Further thoughts on the Ukraine cease fire

Further thoughts on the Ukraine cease fire

“We don’t know enough to say anything…”

I have always been critical of the many who decline to express an opinion about some major domestic or international development, saying that the decision-makers on high know far more than we do, so that our under-informed opinion is irrelevant.

However, if we wait for all the information behind the events of our day to become known, for all the archives to be opened, we will likely all be dead before the truth comes out, at which point the facts become irrelevant. The ongoing interest in opening the files relating to the Kennedy assassination are a case in point.  We knew then that it was the CIA, and we were right.  Any tidbits that are tossed to us from the archives today do not change the situation materially.

I raise this issue because this time, for once, I must admit that there are likely aspects to the agreement reached in Jedda between Team Trump headed by Marco Rubio and the Ukrainian delegation which we simply do not know and, not knowing them it is truly difficult to make sense of what is happening.

Last evening I remarked that Rubio was clearly satisfied with what was agreed in Jedda. The immediate U.S. decision to restore Ukrainian access to U.S. intelligence and to restart deliveries of arms to Ukraine seemed to confirm this. Of course, this very decision makes the U.S. bid to play the role of honest broker all the more problematic. American assistance to Kiev in these matters makes it a co-belligerent and that normally excludes claims to be a neutral observer.

Why did it take 6 hours of negotiations to end up with what Western media said was the end result of the meeting in Jedda?  Wouldn’t about 20 minutes have been enough to get the Ukrainians to agree to broaden their proposed partial 30 day cease fire into a total cease fire for 30 days?  And why would there be any optimism about this going forward now that ‘the ball was in the Russians’ court’ given that President Putin and RF Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had in recent days said that Russia has no interest in a cease fire as such?

Let us stretch our imagination a bit. Let us be fairer to Team Trump.  On reconsideration, I believe there must be more to what was agreed than was stated publicly.

The first hint is in the statement that was kept from view in most Western reporting:  that during the cease fire there would be an immediate start to negotiations over a durable peace.

This by itself also would not make much sense as an incentive to bring in the Russians.  We must assume that some discussions took place over what concessions the Ukrainians are prepared to make to arrive at a peace with Russia, and that these concessions represent a big step forward from all the nonsensical ‘peace plans’ put forward by Zelensky over the past couple of years, all of which amounted to Russian capitulation.

I make these guesses so as to better understand what may motivate Vladimir Putin to respond positively to the American-Ukrainian cease fire proposal. 

The problem in Moscow now is that for Putin to agree to a cease fire after having repeatedly excluded this step without Ukrainian withdrawal from the 4 oblasts of Donbas-Novaya Rossiya that are now part of the Russian Federation would be very hard for him to explain to his own hardliners among Russian patriots. We will see in the coming days if there are any leaks coming from Moscow on what is new on the table in the American proposal to justify a change of heart.

At the same time, the Kremlin is facing another dilemma. The massive Ukrainian drone attack on Russia, including more than 100 drones against residential targets in Moscow and the Moscow oblast which was made on the eve of the Jedda talks, enraged Russian elites and there were calls for an immediate attack on Kiev using the unstoppable Oreshnik hypersonic missiles.  A motion to this effect was tabled in the State Duma.  But if Russia does make such a revenge counter-attack, that will put in danger anything that may have been achieved at the negotiating table in Jedda yesterday.

We will be watching very closely.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Weitere Gedanken zum Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine

„Wir wissen nicht genug, um etwas zu sagen …“

Ich habe die vielen, die es ablehnen, ihre Meinung zu wichtigen nationalen oder internationalen Entwicklungen zu äußern, immer kritisiert und gesagt, dass die Entscheidungsträger in hohen Positionen viel mehr wissen als wir, sodass unsere unzureichend informierte Meinung irrelevant ist.

Wenn wir jedoch darauf warten, dass alle Informationen über die Ereignisse unserer Zeit bekannt werden und alle Archive geöffnet werden, werden wir wahrscheinlich alle tot sein, bevor die Wahrheit ans Licht kommt, und dann werden die Fakten irrelevant. Das anhaltende Interesse an der Öffnung der Akten im Zusammenhang mit der Ermordung Kennedys ist ein typisches Beispiel dafür. Wir wussten damals, dass es die CIA war, und wir hatten Recht. Die Informationen, die uns heute aus den Archiven zugespielt werden, ändern nichts an der Situation.

