’s role within a wider strategic European security framework will help leverage against any nefarious designs Moscow may harbour for its future.

?* It is time to seriously contemplate what the ‘endgame’ is. On the one hand, the West callously assumes that Ukraine is harbouring unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately, it is the West’s hypothetical egalitarian utopia that often convolutes strategic security policy assessments.

?*There are hard choices the West must make to secure the future of emerging generations. Ukraine has learned that lesson and its experience has presented us with the opportunity to follow suit. But we're busy being magnanimous to Putin who construes it as a weakness to be exploited. He has been playing this game for over 2 decades and now is a chance to end it on our terms. Our risk-averse posture stems from fear of the possible deployment of Russian nukes. If I had more time, I would have presented strong arguments to the contrary. But as we know, there is that 1% chance that with his back to the wall, Putin could turn rogue - who knows???

?Trump's White House return seems to have generated optimism in Kyiv & the Kremlin for different reasons, but his characteristic unpredictability has kept analysts pondering his next move. Trump is not a neo-conservative or an isolationist - that much is obvious. But there is no relief in acknowledging that he is a Jacksonian businessman from the Bronx who will probably offer the occupied Ukrainian territories to Putin to close the deal void of any security guarantees to Ukraine. He must understand that Putin's primary interest is in ensuring that Ukraine is left weakened so it can be co-opted into Russia's orbit of influence to serve its future policy priority interests on the global stage. So, it will take more than a typical 'Trump' to broker a deal on which both sides will agree. What it desperately needs is a guy with a combination of Idealism & altruism - features the Trump Presidency lacks.