Ich spreche dieses Thema an, weil ich zugeben muss, dass die in Dschidda erzielte Vereinbarung zwischen dem Team Trump unter der Leitung von Marco Rubio und der ukrainischen Delegation diesmal wahrscheinlich Aspekte enthält, die wir einfach nicht kennen, und da wir sie nicht kennen, ist es wirklich schwierig, die Geschehnisse zu verstehen.

Gestern Abend habe ich angemerkt, dass Rubio mit den Vereinbarungen von Dschidda offensichtlich zufrieden war. Die unmittelbare Entscheidung der USA, der Ukraine wieder Zugang zu US-Geheimdienstinformationen zu gewähren und die Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine wieder aufzunehmen, schien dies zu bestätigen. Natürlich macht genau diese Entscheidung das Bestreben der USA, die Rolle eines ehrlichen Maklers zu spielen, umso problematischer. Die amerikanische Unterstützung für Kiew in diesen Angelegenheiten macht das Land zu einem Kriegsbeteiligten, was normalerweise den Anspruch auf eine neutrale Beobachterrolle ausschließt.

Warum hat es sechs Stunden Verhandlungen gebraucht, um zu dem zu gelangen, was die westlichen Medien als Endergebnis des Treffens in Dschidda bezeichneten? Hätten nicht etwa 20 Minuten ausgereicht, um die Ukrainer dazu zu bringen, einer Ausweitung ihres vorgeschlagenen teilweisen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstands auf einen vollständigen 30-tägigen Waffenstillstand zuzustimmen? Und warum sollte man jetzt optimistisch sein, dass es weitergeht, wo doch „der Ball im Feld der Russen liegt“, wenn man bedenkt, dass Präsident Putin und der Außenminister der Russischen Föderation, Sergej Lawrow, in den letzten Tagen gesagt haben, dass Russland kein Interesse an einem Waffenstillstand als solchem hat?

Lassen Sie uns ein wenig unsere Vorstellungskraft anstrengen. Seien wir fairer gegenüber Team Trump. Bei nochmaliger Betrachtung glaube ich, dass es mehr geben muss als das, was öffentlich vereinbart wurde.

Der erste Hinweis findet sich in der Erklärung, die in den meisten westlichen Medienberichten nicht erwähnt wurde: Während des Waffenstillstands würden sofort Verhandlungen über einen dauerhaften Frieden aufgenommen werden.

Dies allein würde auch nicht viel Sinn als Anreiz machen, die Russen mit ins Boot zu holen. Wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass einige Gespräche darüber stattgefunden haben, welche Zugeständnisse die Ukrainer bereit sind zu machen, um einen Frieden mit Russland zu erreichen, und dass diese Zugeständnisse einen großen Schritt nach vorne darstellen, verglichen mit all den unsinnigen „Friedensplänen“, die Selenskyj in den letzten Jahren vorgelegt hat und die alle auf eine Kapitulation Russlands hinausliefen.

Ich stelle diese Vermutungen an, um besser zu verstehen, was Wladimir Putin dazu motivieren könnte, positiv auf den amerikanisch-ukrainischen Waffenstillstandsvorschlag zu reagieren.

Das Problem in Moskau besteht nun darin, dass Putin, wenn er einem Waffenstillstand zustimmt, nachdem er diesen Schritt wiederholt ausgeschlossen hat, ohne dass die Ukraine sich aus den vier Oblasten von Donbas-Nowaja Rossija zurückzieht, die jetzt Teil der Russischen Föderation sind, dies seinen eigenen Hardlinern unter den russischen Patrioten nur schwer erklären könnte. Wir werden in den kommenden Tagen sehen, ob aus Moskau etwas über die neuen Vorschläge im amerikanischen Vorschlag durchsickert, um einen Sinneswandel zu rechtfertigen.

Gleichzeitig steht der Kreml vor einem weiteren Dilemma. Der massive ukrainische Drohnenangriff auf Russland, bei dem am Vorabend der Jedda-Gespräche mehr als 100 Drohnen gegen Wohngebiete in Moskau und im Moskauer Oblast eingesetzt wurden, hat die russischen Eliten in Rage versetzt und es wurden Rufe nach einem sofortigen Angriff auf Kiew mit den unaufhaltsamen Oreschnik-Hyperschallraketen laut. Ein entsprechender Antrag wurde in der Staatsduma eingebracht. Sollte Russland jedoch einen solchen Vergeltungsangriff starten, würde dies alles gefährden, was gestern am Verhandlungstisch in Dschidda erreicht wurde.

Wir werden die Situation sehr genau beobachten.

12 thoughts on “Further thoughts on the Ukraine cease fire

  1. To refuse the 30-day ceasefire without providing any comment of its content (or arguments why it should be refused) is a bad idea as it would play right into the hands of Kiev after yesterday’s drone provocation. But I’m sure Putin is clever enough to see through Kiev’s (and the West’s tactics).

    Like

  2. The West has been confusing PR and battlefield action from the start.

    Just another PR effort to cast the US in the “good guy” role of peace-maker and mediator in the public opinion, and to cast Putin in the role of the “bad guy” and the warmonger if he doesn’t go along with stopping the war with a ceasefire.

    The whole effort lacks any substance.

    Like

  3. Just on the face of it, it makes no sense for the U.S. to be negotiating with Ukraine for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war. If the U.S. and Ukraine come to an agreement, it has no leverage on Russia whatsoever. It is difficult to see any reason for Russia to sign on to a ceasefire, when at present they seem to be rolling up Ukraine. A ceasefire would give Ukraine time to consolidate their defenses. Why would Russia allow that?

    That being the case, probably what the U.S. was negotiating with Ukraine was how many assets they can strip from Ukraine on its deathbed. And that could take six hours.

    Like

    1. Exactly. Assets that were already granted to the UK. By withholding intel and weapons Trump showed that Europe isn’t able to handle the war on its own but that US support is detrimental.

      Like

  4. RESULT:–>Team Trump negotiates with Team Kyiv (the US-NATO proxy in its war with Russia) a proposal for a cease fire, based on recommendations brought to the White House by Starmer and Macron.

    And now, the unacceptable ”ball is in Putin’s court” 

    If this strategy is ”brilliant”  – I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.

    Like

    1. absolutely, if that temporary truce is all they are suggesting while shamelessly encouraging continuity of hostility by providing lethal military aid and intelligence for more terror acts on Russia..who could be fooled by that..and pretending that the proxy has any power of decision to end or not to end the war is beyond ridiculous..anyway just hoping that the coming Russian reaction to the charade will be a freezing cold shower for the US and its loser proxy..let us be patient and wait for facts to materialise, Russians do not seem to want rush an answer before officially hearing all details pertaining to that all stick but no carrot deal?!

      Like

  5. As a side note, how do you “know” it was the CIA that assassinated JFK? Your comment was offered without evidence, and in fact, in the 60+ years since the President’s murder, there has not been a shred of evidence to support any type of conspiracy, much less implicating the CIA.

    Like

    1. That is common knowledge. Only people believing in pink ponies merrily flying over a rainbow would believe a single shooter like patsy Lee Harvey Oswald would be capable of firing all those bullets from at least 3 opposing angles in a time frame of less than 10 seconds. The assassination was clearly state sponsored. One of the reasons was the botched Cuban invasion (at Guantanamo) that was attributed to Kennedy.

      The current Kennedy sold out for cash (and probably because of the debt he incurred by running for president). How tragic.

      Like

  6. Trump is angling for a nyet. The judo master might well respond with the question: “what is the territorial concession mentioned by Mr. Rubio”? “Mr. Zylinsky has since said there is no such thing”.

    Like

  7. It is a wonderment that they spent 6 hours talking–it seems like agreeing to this should have been a no-brainer for the Ukrainians, as accustomed as they are to choosing a narrative war over the real one. It is obvious that this proposal can be offered to Russia, with Ukraine and the West secure in the knowledge that it will not be accepted (as Russia has made clear numerous times in the past). Then Ukraine & Company can move on to vilifying Russia in the media, with the continuation of the war they all seem to want all but assured.

    Note that it has been reported that Zelensky came out just a few hours ago and reiterated that there will be no territorial concessions. It also seems like that pesky decree against negotiating with Russia until Putin is removed from power might be a road block as well.

    Like

Comments are closed.